Accueil
Encyclopédie internationale
des histoires de l’anthropologie

Women Anthropologists & Anthropology Research Project

Mariza Corrêa

Unicamp

2024 [1989]
Pour citer cet article

Corrêa, Mariza, 2024 [1989]. “Women Anthropologists & Anthropology Research Project”, in Bérose - Encyclopédie internationale des histoires de l'anthropologie, Paris.

URL Bérose : article3343.html

Télécharger en pdf

Résumé : Cet article est une publication posthume d’un manuscrit de l’anthropologue brésilienne Mariza Corrêa (1945-2016) résumant son projet de recherche sur les femmes anthropologues et l’anthropologie. Conservé aux Archives Edgard Leuenroth de l’Université de Campinas, au Brésil, le document original a été dactylographié en portugais en 1989 et est aujourd’hui disponible pour la première fois. Son projet se voulait un pendant féministe à l’ouvrage d’Adam Kuper Anthropologists and Anthropology (1973). Figure emblématique de l’histoire de l’anthropologie brésilienne, Mariza Corrêa a joué un rôle de premier plan dans l’évolution de l’historiographie disciplinaire. Si son héritage est particulièrement durable au Brésil, le potentiel de ses idées en tant qu’historienne de l’anthropologie n’a pas encore été pleinement saisi à un niveau plus large.

Summary

This project stems from another, more comprehensive one on the history of anthropology in Brazil (Corrêa, 1987), the preliminary results of which can be seen in the attached essay (Corrêa, 1988) and has been a counterpoint to it, so to speak. [1] Although all the testimonies recorded to date by the research team have been provided by male anthropologists, with one exception, the presence of women in the early days of Brazilian anthropology has begun to emerge as worthy of attention : this presence was important but, whether in the documentation already gathered or in the testimonies already collected, they were almost always found in the background rather than the foreground of research among the historical actors of our discipline. Some are remembered more for their scientific contribution, like doutora [2] {}Emilia Snethlage (1868–1929) – although she also ran the Museu Paraense [3] for a few years ; others more for their administrative activity, like dona Heloisa Alberto Torres (1895–1977), although she also carried out research and ran the Museu Nacional for several years. Still others are remembered for their relationship with more renowned anthropologists : ’Lévi-Strauss et sa femme’ is a recurring expression in the literature about the ’French mission’ that began teaching at the University of São Paulo Faculty of Philosophy (e.g. Métraux, 1978 ; Maugé, 1982) – even though Dina Lévi-Strauss herself played a significant role in both the establishment of the institution and research (Lévi-Strauss, 1936 ; Soares, 1983).

While literature has rarely dealt with the discipline’s male figures – I can only think of Ferreira de Castro [4] taking inspiration from Nimuendajú’s work [5] – it is curious that at least two of the characters whose biographies I intend to delve into were heroines of novels (Emilia [6] and Heloisa [7]), a third (Leolinda Daltro) having been the subject not only of the novelist Lima Barreto [8] but of countless chronicles that ridiculed her interest in the Indians. [9] This suggests that their attention as researchers was seen as unusual, and looked upon with the same curiosity attributed to the traditional objects of the discipline – and it is as such that they are evoked. It is also curious that many of the foreign anthropologists who carried out research in Brazil in the 1930s and 1950s, such as Lévi-Strauss himself, came here accompanied by (or met) wives who, in some cases, were anthropologists themselves but who, more often than not, became important research assistants – such as Frances Herskovits, [10] Cecilia Wagley, [11] Virginia Watson, [12] Yolanda Murphy, [13] Pia Maybury-Lewis [14] and Helen Pierson. [15] While this may be due to the peculiarities of fieldwork (the Summer Institute of Linguistics also deployed researchers in pairs [16]), it nevertheless presents a privileged situation for understanding the role played by the wives of academics in a certain period, a role which was not so visible in the case of other disciplines, as well as offering an interesting counterpoint to the isolated work of some of the women mentioned above.

I intend to evaluate the contribution of some of these women to the constitution of anthropology in Brazil, their figures will also be used as beacons for understanding the discipline in their time and place of work – and as a pretext for discussing the relationship between anthropologists as well as between them and their objects of study.

