Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism: Mendes Correia and the Porto School of Anthropology 9781800738768

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgements
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter 1. Biography of Mendes Correia (1888‒1960)
Chapter 2. The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal
Chapter 3. A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity
Chapter 4. Practical Uses of Anthropology
Chapter 5. Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy
Conclusion. The Legacy of Mendes Correia and of the Porto School of Anthropology
Appendix 1. Volumes of Miscellaneous from the Porto School of Anthropology
Appendix 2. Foreign Authors in the Miscellaneous of the Porto School of Anthropology
References
Index

Citation preview

Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

A nthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism Mendes Correia and the Porto School of Anthropology

Patrícia Ferraz de Matos

Translated by Ana Pinto Mendes

berghahn NEW YORK • OXFORD www.berghahnbooks.com

First published in 2023 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2023 Patrícia Ferraz de Matos All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Matos, Patrícia Ferraz de, author. Title: Anthropology, nationalism and colonialism : Mendes Correia and the Porto school of anthropology / Patrícia Ferraz de Matos. Description: [New York] : Berghahn Books, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022045370 (print) | LCCN 2022045371 (ebook) | ISBN 9781800738751 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800738768 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Corrêa, A. A. Mendes (Antonio Augusto Mendes), 1888-1960. | Universidade do Porto. Instituto de Antropologia--History. | Anthropology--Study and teaching. | Anthropology teachers--Portugal. | Anthropology--Political aspects. Classification: LCC GN21.C67 M38 2023 (print) | LCC GN21.C67 (ebook) | DDC 301.071--dc23/eng/20230111 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022045370 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022045371 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-80073-875-1 hardback ISBN 978-1-80073-876-8 ebook https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800738751

In memory of my mother Izilda Toscano

Contents

List of Illustrations viii Acknowledgements x List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Biography of Mendes Correia (1888‒1960)

17

Chapter 2. The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal: The Case of the Porto School of Anthropology

42

Chapter 3. A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity 92 Chapter 4. Practical Uses of Anthropology

179

Chapter 5. Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy

257

Conclusion. The Legacy of Mendes Correia and of the Porto School of Anthropology

301

Appendix 1. Volumes of Miscellaneous from the Porto School of Anthropology 331 Appendix 2. Foreign Authors in the Miscellaneous of the Porto School of Anthropology 334 References

339

Index

367

Illustrations

Figures 1.1. Mendes Correia at the Institute of Anatomy, 1911 medical course meeting

22

1.2. The IAUP logo

24

1.3. Mendes Correia, Alvão Studios, undated

25

1.4. Cover of A Escola Antropológica Portuense, 1941

28

1.5. Mendes Correia at Montpellier, 1941

31

1.6. Photos from the ‘Aventureiros, Naturalistas e Coleccionadores’ exhibition, Porto, 2005

34

3.1. Homo afer taganus bust from the front

117

3.2. Homo afer taganus bust in profile

117

3.3. Mendes Correia and Francisco de Almeida Moreira at the Congress of the Institut International d’Anthropologie in Amsterdam (1927)

122

3.4. Correspondence between Lusitania and Portugal

131

4.1. Map of insular Portugal and the Portuguese colonial empire, 1934

211

4.2. Photograph taken before leaving for the 1946 anthropological mission in Mozambique with the entire team

216

4.3. Anthropological mission to Mozambique on 10 August 1948: time to fill in the forms with the collected data

222

4.4. Cover of Raças do Império 229 4.5. Proportion of the territories covered in Raças do Império

231

Illustrations • ix

4.6. Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné (1945‒46) 236 5.1. Municipal Orphanage, female section, 1920s

259

5.2. Municipal Orphanage, male section, 1920s

260

5.3. Shelter for Children, 1938

261

6.1. Museum of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology

304

6.2. Biological sciences teachers and students

315

6.3. Oil painting of Mendes Correia. Noble Hall of the historic building of the FCUP

322

Table 4.1. Guinean vocabulary (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46) 241

Acknowledgements

My initial interest in anthropology was inspired by professors such as Manuel Laranjeira Rodrigues de Areia, who was behind the creation of the degree in anthropology of the University of Coimbra (UC), and two anthropology professors at this university, Nuno Porto and Susana de Matos Viegas. When I finished my degree, Susana de Matos Viegas invited me to work on a project connected to the UC and to the Centre for Social Anthropology Studies (CEAS) at the ISCTE/University Institute of Lisbon. To her I owe the motivation for my first steps into scientific research. I began my research path as a grant holder as the part of the ‘Power and Differentiation on the Coast of Bahia: Cultural Identities, Ethnicity and Race in Multiethnic Contexts’ project in 1997. This research, and some of the topics it examined, has influenced the work I later came to do. I therefore thank Susana de Matos Viegas and Miguel Vale de Almeida for inviting me to take part in that project and for always standing by me along the way. Within the scope of that project, the first person who mentioned to me a certain ‘Mendes Correia who had some things that deserved to be analysed and looked into’ was Miguel Vale de Almeida. At the time, I had only created reading cards based on some of Mendes Correia’s texts on racial issues relating to the colonial context. However, only later did I become aware of the magnitude of his work and of his relevance during the first half of the twentieth century, not only on a scientific but also on a political level. The work I have done following my master’s degree has awakened in me the will to pursue research on Mendes Correia within the scope of a doctorate that might contribute towards a greater awareness of the history of anthropology in Portugal and particularly of the Porto School of Anthropology. Besides its existence being scarcely known, no true interest had yet been sparked in that school. This fact on its own already deserved some reflection. It became clear at the time that the history of science as well as the history (and the stories) of the disciplines themselves are also made of successive choices and decisions that are not always easy, deliberately excluding events, facts, and people. This work was therefore the consequence of that

Acknowledgements • xi

conclusion, but also of a personal interest in the subject – the history of this discipline in Portugal – and the result of a happy opportunity that was able to bring together: the Instituto de Ciências Sociais (Institute for Social Sciences (ICS)) of the University of Lisbon as the institution that hosted the project; José Manuel Sobral, as scientific supervisor; and the support of the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Science and Technology Foundation), by means of a doctoral scholarship (SFRH/BD/25357/2005). José Manuel Sobral’s support was essential, as was his influence in the theoretical field. On the other hand, the way he directed me, allowing me to develop my ideas and walk my own path, did not diminish his valuable contribution to this same path. The first comments on my project were sent by Ramon Sarró, Susana de Matos Viegas, Mónica Saavedra and Nuno Martins, whose research leads were precious. Several people helped me in retracing Mendes Correia’s biography, offering me their time and materials: Huet Bacelar Gonçalves, Maria Antónia Pinto Ponce de Leão Frey-Ramos, Maria do Céu Mendes Correia Magalhães Basto, Maria Antónia Mendes Correia Magalhães Basto, Alexandre Alves Costa, Ana Maria Vieira Pinto Alves da Costa, Manuel Vieira Pinto and Maria José Patronilho. At the risk of maybe leaving someone out, I must also thank some of my main interviewees: Agostinho Faria Isidoro, Maria Rosa Spohr, João Machado Cruz, Maria do Céu Mendes Correia Magalhães Basto, Maria Antónia Mendes Correia Magalhães Basto, Helena Galhano, Adriano Moreira, João Pereira Neto and Norberto Santos Júnior. I am also grateful to Júlio Garcez de Lencastre, a privileged informant, with whom I kept in touch for several years, for the leads he enthusiastically gave me and his bibliographical suggestions, as well as his comments. These were based on his vision of reality that diverged from mine, but space was always found for dialogue, therefore creating a mutually beneficial relationship. Here and there I was given some leads that would later become relevant by Maria Antónia Pires de Almeida, Cláudia Castelo, Augusto Nascimento, Gerhard Seibert, Ricardo Roque, Eduardo Medeiros and João de Vasconcelos. In the places where I did my research, I received fundamental support from: Aires Oliva Teles (Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto (FCUP)); Maria José Cunha (Museum of Natural History of the FCUP); Maria João Moita (Memory Centre of Torre de Moncorvo); Celeste Brandão (in an initial phase of my research) and Raquel Branco (in a second phase of my research), both from the FCUP; Rosário Guimarães (Porto Municipal Archive); Paula Costa and Elvira Costa (Library of the ICS-UL); and the employees of the National Newspaper Library, who helped me to find ‘needles in haystacks’. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Vítor de Oliveira Jorge, President of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology

xii • Acknowledgements

(SPAE), who supported my study on this scientific society that preceded the Porto School of Anthropology. At the ICS-UL, several initiatives and activities have allowed me to get to know and account for some current research being carried out around the world. Outside the scope of the ICS-UL, it was important to take part in congresses, seminars and conferences, both national and international, on my own accord and also following invitations, in places such as Angola, Spain, Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. Doing so allowed the presentation and public discussion of some of the phases of this work with different counterparts, thus permitting me to broaden my contacts and cultural exchange network. On some of these travels, and also during the research period in Lisbon, the support of the ICS-UL was fundamental. This book is therefore the outcome of several years of work, reading, systematization of ideas, updating, maturing and constant improvement. I also appreciate the professionalism of the translator of the manuscript, Ana Pinto Mendes, and all the proofreading work by David Tucker. The translation of this work was supported by national funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UIDB/50013/2020 and UIDP/50013/2020. A special thanks to Marion Berghahn for accepting to publish this book, to the anonymous reviewers and to the whole production team at Berghahn Books. Finally, I would like to thank my family and closest friends for being part of my life every single day and for contributing towards my emotional balance. To Afonso and António, my everyday inspirations, for being able to understand by absences in so many circumstances. The period covered in this work often took my memory back to my grandparents. Although I did not meet them all in person, the fact remains that I also did not personally meet a large number of the characters depicted in this book and it was through the memory of the people who knew them that I was able to better appreciate their lives. Just as getting to know the stories of my grandparents and great-grandparents is an essential part of me, to perceive the twists and turns of the history of the discipline to which I decided to dedicate my work to has allowed me to better understand why some university anthropology degrees nowadays are so different from each other, despite their shared name. It is therefore important for me not to forget the stories of the past, since so often they allow us to better understand the present. One of my most important memories is of my mother, an intelligent, clear-minded woman who taught me to be a feminist and to fight for my ideals. This book is dedicated to her memory.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACL AGC AGU AHC AHU AN APA BGC BN CC CEAS CEEP CEEU CICAP CML CMP CNCDP CNCP

