Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper argues that the concepts of anthropology and ethnology are different in the Baltic Sea Region, where they are both polarised and interconnected with those in Europe. The research explores the polarising forces and shifting disciplinary boundaries in the Baltic region from 1885 to 1941.

Paper long abstract

The paper argues that the concepts of anthropology and ethnology differ in the Baltic Sea Region, where they are polarised and interconnected with those in Europe. Historically, Lithuanian anthropological research was linked to physical anthropology, with studies of Lithuanian history, kinship, and national origin. Medical and physical anthropology were linked to the regional history of all peoples and ethnic groups, as in Völkerkunde. This concept is connected to the tradition of general ethnology at the University of Göttingen. The ethnographic fellowship programme invited intelligentsia and motivated compatriots to develop science. In the Baltics, studies of ethnology and ethnography stood out in their search for definitions of ethnicity in language, culture, and folklore – that is, the knowledge of nations. My aim is to explore the polarising historical and political forces of anthropology and ethnology, as well as the shifting disciplinary boundaries in the Baltic region, from 1885 to 1941.

The analytical, comparative, methodological discussion will focus on the following questions: How did the concepts of anthropology and ethnology differ in the Baltics? What identifies the adopted linguistic approach in Europe since the late nineteenth century? What was the moral and political role of early ethnographers, anthropologists and ethnologists in their struggle against the persistence of racism and colonialism, and what were the effects of oppression on the people they studied in a polarised world?