The History of Anthropology

Although it is a recently developed subfield within the larger area of the history of the sciences, the history of anthropology already has an impressive library : see, for example, the 2026 titles compiled by Erickson (1984) in a survey that already has two supplements (1985 and 1986) ; the four volumes of the series directed by George Stocking Jr. (1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986), the History of Anthropology Newsletter, published at the University of Chicago and also directed by Stocking – as well as other volumes dedicated to special themes (e.g. Stocking, 1968, 1986) – and the recently founded French journal GRADHIVA, also dedicated to the history of the discipline, which has announced the reissue of several older anthropological works. In Brazil, both translations (e.g. Mercier, 1974 ; Kuper, 1978 ; Leaf, 1980 ; Laplantine, 1988) and national production (e.g. Peirano, 1980, 1982 ; Corrêa, 1982 ; Melatti, 1984 ; Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira, 1985, 1986) indicate the existence of growing interest in this area of research.

In addition to the collection of anthropologists’ testimonies (in audio and video recordings) and their professional and/or personal documentation which we have been compiling at the State University of Campinas since 1984, thanks to the initial support of FAPESP [17] and CNPq [18] and currently of FINEP, [19] there is also the work of the ’Intellectual History and Ethnography of Science’ research line, [20] of the Doctorate Programme in Social Sciences, the History of Science project [21] developed by the Centre for Logic and Epistemology of Science, and the recent line of research in history of science [22] created in the History Department – all at the Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (the university’s Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences).

As far as anthropology is concerned, this effort has been rewarded with important donations, such as the entire documentation – already partially organised – of Professor Donald Pierson [23] and that of Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira [24] ; a further reward has been the interest of young researchers who joined the research team as undergraduates, are now studying for a postgraduate degree and are directing their research interests towards this area. [25] In short, this is an area of teaching and research that has been successfully established at the university and whose partial results promise good development.

Women in the History of Anthropology

Some anthropologists have drawn attention to the disruptive effect of gender studies on the discussion about the observer/observed relationship in the discipline (Clifford, 1986), and there are anthropologists who are increasingly interested in studying the ’dark side of the moon’ in regions already studied by their colleagues (e.g. Weiner, 1976 ; Shostak, 1981). Few authors, however, have dedicated themselves to evaluating the work of female anthropologists themselves, or their ancestors, as a pertinent issue in the history of anthropology. Sometimes, in a female author’s own text, there is a struggle between the interests of the observed and those of the observer (Mark, 1982), i.e. the female anthropologist is seen as a species of the genre Anthropologist and the centre of the discussion is the relationship between anthropology and its objects rather than the relation between male and female anthropologists or between female anthropologists and anthropology. In other cases, the texts in question are mainly personal reminiscences, albeit with professional resonance (Landes, 1970 ; Wayne ; 1985), academics (Kuper, 1984 ; Gladstone, Lutkenaus, 1986), or biographies of more general interest (Mead, 1966 ; Hare, 1985 : Bateson, 1984). The fact that this topic is receiving increasing attention is exemplified by the announcement of the publication of a biographical dictionary of women anthropologists, edited by J. MacIntyre and others.

The exception to these conventional approaches derives from a general interest in the history of anthropology in Rodney Needham’s polemic on the importance of the obscure Daisy Bates’ research for Radcliffe-Brown’s well-known work (Needham, 1974, 1981, White, 1981). Regardless of one’s position on the content of the debate, it raises an important question about the difficulties (of researching, publishing, and gaining respect for their work) faced by women at the turn of the century who wanted to enter the profession.

Perhaps the oft-repeated comment about the esteem in which Malinowski and Boas held women in their seminars, and about the encouragement they both gave to those who decided to dedicate themselves to anthropology, has led us to leave a different kind of remark out of the picture. On the subject of encouragement, Joan Mark says : ’By encouraging not only (Alice) Fletcher but also other women, including Cordelia Studley, Zelia Nuttal and Erminnie Smith, to work in anthropology, (F.W.) Putnam began the tradition, continued by Franz Boas, that has made anthropology one of the professional fields in the United States in which women have always been pre-eminent’ (1982:501). Pre-eminence aside, there has recently been another kind of remark made about this tradition : “According to various interviewees and Mintz (...), Linton claimed, more than half-seriously, that Benedict practiced witchcraft on him, and he killed her through counter-witchcraft” (Ebihara, 1985:105).

It is worth remembering that when Boas retired as head of the Anthropology Department at Columbia in 1937, the university’s administration did not assign the position of head to his replacement, Ruth Benedict, but invited Ralph Linton to the post ; and that Margaret Mead only became a member of the Columbia faculty at the end of her career.