Academia das Ciências de Lisboa/Lisbon Academy of Sciences Agência Geral das Colónias/Central Agency for the Colonies Agência Geral do Ultramar/Central Overseas Agency Arquivo Histórico Colonial/Colonial Archive Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino/Overseas Archive Assembleia Nacional/National Assembly Associação Portuguesa de Antropologia/Portuguese Anthropology Association Boletim Geral das Colónias/Central Colonial Bulletin Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa/National Library Câmara Corporativa/Corporate Chamber Centro de Estudos de Antropologia Social/Centre for Social Anthropology Studies Centro de Estudos de Etnologia Peninsular/Peninsular Ethnology Studies Centre Centro de Estudos de Etnologia do Ultramar/Centre for Overseas Ethnological Studies Centro de Instrução de Condutores Auto do Porto/Porto Instruction Centre for Auto Drivers Câmara Municipal de Lisboa/Municipal Council of Lisbon Câmara Municipal do Porto/Municipal Council of Porto Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses/National Commission for the Commemoration of the Portuguese Discoveries Congresso Nacional de Ciências da População/National Congress on Population Sciences

xiv  •  Acronyms and Abbreviations

ESC FCTUC FCUL FCUP FDUL FLUC FLUL FLUP FMUC FMUL FMUP HOA IAC IAUC IAUP IICT INE ISCSP ISCSPU ISCEF

Escola Superior Colonial/Higher Colonial College Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra/Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa/Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto/Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa/Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra/Faculty of Humanities of the University of Coimbra Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa/Faculty of Humanities of the University of Lisbon Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto/Faculty of Humanities of the University of Porto Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra/Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa/Faculty of Medicine of the University of Lisbon Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto/Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto History of Anthropology Instituto para a Alta Cultura/Institute for Higher Culture Instituto de Antropologia da Universidade de Coimbra/ Anthropology Institute of the University of Coimbra Instituto de Antropologia da Universidade do Porto/ Anthropology Institute of the University of Porto Instituto de Investigação Científica e Tropical/Institute for Scientific and Tropical Research Instituto Nacional de Estatística/National Statistics Board Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas/Higher Institute for Social Sciences and Politics Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Política Ultramarina/ Higher Institute for Overseas Social Sciences and Politics Instituto Superior de Ciências Económicas e Financeiras/ Higher Institute for Economic and Financial Sciences

Acronyms and Abbreviations  •  xv

ISEU

Instituto Superior de Estudos Ultramarinos/Higher Institute of Overseas Studies IST Instituto Superior Técnico/Higher Technical Institute JIC Junta de Investigações Coloniais/Colonial Research Board JIU Junta de Investigações do Ultramar/Overseas Research Board JMGIC Junta das Missões Geográficas e de Investigações Coloniais/ Geographical Missions and Colonial Research Board JMGIU Junta das Missões Geográficas e de Investigações do Ultramar/Geographical Missions and Overseas Research Board MCCA Missão Cinegráfica às Colónias de África/Cinematic Mission to the African Colonies MEMEUP Missão de Estudos das Minorias Étnicas do Ultramar Português/Mission for the Study of Ethnic Minorities in Overseas Portugal SGL Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa/Lisbon Geographic Society SNI Secretariado Nacional de Informação, Cultura Popular e Turismo/National Bureau for Information, Popular Culture and Tourism SPAE Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia/ Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology SPN Secretariado de Propaganda Nacional/National Propaganda Office TAE Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia/Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia. UC Universidade de Coimbra/University of Coimbra UL Universidade de Lisboa/University of Lisbon UNL Universidade Nova de Lisboa/Nova University Lisbon UP Universidade do Porto/University of Porto UTAD Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto-Douro/University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto-Douro UTL Universidade Técnica de Lisboa/Technical University of Lisbon

Introduction

Presentation of the Topic, Its Pertinence and Context of the Research This introduction will place the research topic in context and justify the pertinence of an anthropological study on the life and work of Mendes Correia (1888‒1960) and the Porto School of Anthropology in the first half of the twentieth century. One of the motivations for starting research on this subject was the realization that eighty-seven years (when I wrote the project in 2005) after the foundation of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology (SPAE) in 1918, no study had been carried out on this school – of which the main representative was Mendes Correia1 – the works he produced or his relationship to the scientific knowledge and the political order in Portugal and its former colonies. As a matter of fact, he was the main figure not only of SPAE, but also of Portuguese anthropology up to the 1950s. It was therefore a timely moment for an in-depth study of the work produced by the actors connected to this school, a reflection on its purposes and an analysis of the initiatives it promoted, the works it carried out and also its legacy. Furthermore, I believe that one of the ways to carry out an anthropological study is to examine the evolution and development of anthropology itself. In that sense, this book contributes towards a better knowledge of the academic history of anthropology in Portugal. As mentioned by João Leal, the ‘natural result of anthropology’s recent history’ led to it becoming a ‘disciplinary subfield inside anthropology’ (Leal 2006: 123). In this case, I intend to highlight one of the leading exponents of this discipline in Portugal, whose personal (academic, political and institutional) path and work were highly productive. However, I intend to go far beyond a mere biography and I am aware that the task of ‘biographing’,2 although it should not be mistaken for the ‘invention of facts’, can also involve a process of ‘fiction’,3 ‘re-creation’ and reconstitution (Oliveira 2003).

2  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

This book aims to be an intellectual biography of the work undertaken by Mendes Correia. It also aspires to reach beyond his life, his work and the place he occupies, no matter what that place currently is within anthropology. I therefore intend to also approach the context in which his work was produced. This work will include: new information on the life of Mendes Correia, on the period in which he lived and in which his work was carried out; his professional relationships and friendships; a systematization and a critical analysis of his work; his theoretical contributions; and his legacy in general. Although Mendes Correia was a graduate in medicine, he was mainly devoted to anthropology and archaeology. I also wish to understand why, despite being perfectly integrated into both academia and the politics of his time, he is today utterly marginal in anthropology itself, with a peripheral role in the history of anthropology, since references to his works are often ignored or omitted. However, I do not intend to write a laudatory text, but rather a critical and reflective one, not so much by questioning or denying his value, but rather with the aim of gaining understanding and finding explanations. I believe that there were several factors that contributed to the establishment of a school of anthropology in Porto: the University of Porto was the setting where this discipline was taught, in a duly institutionalized manner, within the Faculty of Sciences; there was a consistent group of professors and students/disciples who shared common ideas, topics and methods, and who were able to train people who later on became experts in this area; and, lastly, it produced scientific knowledge based on research that was acknowledged by its peers for decades ‒ that is, it had a longevity of about half a century. In Portugal there are already some works on the history of Portuguese anthropology: Manuel de Areia and Maria Augusta da Rocha (1985); Jorge Freitas Branco (1986); João Leal (2000, 2006); Rui Pereira (1986, 1998); João de Pina-Cabral (1991); Ricardo Roque (2001a); Gonçalo Duro dos Santos (2005); and José Manuel Sobral (2007), among others. However, except for some authors, such as Rui Pereira (1998), Ricardo Roque (2001a, 2006), Duro dos Santos (2005) and my own work (Matos 2013), it is not common for Portuguese anthropologists and historians to recognize the existence of a school of anthropology rooted in Porto, as well as the legacy of Mendes Correia and his collaborators. We still lack a critical review of its works and an integrated synopsis on the precursors of anthropology, especially in Portugal, which are mostly and widely ignored. Some of the figures of the past were marginalized during their lifetime, reaching the status of great precursors, heroes or striking historical figures only after their death. Others were given due importance while living, but, after their death, they were disregarded and forgotten as if they had never existed or contributed to anything relevant. I would name the following

