Toda historia lleva implícita una antropología. Una indagación en la historia del pensamiento occidental

Abstract

Why do anthropology and history seem to be two completely autonomous disciplines? When did they split up? Do they keep talking? -at least in order to raise their common offspring⋯ Three will be my points. Firstly, as anthropology is a "logos" about "anthropos", history is not possible without some anthropology. I think that a short tour through the history of Western thought, from Ancient Greece to Enlightenment, will show it clearly. Secondly, we will analyze how history and anthropology approached the issue of social change in the XIXth century, how they became autonomous academic disciplines by the end of the century, and cut off in the interwar period, by the 1920s and 1930s. But "underground" contact was kept, waiting for more favourable circumstances. Third, I think that historians should try to understand that anthropology that always underlies on the writings of those who taught us our job. We will look for examples in two historiographical traditions: the French "Ecole des Annales" and the British "Group of Cambridge" of the 1950s.