Women Anthropologists and Anthropology

Returning to the case of Brazil : if the work produced by female and male anthropologists is now almost indistinguishable, and if occupying the presidency of the Brazilian Anthropology Association is an indicator of professional acceptance (we have had two female presidents in a period of less than ten years), then women are fully accepted in the profession. But we have not had a Boas or Malinowski to whom we can attribute a historical stimulus to the pre-eminence of women in the anthropological field (in purely quantitative terms, the number of male authors still exceeds that of female authors in the discipline). And while there are a large number of women in the profession, this presence derives from the fact that, since the creation of normal [26] education institutions in Brazil and the subsequent creation of the Faculties of Philosophy – initially intended to train teachers for high schools – the number of women graduating from these courses, particularly from social science courses, has been very high (Miceli, 1987). In other words, teaching as a ’female vocation’ (at least at elementary and high school ; at university level, only in some professions), could help explain a certain (numerical) ’female pre-eminence’ among anthropologists.

The anthropological tradition, however, associates one’s career more with research than with teaching, and in terms of specialisation, a career in anthropology is also relatively recent. If there was no encouragement from the founding fathers (or mothers), could there have been a tradition of female fieldworkers in Brazil ? The question is probably as misguided as the answer given in the American and British cases, that the presence of women in the discipline derives from the influence of (some) men. There were (probably) examples of (both male and female) fieldworkers in Brazil as elsewhere. In a series of European naturalists who came to Brazil to research our flora and fauna – including the country’s indigenous peoples – suddenly one of them was female, and that made an impression, perhaps even a greater impression than the whole of the previous series. In a group of Brazilian researchers who penetrated the jungles (the sertão, as they used to call it) of the country, one was a woman, and the literary imagination was immediately intrigued. In other words, the interesting question might have been why society at the time considered Professor Leolinda Daltro’s intention to ’catechise’ the indigenous people by lay means to be a scandal, if anticlerical ideology was so fashionable ? Or why did doutora Emilia – the title of doctor is always emphasised, like with dona Heloisa Alberto Torres – deserve the status of literary heroine, the same applying to the female director of the Museu Nacional – when so many of her fellow countrymen were doing the same things at the same time ?

The answer to these questions can be banal and limited to assessing the situation of women in the society of the time – but the most important question concerns the subsequent ’enlightenment’ of these ladies who, in order to do what their male colleagues did, had to face double the difficulties. It is this kind of forgetfulness that makes it difficult – and perhaps ultimately impossible – to recover Professor Leolinda’s notes on some of the tribes of Central Brazil at a time when it was said that nothing had been recorded about them ; this forgetfulness turns doutora Emilia into Emilio, whenever she was quoted during her lifetime, as in many bibliographies after her death ; and that turns Dina Lévi-Strauss into just the ’femme’ of the French ethnologist. As Barbosa Lima Sobrinho recently recalled in an informal conversation on his younger years, the presence of ’Professora Daltro’ always made an impression when she appeared in the newsroom of the Jornal do Brasil, usually to make some complaint : neither he, nor any observer of the anthropological scene, registered the fact that it was through her efforts that the Indians were, for a brief moment, political characters in the country’s capital – long before they were characters in the Jornal Nacional. (In the second text attached, I briefly recount the professora’s adventures, according to a record that she herself prepared).

The aim of this project is to analyse the context of these women’s work, ask why the status of heroines and pioneers attributed to them by some of their contemporaries has left such tenuous traces in the history of our discipline, and assess the importance of their contribution at three different moments in the constitution of anthropology in Brazil. The figure of Emilia [Emilie] Snethlage represents the first phase, when museums were at the height of their importance as research institutions and when most of the researchers in the country were foreigners (and Europeans) ; then Leolinda Daltro’s work will be the focus of analysis in relation to the next phase, when Indians were defined as the privileged object of study for anthropology in Brazil, and its researchers seemed to become snipers, with a sporadic connection or none at all to research institutions (e.g. Curt Nimuendajú and Nunes Pereira). Finally, the work of Heloisa Alberto Torres at the Museu Nacional will be analysed in relation to the third phase, when research and teaching seemingly started to come together in reproducing knowledge in innovative ways, in a context in which philosophy faculties began to be responsible for training a large number of women in the social sciences. It was also thanks to this training that some Brazilian women began to go into the field more systematically, in many cases following the example of their male colleagues and/or the wives of colleagues who had come from abroad (such as Gioconda Mussolini, [27] Berta Ribeiro, [28] Vilma Chiara [29] and Clara Galvão [30]).