Introduction • 3

possible reasons for this forgetting of the anthropological past, or for the rejection of its study: 1) the fact that some anthropological studies were influenced by racial (and racist) theories; 2) the existence of anthropological studies performed in the colonial context, which may be criticized based on the type of studies performed (mainly in physical anthropology, based on prejudiced and discriminatory assumptions about the individuals analysed), and the fact that these focused on populations under the domination or the authority of the Portuguese colonial administration; 3) the connotation of some of those works with the policies of the Estado Novo (New State) (1933‒74); 4) the large number of works produced, as well as their length, along with the diversity and complexity of the topics studied. This book therefore intends to make the work of Mendes Correia ‒ a significant figure in his time – better known, explain why he deserves that status and examine his influence. By doing so, I am inspired by the work coordinated by Richard Handler (2000), in the History of Anthropology (HOA) collection, created and directed, for many years, by George Stocking, with the title Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays toward a More Inclusive History of Anthropology. This volume invites readers to gain a better knowledge of the academics that remained forgotten in time, but who made a (decisive) contribution to the anthropological work performed in their own time. To discover Mendes Correia’s work, as well as the initiatives he promoted and animated, will allow us to contribute to a more inclusive history of anthropology, as suggested in the subtitle of the volume edited by Handler. In the copy on the inside cover flap of this book, we can read that ‘history-making can be used both to bolster and to contest the legitimacy of established institutions and canons’ (Handler 2000). In this work I also intend to present a research that reveals history, regardless of its potential legitimation or refutation. During the 1990s, as we are reminded by Handler, anthropologists increasingly gained knowledge on the ways in which the participation in professional anthropology depended, and still depends, on categorical boundaries such as ‘race’,4 class, gender, citizenship, institutional and disciplinary filiation and proficiency in the English language. Those who write the history of anthropology ‘play a crucial role interrogating such boundaries; as they do, they make newly available the work of anthropologists who have been ignored’ (Handler 2000). According to Handler (2000), Stocking led a subfield of anthropology – the history of anthropology – and was the person responsible for displacing it from the margins to the centre of the discipline (2000: 3). Since Franz Boas (1858‒1942) and Edward Burnett Tylor (1832‒1917), anthropologists had occasionally followed this genre, but, as noted by Stocking (1966), this subfield only arises in the 1960s5 (Handler 2000: 3). With regard to this discussion, Handler reminds

4  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

us that the word ‘subfield’ (of the history of anthropology) is not a reference merely to the four fields of anthropology sacralized by Boas, but rather to less inclusive areas of interest than the former, such as politics, medicine, psychological anthropology and historical archaeology (2000: 4). The role of the history of anthropology regarding the wider anthropology discipline may be structured in several ways. Stocking referred to Hallowell’s (1965) notion of the history of anthropology as an anthropological project. From this perspective, history and anthropology are similar in their fundamental goal – to understand worlds with human significance and specifically located events – although the disciplines may differ in terms of their methods and disciplinary cultures. Therefore, as mentioned by Handler, the interpretation or explanation of past anthropological practices in their relationship to specific historical and cultural moments should be a common work for anthropologists who are familiar with the empirical research in local communities and situations, despite the need to devote themselves more to archives than to field research; however, up to a point, the collection of oral stories establishes the methodological bridge (Handler 2000: 4). According to Handler, the historical contextualization of the anthropological work should be a source of anthropological self-criticism. On the other hand, the reflexive critical view may be established as a sign of disciplinary decadence. In this negative view, we might say that the discipline, no matter how securely institutionalized it is, has been intellectually eroding itself – its object of study, whether it is conceived as the ‘culture’ or as the exotic others, is being banished or declared as inappropriately objectified in the first place. According to this author, when abandoned without a real-world object to legitimize itself as a field of scientific study, anthropology must now ‘cannibalize itself ’ and take hold of its own history, its methods and its epistemology as its main subject (2000: 4). Although I do not share Handler’s analysis, I believe that the current alternative is not to cannibalize itself, but rather that it is necessary to continue developing reflexive thought on what has been done and how it has been done. This work and this reflection should not replace the research recently developed by anthropologists, but rather should walk side by side with them. On the other hand, we may reflect on the role of the history of anthropology in its relation to theoretical currents and methods of teaching in this discipline. On several occasions Stocking observed the quality of a great deal of disciplinary history, since its practitioners read and write the history of their discipline as a prelude to the triumph of their own theoretical positions. In the hands of institutionalized ‘winners’ (those, for example, with tenured positions at elite universities), this type of justification of their own theoretical agenda becomes the defence of an established canon

Introduction • 5

(Handler 2000: 4). In addition, ‘those who see themselves as excluded from the anthropological establishment, however defined, can use history of anthropology to resurrect forgotten ancestors’ (by creating them) and forge alternative anthropological pasts that suggest alternative canons (Handler 2000: 4‒5). In that volume, the debate around the concept of canon was inspirational to me: to speak of ‘excluded ancestors’ and to work ‘toward a more inclusive’ discipline is to assume that ‘the boundaries of that discipline, and the roster of accepted, acceptable, and/or canonized practitioners/ancestors, can be specified and agreed upon’; by looking at the discipline from a more global point of view, we may ask who belongs to ‘the history of anthropology’ or ‘Which different histories of anthropology include which different ancestors?’ (Handler 2000: 5). The analysis of the process of recruiting and excluding people in anthropology can also be of interest. Some books by Mendes Correia were very frequently read and quoted in his time, but not afterwards. It therefore seems that a related, but different way of creating canons and disciplinary boundaries is by referring to the institutionalized antecedents of anthropology. The anthropology courses typically include writers who would not be categorized as anthropologists in their time or authors who worked before this science existed as an institutionalized discipline. As mentioned by Handler, the origins of anthropology cannot be traced with certainty; in fact, they should be re-established in retrospective, in an imaginative process that is able to unite all kinds of ancestors (2000: 6). This idea is in accordance with Stocking’s observation on the way that ‘the boundaries of anthropology have always been problematic’ and the fact that ‘anthropology may best be visualized historically as originating by processes of fusion rather than fission’, with antecedents from older academic traditions in ‘natural history, philology, … moral philosophy, … [and] antiquarianism’ (Stocking Jr.6 1995a: 933, 936). Considering the undetermined boundaries in anthropology, the way we carry out its history matters. This is because, as mentioned by Handler, anthropology historians may bring to light the work of practitioners of anthropology that may have been marginalized in their time and subsequently erased from the memory of the discipline (2000: 7). In the case of Mendes Correia, he was not marginalized in his time, but rather erased from the discipline afterwards, partly due to a change in the country’s political context and to a parallel change in the attitudes towards the idea of ‘race’ and of possessing colonial territories. However, the memory of his work can be brought back. In writing this book, I approached various materials, mainly paper documents and photographs, old and yellowed documents, degraded by time, fragile to the touch, that required very careful handling. When reading, translating and deciphering them, I also felt that, in a way, I was saving that past from a

6  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

definitive oblivion. In that sense, I am aware that bringing the work of Mendes Correia into the memory of the discipline is, in a way, forging a new memory of anthropology in Portugal.

An Intellectual Biography as an Object of Study According to João de Pina-Cabral, anthropology recently observed a new development in its longstanding methodological tradition based on life stories, giving way to a series of biographies of past anthropologists (2008: 26). According to this anthropologist, this is fertile ground for the development of a kind of interpretative problem that requires our attention. On the other hand, the idea that human beings are determined in their interpretations of the world (i.e. that our beliefs adapt to the type of world in which we grow up) is commonplace in social sciences and is fundamental in anthropological research. This author also reminds us that what anthropologists want is to identify the conditions – material or mental – that structure the specific human event being studied. He also mentions that a person’s actions and beliefs are motivated by factors from diverse origins that may come into conflict, partly cancelling out each other’s influence (Pina-Cabral 2008: 26). In general, he considers that biographical studies on past anthropologists are a precious development in anthropology and may contribute to moving it outside its worn-out, post-imperialist parochialisms. Pina-Cabral further suggests that we should work towards a more theoretically inclined history of anthropology, i.e. produced by anthropologists who have anthropological arguments in mind (2008: 27). In the introduction to the special issue of Reviews in Anthropology entitled ‘Biographies of Anthropologists’, Roger Ivar Lohmann is peremptory when stating that anthropologists’ biographies are largely acknowledged as useful for the history of science and of this discipline (2008: 89). Lohmann further argues that biographies not only provide information about anthropology, but also data for anthropology, since they are studies on human agents entangled in social and cultural contexts, comparable to the life stories of ethnographic informants, as stated by Pina-Cabral (2008: 26). This might also have been the reason, among others, that led Margaret Mead (1974), several years earlier, to write the biography of Ruth Benedict. Lohmann adds that biographies are as important to empirical and theoretical anthropology as ethnographies, textbooks and monographs in archaeology and biological anthropology (2008: 89). Furthermore, they allow a description of the cultural dynamics based on a central person, with an experience of his or her own, as is the case in this study on the figure of Mendes Correia.

