Antropología e Historia de Galicia.

Abstract

Anthropology and History are, seemingly, two completely autonomous disciplines, both possessing radically different methodologies and subjects. So, why historians and anthropologists should debate? As Chesterton used to say, two persons cannot hold a discussion if they completely disagree: at least you need a common base to discuss… But I think that interdisciplinariety is possible, if not necessary. I shall put four questions. First, as anthropology is a “logos” about “anthropos”, we should argue that history is not possible without certain anthropology. Secondly, it’s correct that history and anthropology became autonomous academic disciplines in the end of the XIXth century, and they cut off in the interwar period, in the 1920s and 1930s; but “underground” contact was kept, waiting for more favourable circumstances. Third, I think that we historians should do “fieldwork” on the works of our “Founding Fathers”, in order to better understand anthropology that always underlies on the writings of those who taught us our job. And finally, I think that nowadays that interdisciplinariety has become a popular word, historians could take a number of useful methods and ideas from anthropology.