These periods and their characterisation are not, of course, watertight – and the names of many researchers are not mentioned here for the sake of brevity. Several characters straddle more than one period, but the idea is that the biography of each woman chosen will in some way portray a more general trend. In broad terms, the first period goes from the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth ; the second covers the 1920s and 1930s, and the third period begins in the late 1930s and lasts until the end of the 1950s. At the end of the 1960s, with the redefinition of postgraduate courses in anthropology, the panorama of the discipline was greatly transformed, not only by the impact of the thesis format on intellectual production, but also by the multiplication of theoretical influences and the great growth in the number of researchers in existing programmes. And although the impact of the feminist movement is more visible in research on urban groups than in others, it certainly had an effect on academic relations, in Brazil as in other countries, making women anthropologists more sensitive to having their work acknowledged. As Richard Price recently noted in a letter to American Ethnologist : “...as one partner in a husband-wife anthropological team (who publish both jointly and separately), I think it appropriate to point out that Suriname Folk-lore (1936) – a book with some startling modern ideas about Afro-American music, speech, and style – was in fact coauthored by Frances Herskovits. And my own reading of that work suggests that it is based considerably more on her field research than on his. Indeed, had the book been published today, Frances Herskovits’ name might well have stood as senior author” (12:4, 1985). [31]

The aim of my research is to help broaden this sensitivity in the case of our predecessors as well.

Bibliographical references

Bateson, M. C. 1984. With a Daughter’s Eye : a Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. New York, W. Morrow.

Cardoso de Oliveira, R. 1985. “Homenagem a Castro Faria. Introdução”, Anuário Antropológico, 83. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

[Cardoso De Oliveira, R.]. 1986. “O que é isso que chamamos de antropologia brasileira ?”, Anuário Antropológico, 85. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

Clifford, J. 1986. “On Ethnographic Allegory”, in J. Clifford e G. Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture, Berkeley, Un. of California Press.

Corrêa, M. 1982. “As ilusões da Liberdade : a escola Nina Rodrigues e a antropologia no Brasil”, mimeo, tese de doutorado, Universidade de S. Paulo.

[Corrêa, M.] 1987. História da Antropologia no Brasil (1930-1960), vol.1 Testemunhos : Emilio Willems e Donald Pierson. São Paulo/Campinas, Ed. Vértice, Ed. da UNICAMP.

[Corrêa, M.] 1988. “Traficantes do excêntrico. Os antropólogos no Brasil dos anos 30 aos 60”, Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais (6). São Paulo, Ed.Vértice/ ANPOCS.

Ebihara, M. 1985. “American Ethnology in the 1930s : Contexts and Currents” in J. Helm (ed.), Social Contexts of American Ethnology, 1840-1984, Washington,

Erickson, P.A. 1984-1986. History of Anthropology Bibliography, Supplement 1 ; Supplement 2. Nova Scotia, Canada.

Gladstone, J. 1986. “Significant Sister : Autonomy and Obligation in Audrey Richard’s early Fieldwork”, American Ethnologist, 13 (2).

Hare, P. A 1985. Woman’s Quest for Science : Portrait of Anthropologist Elsie C. Parsons. New York, Prometheus Books.

Kuper, A. 1978. Antropólogos e Antropologia. Rio de Janeiro, Francisco Alves.

Kuper, H. 1984. “Function, History, Biography : Reflections on fifty years in the British Anthropological Tradition”, in G. W. Stocking, Functionalism Historicized : Essays on British Social Anthropology, Madison, Wis, University of Wisconsin Press.

Landes, R. 1970. “A Woman Anthropologist in Brazil” in P. Golde (ed.), Women in the Field, Chicago, Aldine Pub. Co.

Laplantine, F. 1988. Aprender Antropologia. São Paulo, Ed. Brasiliense.

Leaf, M. 1980. Uma História da Antropologia. Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo, Zahar/EDUSP,

Lévi-Strauss, D. 1936. Instruções Práticas para Pesquisas de Antropologia Física e Cultural. São Paulo, Departamento Municipal de Cultura.

Lutkenaus, N. 1986. “‘She was very Cambridge’ : Camilla Wedgwood and the History of Women in British Social Anthropology”, American Ethnologist, 13 (4).