Introduction • 7

To trace someone’s biography is a complex phenomenon, since it involves a process of selection, assessment, and selective and individual choices by the person performing the task, who must choose between what is most important, or not, to include. The biographer is therefore in a position of power. In this way, according to Lohmann, ‘the author of a biography is in the powerful but challenging position of recording and evaluating for posterity someone’s legacy’ (2008: 91). The recent boom of monographs and volumes that depict anthropologists as biographical subjects occurred mainly in the United Kingdom and the United States, and less so in Portugal, where only recently did the first examples come about, and only in a few works, such as those by Ricardo Roque (2001a) on Fonseca Cardoso, Gonçalo Duro dos Santos (2005) on Eusébio Tamagnini, and Joaquim Lima (2007) on Bernardino Machado. This wave of biographies on great figures connected to science is mainly developed and disseminated in the scope of history as such, where we can find numerous examples. Another aspect worth highlighting is that the personalities mentioned by Lohmann who are connected to anthropology and the history of anthropology are not always recognized as such in all contexts. On the other hand, it occurs to me that not all current anthropologists acknowledge some of the precursors of anthropology as anthropologists, or consider that their work has made a decisive contribution to their current activity. This wish to cut the strings with the past may, or not, be expressed in the generations that immediately follow the generations whose biographies have been written or about which one writes. Jorge Dias (1907‒73), for example, took part in the homage to Mendes Correia in 1957,7 although he has directed his work on a different course. One of the specific issues we find in Portugal is the rupture with the Estado Novo and with the status quo it represented (authoritarianism, imperial domination and colonialism), which did not exist in the United States, for example, or which existed differently in countries that despite not being dictatorships – such as the United Kingdom – allowed a plurality of voices in academia, whether favourable or unfavourable to the empire, for instance. However, it seems apparent that whenever a greater distancing exists, this cut is not as necessary and a greater abstraction towards the past is possible, which allows a more distanced and reflexive analysis, and this is my approach in this book. According to Lohmann, the narrative form of a biography is similar to fiction. However, ‘biography is emphatically nonfiction: a representation of reality, including inner, psychological realities reconstructed as accurately as possible from evidence such as statements, letters, analysis of the biographical subject’s behaviors’ (2008: 90). In the case of Mendes Correia, a behavioural analysis is more interesting if it is performed over time, since his writings clearly reveal that he adapted his discourse and adjusted

8  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

his suggestions in relation to the historical and political times and to the external (the colonies) and international (Europe) pressures to which the country was subject. When the events they describe go back to the past, biographies allow for a greater distancing and abstraction, as in this work, since Mendes Correia died in 1960, thus reducing the difficulty in exposing matters considered as personal or private. Lohmann recalls that the topics considered as private ‒ and therefore as inappropriate in public texts ‒ vary according to culture, and this aspect is connected to privacy and anonymity. When ethnographers describe a whole group in an abstract way, even when expressing a critical view, there is no need to expose any individual for the purpose of either canonization or blame. Individuals are often made anonymous or are given pseudonyms. On the contrary, biographers cannot suppress this responsibility. This is one of the reasons why including the individuals’ names in anthropology may be problematic, when at the same time anthropologists promise to hide the identities of informants, except when this is impossible, such as when they assess the careers of public personalities (Lohmann 2008: 91). The work I present here is a kind of ‘an anthropology of anthropology’, as designated by Gerald Sullivan (2008: 226). Furthermore, it allows us to reflect on how we got to the issues that animated anthropology. According to Sullivan, when we work in anthropological archives, we enter a special field that leads us to the past, both of anthropologists and their counterparts, and this allows us to make that past useful once again. With this study, my intention goes beyond that, as I also wish to know Mendes Correia better and make him known among those who are ignorant of him. Regardless of the contributions offered by Mendes Correia’s work (the extent to which they are useful or inspiring today and in the future), it is important to know them (even those that were misunderstood, despised or useless). Even if the past contains elements that may be embarrassing to us, we must not ignore or forget it, even if only to guarantee that this negative past will not repeat itself. Anthropologists are also expected to be honest and balanced when telling the facts and revealing their point of view, as well as their sources of knowledge, as correctly as possible. For example, according to Lohmann, a central doctrine of anthropological expectation is to avoid ethnocentrism when writing reports; by applying an analogous principle to biography, the biographers of anthropologists are compelled to write friendly but honest texts on individual biographical subjects, depicting the perspectives of the subjects themselves and analysing the causes and consequences of their actions (2008: 91). At this point, I believe that despite writing about a personality, the anthropologist does not necessarily have to agree with his or her points of view and perspectives, whether theoretical, methodological or analytical. Furthermore, the anthropologist can and

Introduction • 9

should at least investigate the potential consequences of the biographer’s writings and positions. It is necessary to consider not only the writing that almost evokes a hagiography, but also the kind of work that may arise when the person who writes has, from the start, an aversion towards the subject of the biography and disagrees with his or her ideas and practices. The biographical elements can further be revealed in obituaries or in tributes to masters, professors or colleagues. Whether some anthropologists today consider them as anthropologists or not, or whether they relate to their work, is an entirely different matter. During their lifetime, those people saw themselves as anthropologists and were acknowledged as such, and that will be my starting point. Another aspect highlighted by Lohmann is that the knowledge and the separation of the emic and ethical perspectives are as important in biographies as in ethnographies (2008: 91). Therefore, the greater the proximity of the experience shown by the data and the narrative, the greater the potential emic richness will be. In its turn, when the life of the biographed person belongs in a distant past and is only accessible through documents, the cultural and historical context of his or her life and actions can be accessed with a better understanding of the events and a broader contextual perspective (Lohmann 2008: 92). In the present case, considering a sixty-two-year period after the individual’s death, that emic richness can be considered as minor. However, if we consider that history may repeat itself, as well as the social conflicts of today, motivated by the migration of people and by the social and economic crisis context in the world, some issues on which Mendes Correia reflected and wrote may not be as remote, nor may they be definitely relegated to the past. The publication of diaries8 and letters can also be illuminating. This material may provide rich elements about moments and phases in his life, ‘highlighting particular relationships and events’ (Lohmann 2008: 93‒94). In the case of Mendes Correia’s path, I realized that he experienced many diverse activities and paths not only in the scientific but also in the political domain. However, as in other paths of life, part of the itineraries may in fact result from contingencies and circumstances that are parallel to their lives and the social environment in which they lived, and may not necessarily result from a previously thought and established strategy. After reading his memoires Em Face de Deus (1946b), written by himself, we are able to say something similar to that referred to by Lohmann: the fact that storytellers, even when telling their own adventures, do not necessarily provide a clear, consistent, chronologically organized tale of their life trajectory. Much is forgotten, mixed or revised, if not for their presentation, then at least in the author’s memory itself, in order to create a pleasant self-image; that is, unpleasant experiences may be suppressed as time goes by. Different people

10  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

may have complementary or conflicting memories of the same events, based upon which the biographer should create a narrative. Furthermore, Lohmann adds that ‘dreams and fantasies may enter memory as “actual” events in one’s life history’ (2008: 95). The biographies of anthropologists allow us mainly to extend our understanding about the history of this discipline, a goal that was clearly reached in the immense work by George W. Stocking, by giving us the possibility of understanding the path of the discipline, the topics selected and the way in which some ideas were developed and/or abandoned. David H. Price called attention to the initial phase of anthropology in the United States, during which the possession of any advanced credential in any field was more important than having a degree in anthropology. The most prominent anthropologists at the beginning of the twentieth century had degrees in fields such as physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, biology and geology. This was a requirement, since anthropology curriculums had to be written by individuals with an advanced degree before the departments in this discipline were able to assign degrees in anthropology (2008: 103). From a comparative perspective, we may say something similar about Portugal: the majority of anthropology practitioners during the first half of the twentieth century were not trained in this area, but rather in areas such as medicine and biology. As for the North American case, according to Price, while ‘amateur anthropologists generally produced shoddy, bigoted work, there were also significant strains of amateurs or self-trained brilliance that never managed to fit into the confines of the emerging academy populated by refined gentlemen’ (2008: 104). He also recalls that some of the first presidents of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) were self-taught, and often had solid careers in the world of business to support their academic activities9 (2008: 104). According to Price, in 1913 Roland Dixon became the first President of the AAA to receive a doctor’s degree in anthropology and, in 1919, Clark Wissler, though AAA President, had a doctor’s degree in psychology, not anthropology. Patrick Laviolette focused on the concept of intellectual biography and explored the relational and symbolic relevance of anthropology’s life stories. According to him, the intellectual biography, as a ‘newly developing self-conscious genre’, is revealing a central role in the way the history of the discipline has been written (Laviolette 2008: 233); however, he suggests that there were some tensions between the practical experience and the intellectual conceptualization (2008: 232). According to Laviolette, many of these books are not exactly biographies in the strict sense of the word and are part of a discursive turning point that arose when anthropologists began taking the understanding and the study of an uncommon ‘species’ – themselves – seriously (Bourdieu 1988). Although biographical writing is

Introduction • 11

not exactly new, Laviolette considers we are nowadays witnessing a new biographical interest in the lives and experiences of anthropologists’ ancestors, both in England and in other locations (2008: 233). On the other hand, by revealing the importance of diaries and informal personal documents, as well as of articles and monographs, the biographies of anthropologists may help us describe the anthropological twists and turns between ontology and epistemology – between experience, method and theory. These biographies are significant epistemological conceptualizations of the way in which theory and method are mixed with life stories and politics. These sources are precious when discovering and discrediting imperial, colonial or other potentially debatable processes that may have occurred, or not, through the practice of fieldwork (Laviolette 2008: 254). In the case of Mendes Correia’s path, we must consider not only the relevance of the institutionalization of anthropology in Portugal, but also its internationalization through its own effort to take part in international events and to publish abroad. We are therefore able to conclude that works on anthropologists are information-rich material and emic literature that can be looked up like other cultural productions. Furthermore, the biographical work is important in terms of understanding the permanently changing path of the discipline and also of human beings.