Mark, J. 1982. “Francis La Flesche : The American Indian as Anthropologist”, ISIS (73).

Maugué, J. 1982. Les dents agacées, Paris, Buchet-Chastel.

Mead, M. 1966. An Anthropologist at Work : the Writings of Ruth Benedict, New York, Atherton.

Melatti, J.C. 1984. “A antropologia no Brasil : um roteiro”, Boletim Informativo e Bibliográfico de Ciências Sociais (17), Rio de Janeiro, ANPOCS.

Mercier, P. História da Antropologia. Rio de Janeiro, Eldorado, 1974

Métraux, A. 1978. Itinéraires  : carnets de notes et journaux de voyage, 1. Paris, Payot.

Miceli, S. 1987. “Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento das Ciências Sociais no Brasil (1930-1964)”. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais (5), São Paulo. Ed. Vértice/ ANPOCS,

Needham, R. 1974. “Surmise, Discovery and Rhetoric” in R. Needham, Remarks and Inventions : Skeptical Essays About Kinship. London, Tavistock Publications.

[Needham, R.]. 1981. “Kariera Refutations”, Oceania, LI (3).

Peirano, M. 1980. The Anthropology of Anthropology : the Brazilian case, mimeo, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.

[Peirano, M.]. 1984. “A antropologia esquecida de Florestan Fernandes : os Tupinambá”, Anuário Antropológico, 82, Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

Soares, L. 1983. “Mario de Andrade e o Folclore” in M. de Andrade, Mario de Andrade e a Sociedade de Etnografia e Folclore, 1936-1939, Rio de Janeiro ; São Paulo, Funarte ; Secretaria Municipal de Cultura.

Shostak, M. 1981. Nisa : the Life and Words of a Kung Woman. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.

Stocking, G. 1968. Race, Culture and Evolution : Essays in the History of Anthropology. New York ; London, The Free press ; Collier Macmillan.

Stocking, G. (ed). 1983. Observers Observed : essays on ethnographic fieldwork, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

[Stocking, G. (ed.)]. 1984. Functionalism Historicized : essays on British Social Anthropology, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

[Stocking, G. (ed.)]. 1985. Objects and Others : Essays on Museums and Material Culture, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

[Stocking, G. (ed.)]. 1986. Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others : essays on Culture and Personality. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

Stocking, G. 1986. Victorian Anthropology. New York ; London, The Free Press ; Collier Macmillan.

Wayne, H. 1985. “Bronislaw Malinowski : the Influence of Various Women in his Life and Works”, American Ethnologist, 12 (3).

Weiner, A. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown : new Perspective in Trobriand Exchange. Austin, University of Texas Press.

White, I. 1981. “Mrs Bates and Mr. Brown : an examination of Rodney Needham’s allegations”, Oceania, LI (3).




[1] Editor’s Note : Transcription of the manuscript, editing and notes by Amanda Gonçalves Serafim. Minor grammatical changes have been made for a better understanding of the text [Arquivo Edgard Leuenroth – Fundo Mariza Corrêa – caixa 13]. The document is undated, 1989 being the start date of the project in question. All footnotes with the initials E.N.(for editor’s note) have been produced to contextualize and help understand the text and the Brazilian anthropological field. Lastly, all underlined passages throughout the document have been replaced with emphasis or, in the case of subheadings, bold script. The “attached essay” Corrêa refers to is not available. This article was translated from Portuguese by Frederico Delgado Rosa and revised by David Tucker.

[2] E.N. : See below for Corrêa’s own explanation of the inclusion of the titles doutora (Dr) and dona (Mrs).

[3] E.N. : The Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (MPEG), created in 1866 and located in Belém do Pará, is one of Brazil’s oldest research institutions. Its focus is on research into the natural and sociocultural systems of the Brazilian Amazon region, as well as the dissemination, organisation and collection of documentary and museum collections.

[4] E.N. : José Maria Ferreira de Castro (1898–1974) was a Portuguese writer who spent his youth in Brazilian Amazonia. In addition to his famous novel A Selva (The Jungle, 1930), a bestseller translated into several languages, at the end of his life he published the book O Instinto Supremo (The Supreme Instinct, 1968) – his last work and the second to be set in Brazil – about Curt Nimuendajú and the pacification of the Parintintin indigenous people.