Objectives, Issues Approached and Scientific Methodology The research for this book was performed mainly between 2006 and 2011. The aim of this work is to contribute to a better knowledge of the history of anthropology in Portugal from the late nineteenth century until the 1950s, based on some of its paths and precursors, and, specifically, on the Porto School of Anthropology and its prime mover, Professor Mendes Correia. I analyse not only the works of the school’s mentor, but also the intellectual network he built, encompassing his disciples and collaborators, as well as his peers, in Portugal and abroad. Since he intervened not only in scientific fields, but also in political and institutional fields, I wish to understand the conditions in which scientific knowledge was produced in Portugal in his time. Since this is an intellectual biography, I shall analyse the discourses and representations produced by Mendes Correia concerning two fundamental research domains: the ‘Portuguese people’ and the populations in the colonies, showing the relationships between the study of the nation and that of the ‘Portuguese colonial empire’. On the other hand, I shall compare the production of Correia and his school in the context of the international development of the disciplinary fields he dealt with (which

12  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

includes anthropology, ethnology and archaeology). In general, by means of a hermeneutical and qualitative analysis, I intend to research the school, the knowledge it promoted and the type of dissemination it allowed. As my starting hypotheses, I will analyse the extent to which the Portuguese reality regarding the institutionalization of anthropology and its path was different, or not, from other national contexts and what the differences were within the country concerning different schools of anthropology. Next, I intend to investigate whether the anthropological knowledge produced within the scope of this school was isolated or not in time and space or if, on the contrary, there were several international working and intellectual exchange networks between the people connected to the school and people associated with anthropological schools from other countries. Finally, I shall analyse whether there is a relationship between national policies and the policies proposed in the context under analysis, and the works promoted and developed by this school’s representatives. Regarding the methodology, this research was focused on libraries, archives, museums and document reserves, and on contact with several people, through formal contacts, interviews and conversations, some more informal and some less so. As to the documental research, I considered the different topics approached and developed in the texts, and made use of sources deposited in several places, in Portugal and abroad, with a special emphasis on the institutions to which Mendes Correia was related. On the other hand, I carried out a bibliographical research aimed at obtaining a genealogy of the disciplines associated with the author (mainly anthropology and archaeology). This research is further based on the analysis of the works by Mendes Correia and other people belonging to the school, seeking to identify research objects, explanatory paradigms, controversies, continuities and changes. Some sources are public, while others are private, but the cross-reference between both types of materials was essential to link ideas and facts and to reach conclusions. For a greater proximity between the reader and the sources, I often chose to include large portions of text, thus also allowing the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. Some of the main venues I visited10 were the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto (FCUP) and, more specifically, the former Zoology and Anthropology Department of this faculty, the Archive of the Municipal Council of Porto (CMP), the Porto Municipal Archive – Casa do Infante –, the District Archive of Porto, the National Library (BN), the National Hemeroteque, Torre do Tombo National Archive (ANTT), the archive of the Portuguese Parliament, the Memory Centre in Torre de Moncorvo and the Institute for Scientific and Tropical Research (IICT). Lastly, I collected oral testimonies by interviewing people related to Mendes Correia and members of his school, such as former students. I

Introduction • 13

also contacted people who know or who have studied the context under analysis; individuals associated with institutions to which Mendes Correia himself was connected, such as the former Higher Colonial College (ESC), the Lisbon Geographic Society (SGL) and the Lisbon Academy of Sciences (ACL), and also his relatives, more close or less so. Using this method, I approached people and subsequently met them, and in these encounters they gave me further contacts and information. As to the anonymity of the interviewees, I made the following choice: some of the people I interviewed are public figures, and when the questions I asked are in the public domain or of public interest, they are identified in the text; the people I interviewed on more private and intimate and/or problematic subjects are not identified, mainly for ethical reasons and to protect their privacy. This book also made use of some life stories, by which I do not mean solely the interviews, but also the stories I restored based on a closer relationship with some counterparts, which I was able to maintain for a longer period of time. This was also possible due to the attitude of collaboration and interest that these people expressed towards this study. I believe that the method based on life stories allows us to gain a deeper level of knowledge and to reach the historical truth by saturating the object. Furthermore, the repetitions or coinciding elements in these stories can allow us to discover a pattern when cross-referencing them, as mentioned by Paula Godinho.11 In this case, it mostly gave me a better knowledge of the historical context under analysis and allowed me to establish relationships between elements that were shown to be useful in the interpretation of data. During the interviews, I took into account that memory is related to forgetfulness, that it is more than just a sum of recollections, and that it is linked together with the reconstitution and reconfiguration of facts, even if with some manipulation of the narrative (Ricoeur 2000). On the other hand, I considered that the way we see the present is influenced by our past and that the evocative repetition of events also serves as memory (Connerton 1989). In some cases, the interviewees had personally met Mendes Correia and spoke about that experience; in others, their memory used biographical elements that they read after his death and then used as their own experience. Since this work focused on the research of historical sources, I sought to contextualize the discourses and the analysed materials. By reason of the object under study, the research was based on proceedings that are characteristic not only of anthropology, but also of history. However, this modus operandi did not generate any issue whatsoever regarding identity. As mentioned by José Manuel Sobral: When anthropologists study the past based on documents and seek to link their research with data revealed by the historical study, and when historians

14  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

apply anthropological methods, objects and models in their analysis – when they do not come nearer to privileging the speech and experience of the social agents through ‘oral history’ – it makes no sense talking about strict separations. But the disciplines remain distinct, in their working matter and in the research activity (not to speak of the fact that historians do not produce theories, considering themselves as contributing entities, even if with a critical standpoint, to the conceptualizations produced in other areas). (1999: 27‒28)

The Structure of This Book This book is divided into five chapters. The first two describe the figure of Mendes Correia and the context in which he worked. In Chapter 1, devoted to his biography, I highlight the most important aspects in his life, namely his training in medicine, the work he developed as professor at the University of Porto (UP) and his connection to Porto. On the other hand, I emphasize his projection and his national and international status. I make reference to some homages he received during his lifetime and in the present, and to the way in which these processes were organized. In Chapter 2 I analyse the context in which the Porto School of Anthropology and the SPAE were born. I present a perspective on the process of institutionalization of anthropology in Portugal, which is integrated into a wider process that encompassed other sciences. I further emphasize the efforts made by people connected to the University of Coimbra (UC) and the UP, so that anthropology might be recognized as an autonomous disciplinary field, a process in which Mendes Correia played a fundamental role. In the three following chapters I analyse Mendes Correia’s scientific and political work, systematize his ideas, critically reflect on some of his theories and describe his main political activities. We shall see how some of his biographical features help us understand his scientific production and his actions at an academic, social and political level. Mendes Correia is a man with diversified interests, from prehistoric archaeology to physical anthropology, and also palaeontology and ethnology. This ‘variety’, presented in Chapter 3, is expressed early on at the classes of anthropology he taught (Correia 1915b). As we shall see, the author revealed nationalist concerns and devoted part of his studies to pre-Roman Lusitania, denoting an obsession with the origins of humanity and of the Earth itself in several works. On the other hand, I shall systematize his main arguments, among which we find the following: Lusitanians are the ancestors of the Portuguese; race is not culture; raciology is not racism; miscegenation is not a dilution process; and culture is a psychological attitude. Chapter 4 is devoted to ‘practical applications of anthropology’, as the author understands it. In that sense, I analyse

Introduction • 15

the fields in which these applications took place, namely in pedagogical, criminal and colonial anthropology. As we shall see, a fundamental part of his work was inspired by issues that, at the time of production, were related to subjects like ‘race’ and ‘hygiene’. Acknowledged as an academic authority in the university milieu of the time, Mendes Correia eventually intervened in several areas and issued opinions on social and demographic causes, inspired by medical and biological sciences, that is, the areas in which he possessed academic training. He himself classifies some of those interventions as ‘applied anthropology’. In Mendes Correia’s track record we can also highlight not only the relevant academic and scientific offices he held, but also his devotion and the way in which he promoted the performance of colonial studies and the organization of events of scientific diffusion. Chapter 5 approaches his ‘political legacy’ and describes his activities as Mayor of Porto (1936‒42), as advisor of the Corporate Chamber (CC) (1935‒38 and 1938‒42) and as deputy at the National Assembly (AN) (1945‒56). We shall see how his academic training, and his social concerns, were decisive in the political proposals he presented publicly. The Conclusion provides a summary of Mendes Correia’s legacy. In his path, it is not only the creation of the Porto School of Anthropology and of SPAE that stand out, but also a network of collaborators (students and professors) and of individuals with whom he maintained scientific contact. This ‘network’ (Barnes 1972) allows us to trace a map in which we can find the connections between the school and institutional spheres that are relevant to this research. Throughout the text, I seek to stress the fact that this study also allows an analysis of the topics of nationalism and colonialism, often related to and involved in the path and evolution of anthropology in Portugal. Lastly, the appendices contain information that complement the elements described in the book.

Notes   1. There are comprehensive works on the life and work of Bernardino Machado (Marques and Costa 1978; Santos 2005; Lima 2007), founder of the discipline of anthropology in Coimbra (1885), but not on Mendes Correia.   2. Among the biographies on the life and work of scholars, we may refer to that on Marc Bloch (Fink 1991).  3. Maria Antónia Oliveira defines the relationship between the biographee and the biographer as ‘fictional because the biographee, being dead, is an imaginary being, a non-existent person, with whom the biographer gradually is involved’ (2003: 110).

16  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

  4. Throughout the text I use the expression ‘race’ in inverted commas because it does not make sense to speak of the existence of human races, and ‘race’ is a term that has long been scientifically discredited (Matos 2013).   5. To help in this process, Stocking founded the History of Anthropology Newsletter in 1973, with a view to informing practitioners of new or newly announced publications, dissertations and sources that may be relevant to their work and to the HOA (in 1983) as a step towards publishing this academic work within this subdiscipline.   6. Quoted in Handler (2000: 6‒7).  7. See Boletim da SGL, April‒June 1957.   8. An example of a published diary is that of Bronislaw Malinowski (1989 [1967]).   9. While W.J. McGee produced and sold agricultural produce, the others graduated in natural sciences (F.W. Putnam and Jesse Fewkes in biology, Franz Boas in physics, Walter Hough in chemistry and geology, and Aleš Hrdlička in medicine). Others were trained in arts, such as William Henry Holmes, who studied drawing (Price 2008). 10. See the list of Archives and Libraries for a full list of the places visited. 11. ‘História de vida – Academia’ – video with Paula Godinho, available at: http://www. memoriamedia.net/historiasdevida/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=70&Itemid=57 (accessed May 2011).

Chapter 1

Biography of Mendes Correia (1888‒1960)

Mendes Correia’s biographical data include his social and family origins, his academic education, and the social and political milieux with which he interacted. I used published sources and information obtained through interviews. An important source was his diaries.1 Besides telling us the price he paid for meals in restaurants, his cigar brand, the tailor of his suits, and amounts paid for hotels, taxis or tips, they also reveal who was part of his days, who he met and to whom he was most closely related, his travels2 and his priorities. When speaking of Mendes Correia, we find various different readings. The website of the University of Porto (UP) hosting the page ‘Teachers and Students of the First Faculty of Arts of the University of Porto’ states that Mendes Correia was a ‘University Teacher, Anthropologist and Historian’.3 On the other hand, the street in Porto bearing his name refers to him as ‘anthropologist and archaeologist’. Who actually was Mendes Correia? In the following pages I shall endeavour to answer this question.

Origins and Family I began by looking up the inventories of christenings held in Porto in 1888 and I found Mendes Correia’s name4 in the register of the parish of Vitória. According to record no. 114, note 410, ‘António’ was born on 4 April 1888 and was baptized on 5 May 1888, at the Church of Nossa Senhora da Vitória, in the district and diocese of Porto. He was the first and legitimate son of António Maria Esteves Mendes Correia, a medical doctor, born in the parish and district of Vagos, diocese of Coimbra, and Etelvina Marques Mendes Correia, born in the parish of São Nicolau, in Porto, both parishioners of the Church of Vitória, residing in Rua do Almada. His paternal

18  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

grandfather, João Mendes Esteves, born in Vagos, was a notary and registrar. According to Júlio Gonçalves, his paternal grandfather was a ‘clerk in the tax office and rural administrator’ and, on his mother’s side, he was descended from ‘businessmen’ (1957: 120). Mendes Correia lived in Porto until he was almost sixty years old, when he moved to Lisbon. He lived in Rua de Sampaio e Pina, in the parish of São Sebastião da Pedreira, and died here on 7 January 1960, at the age of seventy-one, due to a malignant tumour. He was buried in the family tomb in the Prado do Repouso cemetery in Porto. We can say that he belonged to a social elite, since social wealth cannot, as such, define such belonging if it is not associated with economic and cultural wealth, as demonstrated by Pierre Bourdieu (1979). Mendes Correia had several sorts of wealth (social, economic, cultural and symbolic). Following the approach of social reproduction proposed by Bourdieu, it is through habitus (1980: 109), education, and familial and social acquaintanceship that individuals are prepared and systematize practices that will become important pillars in their professional path and fulfilment. Not only was his father a doctor and his paternal grandfather a registrar and rural administrator, but his parents also lived in Rua do Almada, which was connected to ‘Porto’s bourgeoisie’ in the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Mendes Correia’s father, António Maria Esteves Mendes Correia (23 June 1849–13 September 1937), a doctor, was the head of the Progressivist Party in the Vagos district5 and was later town councillor at the CMP, being responsible for the library and the museum (1890‒92 and 1903‒6). He was the youngest son in a ‘highly-reputed [family] in Vagos’, according to a local newspaper;6 he studied in the village’s official school and attended secondary school in Aveiro and Coimbra. He enrolled in the former Medical and Surgical School of Porto.7 After defending his dissertation entitled ‘Um caso de febre tifóide, complicado de broncopneumonia e seguido de bronquectasia, gangrena pulmonar e tísica caseosa’ (A Case of Typhoid Fever, with Complications by Bronchopneumonia, Followed by Bronchiectasis, Caseous Pulmonary and Phthisic Gangrene), he graduated from this school seven years later on 22 July 1874, with some of the best marks of his year. On 27 July, he started working at the clinic (Cancela Velha medical post, considered one of the strongholds of private clinical practice in Porto). In partnership with other doctors, he also created a polyclinic. He collaborated with several national and foreign scientific journals. Mendes Correia’s father was married to Etelvina Esteves Marques, having been her tutor, and together they had four children (António Augusto, Humberto, Elsa and Maria Luísa). Besides his professional and academic activity, he also took on other roles: manager of the Pedras Salgadas Water Company (1881‒85); chairman of the Editor’s Committee for the Boletim

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  19

da Sociedade de Geografia Comercial do Porto, which was presided over by counsellor Joaquim Pedro de Oliveira Martins8 (1845‒94); director of the Royal Humanitarian Society of Porto; member of the Porto Institute for Studies and Conferences; first chairman of the Doctors Association of the North of Portugal (which preceded the Lusitanian Medical Association); member of the Board of the former Medical Union, over which he presided; honorary member of the social gathering of the 1st Congress of Deontology and Professional Interests that took place in Porto in 1912 (Aguiar9 1940); and member of the General Assembly Board of Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Porto (1909‒10). He was a doctor at the Companhia Nacional dos Fósforos at the Lordelo factory from its foundation in 1895 until 1934, when he applied for retirement. Based on his professional experience, he recorded several cases of factory workers who suffered from occupational phosphorism. For that reason, in addition to articles in the press, he published a dissertation on a clinical case of typhoid fever with a booklet on occupational phosphorism (1906).10 He retired in around 1929, after about fifty-five years of clinical and social practice. Mendes Correia was married twice. Neither of his marriages was presumably by chance. There was probably what some authors (Bourdieu 1980; Sobral 1999; Lima 2003) classified as a ‘marital strategy’, the role of which is to maintain in the same social group a set of privileges, assets and powers. He was first married on 7 January 1914 to Maria Antónia do Carmo (or Cármen) de Loureiro e Brada,11 daughter of Luís de Loureiro Queirós Couto Leitão, second Viscount of Loureiro, and Cármen de Boàda, niece of the Republican politician José Relvas. They lived in Porto, in Rua do Moreira.12 His wife’s father was the Mayor of Viseu and was the son of Luís de Loureiro Queirós Cardoso do Couto Leitão, first Viscount of Loureiro, and Antónia da Silva Mendes, from the Silva Mendes family, one of the wealthiest in Viseu. Mendes Correia was also nephew, by affinity, of José Relvas (1858‒1929), who proclaimed the establishment of the Republic from the balcony of Lisbon’s City Hall and was a minister in the Provisional Government (Ministry of the Treasury) in 1910. In Alpiarça, at the Casa dos Patudos of José Relvas, Mendes Correia spent long periods in the studies of the shell midden of Muge (Mendes Correia 1933a, 1934c, 1940e, 1956a). When cultivating vines in that region, vases from the late Bronze Age were found, as well as bracelets and other objects that delighted Mendes Correia and that are now part of the estate of the FCUP’s museum. After divorcing his first wife on 17 January 1948, he married on 29 July 1948 Maria do Carmo Bahia,13 who was born in Lisbon in 1888 and was considered one of the ‘most distinguished pianists’, with a ‘remarkable musical talent’ (Diário Ilustrado no. 12,835, 25 April 1909). The wedding took place at the Third Civil Registry Office of Lisbon, in a civil,