[5] E.N. : Curt Nimuendajú (1883–1945) was a German ethnologist who moved to Brazil at the beginning of the 20th century, where he remained for his entire life. Initially called Curt Unckel, he was renamed by the Apapovuca-Guarani, one of the indigenous groups he researched. To find out more, see <https://www.berose.fr/rubrique688.html>.

[6] E.N. : Emilia Snethlage (1868–1929) was a German ornithologist who arrived in Brazil in 1905 and stayed until the end of her life, making expeditions through Amazonia and working in two important national museums, the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (MPEG) and the Museu Nacional in Rio de Janeiro. The novel in question is Os Igaraúnas (1938) by Brazilian writer Raimundo de Moraes (1872–1941).

[7] E.N. : Heloisa Alberto Torres (1895–1977), anthropologist, director of the Museu Nacional and president of the Comissão Nacional de Proteção ao Índio (National Indian Protection Commission), carried out a great deal of research into material culture. The novel in question is No pacoval de Carimbé (1933) by physical anthropologist José de Bastos Ávila.

[8] E.N. : Lima Barreto (1881–1922) was a Brazilian writer and journalist. He published a vast body of work including novels, short stories, chronicles and other literary genres. His texts are strongly marked by historical facts and the context of Rio de Janeiro at the beginning of the 20th century.

[9] E.N. : Leolinda Daltro (1859–1977) a sertanista, teacher and feminist, who was active in secular literacy and in trying to create a civil association to defend indigenous rights and education in the country. The novel in question is Numa e a ninfa (1915) by Lima Barreto.

[10] E.N. : Frances Herskovits (1897–1975) was an American anthropologist who carried out research into racial issues in Brazil, other Latin American countries and the African continent. Most of her work was published in co-authorship with her husband, Melville Herskovits (1895–1963). To find out more, see Livio Sansone, “‘No Sun Helmets  !’ Melville & Frances Herskovits in Brazil” (2021), in BEROSE International Encyclopaedia of the Histories of Anthropology, Paris.

[11] E.N. : Cecilia Roxo Wagley (dates unknown), was a Brazilian with a degree in library science from Columbia University. She was married to American anthropologist Charles Wagley (1913–1991). In Brazil, Cecilia Wagley worked at the National Library in Rio de Janeiro in the 1940s and was involved in research carried out by her husband with indigenous societies and in the north of the country.

[12] E.N. : Virginia Watson (1918–2007) was an American anthropologist who carried out research with Brazilian indigenous groups (Guarani-Kaiowá) and in Papua New Guinea. She also undertook archaeological work with prehistoric artefacts from Oceania. In Brazil, she conducted research with her husband, anthropologist James Bennett Watson (1918–2009).

[13] E.N. : Yolanda Murphy (1925–2016) was a Polish anthropologist living in the USA and held a master’s degree from Columbia University. She carried out research among the Munduruku indigenous people (a group located in the Amazon region), together with her husband Robert Murphy (1924–1990), with whom she published the book Women of Forest (1974). She also taught anthropology at an institution in New York.

[14] E.N. : Elsebet Helga Maybury-Lewis (1926–2015), better known as Pia Maybury-Lewis, was a student at the São Paulo School of Sociology and Politics, although she did not formally attend an undergraduate or postgraduate course at the institution. She worked with David Maybury-Lewis (to whom she was married) on research with indigenous groups in Brazil and co-founded Cultural Survival, an organisation whose aims are to defend the rights of indigenous societies around the world.

[15] E.N. : Helen Pierson (1906–1994) was married to the American sociologist Donald Pierson (1900–1995). She had a degree in home economics and assisted her husband’s work throughout his professional career, including his stay in Brazil. Among the many activities she carried out it is possible to highlight secretarial work, fieldwork in research carried out in the country, bibliographical research, help in preparing students, translation and teaching at the São Paulo School of Sociology and Politics, among others.

[16] E.N. : the Summer Institute of Linguistics, now SIL International, is an evangelical Christian non-profit organisation based in the USA and active in various countries promoting linguistic research and the translation of the Bible into different languages. In Brazil and other Latin American countries, SIL had a strong influence between the 1930s and 1970s, mainly on issues related to indigenous groups. See Élise Capredon & Thomas Grillot, «  Une anthropologie au service de l’évangélisation : histoire(s) du Summer Institute of Linguistics  » (2022), in BEROSE International Encyclopaedia of the Histories of Anthropology, Paris.