20  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

nonreligious ceremony. Mendes Correia was then sixty years old and lived in Avenida da República in Lisbon. Maria do Carmo Bahia died in Lisbon in 1974 at the age of eighty-six. Mendes Correia did not leave any heirs subject to the legal dispositions regarding orphans, although he left assets and a sealed testament, written on 3 March 1959 at the Fourth Notary Office of Lisbon.14 Subsequently a closed will was drafted on 19 January 1960, at the same notary office. I searched the Torre do Tombo National Archive to check if any certificate of inheritance had been issued after his death, but I found nothing. As far as I could determine, Mendes Correia had no children and the heirs to whom he donated his assets are unknown. I sought any leads in the land registry of the apartment where he died, but it was a rented apartment and was part of a building that, from 1938 to 1964, was owned by two people who owned the whole building. Furthermore, the building has no renting registry. It was built in a large plot during the 1930s, near Parque Eduardo VII, in Lisbon. For this reason, I contacted other family members, such as his nephews, and used the genealogical method. Humberto (born in 1889), Mendes Correia’s brother, was an engineer and director of road infrastructures in Évora. He accompanied Mendes Correia on several field trips, took pictures and helped in the topography tasks. He was Mendes Correia’s closest brother when he moved to Lisbon. His sister Maria Elsa, who neither married nor had any children, completed a course at the Portuguese Red Cross and was devoted to social causes on a voluntary basis. His other sister, Maria Luísa, married historian Artur de Magalhães Basto (1894‒1960), with whom she had five children: João (godson), Maria José, Pedro, Maria do Céu and Maria Antónia (goddaughter). João graduated in civil engineering at the UP and held offices at the CMP. He was the oldest of Mendes Correia’s nephews and the one with whom he maintained a privileged relationship. Pedro was a doctor, clinical manager of the Rovisco Pais Hospital and married Maria Teresa Tavares e Távora (sister of architect Fernando Távora). She had a son, Pedro Magalhães Basto, architect and former student of architect Alexandre Alves Costa.15 Despite or due to not having any children, Mendes Correia maintained a close relationship with his nephews, mainly Maria Luísa’s children, who remember him from several occasions. He used to pick them up at weekends to go for a stroll or was with them in holiday periods, for example, at the Granja beach (where the noble families of the north of Portugal used to go). After the divorce, and even though his family did not accept it and distanced themselves from him, Mendes Correia tried to preserve the intimacy with his nephews as much as possible by visiting and writing to them. He also had contact with the nephews of his brother Humberto, who still remember him and describe him as a friendly,

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  21

kindly man, whose stories they liked to hear and who took them out on expeditions, exploring the fields, stimulating their appetite for research and discovering new things, as if he was preparing future explorers and researchers. The family’s genealogy is well known to the nephews from Porto and the women are the ones who remember the most, such as names and dates, as opposed to the men, who underline mainly the social and political aspects. When the nephews did not know the answer to my questions, they asked or called another family member, since they felt this knowledge was also interesting to them. The relationship between memory, genealogy and the prestige of belonging, discussed by other authors (Sobral 1999; Lima 2003), illustrated the idea mentioned by Antónia Pedroso Lima that ‘the continuity of the family group’s identity and the legitimation of its members social status are rooted in its past prestige’ (2003: 127). As memory aids, the nephews collect photographs in albums and frames, books, letters, calendars, newspaper cuttings and sheets with notes, therefore allowing the ‘past [to] always make itself present’ (Sobral 1999: 269). Among the photographs they selected, in some of them their uncle (Mendes Correia) is with the President of the Council (António de Oliveira Salazar) or other public figures, such as Head of State Óscar Carmona.16 These assets, once belonging to Mendes Correia and now in the possession of his family, have a more than sentimental value to those who keep them; these objects are meant to be protected, preserved and stored for future generations. I was able to borrow some of these objects for some time in order to consult and scan them. However, even though I was not overtly pressured (quite the contrary), I was contacted several times with the warning not to lose them, to keep them well preserved and not to forget to return them. It therefore seems, as noted by Appadurai (1986: 3), that objects, like people, have a social life. The asset’s value is not reduced to their usefulness as objects and is rather related to the fact that they belonged to a socially important person in his or her time, and that they were kept in the family after his or her death, thus acquiring a social life. Although some of them are kept by a certain nephew, this does not mean that they specifically belong to him, but rather to the family who preserves the name Mendes Correia (a symbol of family unity and identity). They become family symbols based on which the younger members build and rebuild their family memory.17 As mentioned before, Mendes Correia was the brother-in-law of Magalhães Basto, who graduated in law from the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon (FDUL) in 1922, but who eventually devoted himself to history and research. Magalhães Basto was a history teacher in several colleges, as well as the FLUP, from 1923 to 1928, teaching geography18 and history. He directed the Porto District Archive and headed the cultural

22  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

services of the CMP from 1938 to 1960. He was high officer of the Porto Public Municipal Library and director of the History Department of the city (nowadays the Municipal Archive).19 The UP paid him homage with an exhibition, from 2005 to 2006, and a conference series starting in 2005.

Education and Career: Between Medicine, Science and Humanities Mendes Correia attended the Liceu Central of Porto in 1898 and completed his studies with honours. He was admitted to the second grade in 1895’s reform and he attended the first grade at the Colégio de Nossa Senhora da Divina Previdência. At the time, the secondary school’s general course was broad in character, because it had not yet been divided into humanities and sciences. One of his teachers was historian, art critic and language teacher Joaquim de Vasconcelos (1849‒1936). Subsequently, like his father, he enrolled at the Polytechnic Academy, where he attended the Medicine Preparatory Course (he enrolled in 1904 and remained for two years) and the Medical and Surgical School of Porto (1906), where he completed his medicine degree in July 1911, with a mark of 17, according to his final certificate, and not 19, as suggested in several publications. The work he presented as his final dissertation, O Génio e o Talento na Patologia, on the other hand, did receive a mark of 19, which is a high mark on a scale of 1 to 20. The choice of the medicine school was not random. Even though

Figure 1.1. Mendes Correia at the Institute of Anatomy, 1911 medical course meeting, Boletim Cultural da Câmara Municipal do Porto, 1962: 25(1‒2)

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  23

his father was a doctor, a profession in this area meant a prestigious social status, associated with the exercise of power, two aspects that we cannot separate from Mendes Correia or from the roles he played. At the Polytechnic Academy he studied subjects such as physics, mineral chemistry, botany, mineralogy, mathematical physics, general physics, organic and analytical chemistry, and zoology. Before 1911, when the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto (FMUP) did not yet exist (it was created only after the 1911 Republican reform), the curriculum of any student on this course, like Mendes Correia, included fifteen disciplines distributed over five years.20 In a photograph taken at the Anatomy Institute during the class reunion in 1911, we see him among doctors Hernâni Monteiro,21 António de Almeida Garrett, Joaquim A. Pires de Lima and Américo Pires de Lima (see Figure 1.1). However, despite his education and the proximity to other doctors, including his father, who practised medicine for half a century, Mendes Correia was devoted to teaching and research. In his graduation year (1911), Mendes Correia started his teaching career as a second-assistant professor in the second group (biological sciences) of the third section (historical-natural sciences)22 of the recently created FCUP.23 In 1912, at the same faculty, he started teaching anthropology and created the Museum and Laboratory of Anthropology that, by Decree-Law no. 9344, dated 29 December 1923 and the order dated 21 January 1931, was considered to be a scientific research institute (Anthropology Institute of the University of Porto (IAUP)). His interest in anthropology dated back to his student years, through his contact with psychiatry and the so-called criminal anthropology. When the anthropology subgroup was created at the FCUP, he submitted for public examinations with the dissertation Os Criminosos Portugueses: Estudos de Antropologia Criminal (1913a) and was named second full assistant professor in 1913. In that year he worked as associate judge and as a doctor at the Youth Detention Centre of Porto. At the FCUP, besides anthropology, he also taught geology, physical geography, physics of the globe and palaeontology. From 22 January 1921 onwards, the teaching staff of the third section’s second group of the FCUP was scattered across botany, zoology and anthropology. For that reason, in 1921 Mendes Correia was named ordinary professor of the third section’s anthropology subgroup. In this re-alignment, the ‘help from Lisbon’ (where the decision bodies were located) was essential, through Augusto Pereira Nobre, Professor of the FCUP, but then Minister of Education. On 13 July 1921, Mendes Correia achieved his doctorate in historical natural sciences at the FCUP (Pina 1966: 92). By late 1921, he was secretary of the FCUP’s School Council.24 From 1923 onwards, he was director of IAUP (see Figure 1.2), which would later be called the ‘Institute of Anthropology Dr Mendes Corrêa’ by an order of 16 May 1958 (Monteiro 1960).