[17] E.N. : The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (São Paulo State Research Support Foundation, FAPESP) was created in the 1960s and is one of the main agencies for promoting scientific and technological research in Brazil, covering the state of São Paulo.

[18] E.N. : The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, CNPq) is a Brazilian federal government foundation created in the 1950s to support and finance national scientific and technological development.

[19] E.N. : The Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Financing Agency for Studies and Projects, FINEP) is a national public organisation whose objectives are to foster science, technology and educational institutions in Brazil - its creation dates back to the 1960s.

[20] E.N. : ’Intellectual History and Ethnography of Science’ was one of the thematic areas of the interdisciplinary PhD programme in Social Sciences at Unicamp. The programme was created in 1985 and the area in question had anthropologist Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira as its first director (see note 23), as well as Corrêa as a professor and collaborator. In the early 1990s, it was renamed ’Intellectual Itineraries and Ethnography of Knowledge’  ; and is currently called ’Modes of Knowledge and their Expressions : Experiences and Trajectories’.

[21] E.N. : The History of Science in Brazil project was coordinated by sociologist Simon Schwartzmann (1939–) at Unicamp’s Centre for Logic, Epistemology and History of Science (CLE) between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Some of the material produced or accumulated by the project can be accessed in the CLE archives. To find out more : <https://arqhist.cle.unicamp.br/inde...> .

[22] E.N. : The ’History of Science’ line of research does not currently exist in Unicamp’s History Department. However, its creation was responsible for changing the name of the ’Intellectual History and Ethnography of Science’ thematic area of the university’s interdisciplinary doctorate in Social Sciences. To find out more : <http://repositorio.unicamp.br/Acervo/Detalhe/1162062>.

[23] E.N. : Donald Pierson (1900–1995) was an American sociologist who developed his doctoral thesis on race relations in Bahia. After his research, he taught for more than twenty years at the Escola Livre de Sociologia e Política (Free School of Sociology and Politics). He also developed two major ’community studies’ projects, in Cruz das Almas (in the interior of São Paulo) and in the São Francisco Valley (which encompasses cities in four Brazilian states).

[24] E.N. : Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira (1928–2006) was a Brazilian anthropologist who carried out research on the relationship between indigenous groups and national society, and on anthropological practice in Brazil and elsewhere. He was president of the Associação Brasileira de Antropologia (ABA) and actively collaborated with the creation of some of the first postgraduate programmes in the country. To find out more, see <http://repositorio.unicamp.br/Acervo/Detalhe/1162062>.

[25] E.N. : Over the course of twenty years, many students and researchers have contributed to Mariza Corrêa’s “History of Anthropology in Brazil” and “Female Anthropologists and Anthropology” projects, with four names standing out for their committed work, namely : Ana Luisa Mello e Silva, Francisco Tadeu Rosa, Luiz Henrique Passador and Maria Helena Ortolan.

[26] E.N. : ’Normal’ schools were created in Brazil in the 19th century. They corresponded to teacher training colleges. These institutions existed until the middle of the 20th century, when they were replaced by other types of training.

[27] E.N. : Gioconda Mussolini (1913–1969) was a Brazilian anthropologist who carried out research on fishing communities on the coast of the state of São Paulo. Although she taught at the University of São Paulo (USP) and contributed to the formation of a number of intellectuals between the 1940s and 1960s, she was never able to take up an effective position at the university and worked as an assistant to the professors who held the chair of anthropology.

[28] E.N. : Berta Gleizer Ribeiro (1924–1997) was a Moldovan-Brazilian anthropologist and professor at the Museu Nacional in Rio de Janeiro. She carried out research into indigenous material culture in Brazil, some of it in partnership with Darcy Ribeiro (to whom she was married until the mid-1970s).

[29] E.N. : Vilma Chiara (dates unknown) was a Brazilian anthropologist who trained in ethnology at French universities and who worked at the Museu Paulista and other national institutions. She carried out research with her husband Harald Schultz (1909–1966) between the 1950s and 1960s and later worked individually, always with Brazilian indigenous groups and with an inclination towards issues related to visual anthropology and collections.

[30] E.N. : Clara Maria Galvão (dates unknown) was a Brazilian librarian who worked at various institutions in the country, such as the Museu do Índio, the Universidade de Brasília and the MPEG. She was married to anthropologist Eduardo Galvão (1921–1976) and accompanied him throughout his professional career.

[31] E.N. : Richard Price, “In the Interests of History”, American Ethnologist, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Nov. 1985), p. 780.