24  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

With the 1926 reform, the third section was divided into three groups: first, mineralogy and geology; second, botany; and, third, zoology and anthropology. Therefore, in 1926, despite being responsible for the anthropology discipline,25 Mendes Correia was named as chair of the first group (mineralogy and geology) of the third section. From 1929 to 1935, and as chair of the mineralogy and geology group, he was director of the FCUP. In 1936, he became chair of the third group (zoology and anthropology), where he remained from 1936 to 1960. From 1926 to 1958, he was director of the Museum and Laboratory of Anthropology and from 1934 to 1936, he was director of the Museum and Laboratory of Mineralogy and Geology26 and was responsible for its transfer to new facilities and for the creation of the Publicações do Museu e Laboratório Mineralógico e Geológico, in which he published (Mendes Correia 1936b). Mendes Correia also taught at the FLUP. The current FLUP corresponds to the second phase of an institution that existed from 1919 to 1928, and reopened, after its closure, during the school year 1962‒63 following DecreeLaw no. 43,864 dated 17 August 1961. The creation of the former FLUP by Leonardo Coimbra, Minister of Education in the government headed by Domingos Pereira, was involved in controversy, namely with the UC. Besides Leonardo Coimbra, some people among the FLUP’s teaching staff stand out, such as Mendes Correia, Damião Peres, Augusto Ferreira Nobre,27 Francisco Manuel Homem Cristo, Aarão Soeiro Moreira de Lacerda 28, José Teixeira Figure 1.2. The IAUP logo. Public image

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  25

Rego, Ângelo Ribeiro, Artur de Magalhães Basto,29 Francisco Newton de Macedo and Torquato de Sousa Soares. Damião Peres, for example, was first secretary (1919) and then director (1926) of the FLUP; he coordinated the work História de Portugal, promoting some of his colleagues, such as Mendes Correia (1928b), as authors; he retired from the UC in 1959. As a term-contract teacher in the fifth group (geographical sciences), Mendes Correia taught the geography of Portugal, Portuguese colonial geography, political and economic geography, general geography, ethnology, archaeology, ethnography and general anthropogeography30 from 1919 until the FLUP’s institutional extinction in 1928. In 1921 he was named ordinary professor at the FLUP. On 31 July 1925, he was appointed by the FLUP’s School Council as ordinary professor of geographical sciences, with Artur de Magalhães Basto31 as interim assistant professor (Pina 1966: 107). On 2 December 1925, the School Council awarded him with a degree of doctor of arts in the area of geographical sciences32 (see Figure 1.3). He belonged to the FLUP’s School Council from 191933 onwards and to the Editor’s Council of the journal Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto from 1920 (Pina 1966: 143). Figure 1.3. Mendes Correia, Alvão Studios, undated. University of Porto

26  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

The closure of the FLUP occurred on 12 April 1928, when Alfredo de Magalhães, chair at the FMUP, was Minister of Public Education and rector of the UP. In a session of the UP’s General Assembly on 21 April 1928, Mendes Correia and Aarão Soeiro Moreira de Lacerda (1890‒1947), among others, protested against the FLUP’s closure. The former presented a proposal and suggested that a copy of the minutes of the Senate meeting on December 1923 be attached to the motion submitted to voting on that day, containing Alfredo de Magalhães position on the FLUP’s closure.34 Alfredo de Magalhães35 was the minister who authorized and awarded the funds for setting up the FLUP and who later extinguished it (Pina 1966: 170). For Mendes Correia, it was not acceptable that a university should not have a faculty of arts. According to medical doctor Luís de Pina, ‘never again did we have a society like Renascença Portuguesa36 or Revista Águia’ (1966: 172), as both were connected to several FLUP professors. After the FLUP’s closure, Mendes Correia was entrusted with managing the faculty’s estate, including the Museum of Historical Archaeology, and was appointed as its director in 1931; however, ‘he never took up his office due to the faculty’s closing’ (Anonymous 2005: 43). However, together with Luís Cardim, he would draw the inventory of the estate belonging to the Museum of Historical Archaeology and Ethnology and of the Gallery of Art History of the FLUP, and was entrusted with its transfer to the FCUP’s Museum of Anthropology, which he himself had created. With the extinction of the FLUP, the teaching staff was scattered and some people joined cultural institutions in other cities. Nevertheless, some of its members, and other university professors, continued publishing in journals in Porto, although not scientific journals, such as the CMP’s Boletim Cultural from 1938 and the new series of O Tripeiro.37 Mendes Correia developed other parallel activities: in 1918, together with Luís de Freitas Viegas, Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (senior) and José da Rocha Ferreira, he founded SPAE, which he presided over after Luís Viegas’s death; he drew up a programme of criminal anthropology and social regeneration during the First Republic in the 1910s and 1920s; he was associate judge and issued opinions at the Youth Detention Centre of Porto; he developed a colonial programme during the Estado Novo, mainly during the 1930s and 1940s, which promoted teaching and scientific research, and sending anthropological missions to the colonies; he was a member of the National Committee for Excavations and Antiquities38 and of the National Education Committee39 (archaeology subsection) and he took part in committees responsible for studying the reform of the university teaching system; from 1922, he was member of the Porto Journalists and Men of Arts Association and he presided over the board of the Porto Group of Brazilian Studies; he was vice-president of the Portuguese Association for Progress in

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  27

Science; he belonged to the Central Committee of the Portuguese Group for the History of Sciences of the Académie International d’Histoire des Sciences and collaborated in its periodical (Petrus Nonius), which was influenced, even if indirectly, by the journal Archeion (Martins 2011: 40); he was chosen, among other colleagues, to represent the UP at the assessment committee of Portugal’s membership in the Conseil International de Recherches (Paris), created in the context of the Society of Nations; he was connected to the Peninsular Ethnology Studies Centre (CEEP) from 1945 to 1956, first as member of the board and later as its chairman; he was president of the committee for the country’s provincial division, president of the National Committee for Demographic and Sanitary Statistics (1955) and member of the guiding council of the Centre for Demographic Studies of the National Statistics Board (INE); he played an important role in the organization of the XV Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques and of the Fourth Session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie (1930) in Porto; he succeeded Francisco Gomes Teixeira (1851‒1933) on the board of the Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto40, a journal of the FCUP, from 1933 to 1960; he was responsible for the Portuguese section of the Paris Colonial Exhibition (1931); he played a relevant role in the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology in Porto (1934), in the Centennial Celebrations and in the organization of the Congresses of the Portuguese World (1940); he was one of the founders of the Portuguese Academy of History (1936); he was Mayor of Porto (1936‒42) and at the same time was advisor to the CC, as a representative of the local government; he was elected deputy to the AN in the fourth, fifth and sixth legislative periods of the Estado Novo41 from 1945 to 1957; in 1946, following the reorganization of the Geographical Missions and Colonial Research Board (JMGIC) (subsequently the Geographical Missions and Overseas Research Board (JMGIU)), he was elected its president and directed the anthropological section; he was also a member of the Overseas Council; on 16 October 1946 he was named director of the ESC, accumulating his functions in the board with teaching in that school (subsequently called the Higher Institute of Overseas Studies (ISEU)) from 1949 to 1958; he was a Portuguese delegate in the Permanent Cartography Committee for the African territories; and he was President of the SGL from 1951 until his death. He reached the age limit for public offices on 4 April 1958 when he was seventy and retired on 24 July 1958.42 In the year of his retirement, he belonged to the Overseas Council (former Council of the Empire) and the JMGIU, which he presided over from 1954 to 1958. When he died, besides being full member of the ACL, he was president of its Science Class from 3 December 1959. He was also one of the directors and compilers of the Grande Enciclopédia Portuguesa e Brasileira.

28  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Despite the above-mentioned activities, his connection to the university, as a professor and researcher, allowed him to create the Porto School of Anthropology (see Figure 1.4.), as he called it (Mendes Correia 1941a), and the conditions for teaching and researching in this area (with the creation of the above-mentioned IAUP and museum). According to Mendes Correia, after 1911, both in medical studies (anatomy, physiology, psychiatry and forensic medicine) and in the disciplines of zoology, palaeontology and geology at the former Polytechnic Academy, the curriculums included subjects encompassed by anthropology (Mendes Correia 1941a: 5). From the beginning, he sought to create the disciplines of prehistory, ethnography and criminal anthropology at the FCUP and to raise the university status of anthropology by claiming an autonomization of this discipline’s teaching in medical degrees, in order to grant it the same level of importance as

Figure 1.4. Cover of A Escola Antropológica Portuense, 1941

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  29

anatomy and physiology, which he regarded as being fundamental in the curriculums of modern medical studies (Mendes Correia 1922a, 1925a). For Mendes Correia, it was unacceptable that a doctor did not know ‘the natural history of man’ (1919e: 78). He added to this endeavour his efforts towards internationalization; he published several articles in French, English and Italian, among others, and became one of the best-known Portuguese authors abroad at the time. However, he sought to make known not only his work, but also the work of his collaborators and disciples. Among his travels, I would like to highlight the following: a journey to Brazil, in 1934 and 1937, where he visited the Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro and personally met sociologist Gilberto Freyre (student of Franz Boas); and his participation in a scientific mission to Portuguese Guinea in 1945‒46, accompanied by his assistant Amílcar de Magalhães Mateus, to prepare an anthropological mission. At that time, he went via Senegal, before going to Guinea, and established several contacts: he visited the Institut Français de l’Afrique Noire (IFAN),43 where he met professors and researchers, such as Théodore Monod44 (1902‒2000), and mobilized efforts to establish contacts and exchange works with several scholars.45 I must also highlight his journey in 1953 within the scope of the anthropological mission to Timor, travelling through Macao, where he was able to establish a direct contact with the populations (Mendes Correia 1955). Mendes Correia also maintained friendships with: António Nascimento Leitão, a graduate in medicine at Porto and doctor in the overseas territories, for whose book he wrote the preface; José Leite de Vasconcelos (1858‒1941), ethnographer who he graded as ‘erudite’ (Mendes Correia 1946b: 16) and who returned his friendship;46 Guerra Junqueiro,47 a writer with whom he strolled and maintained several conversations in Porto; João Grave, director of Porto’s Municipal Museum; and Rodrigo Solano, journalist and poet.

Congresses, Scientific Meetings, Guilds and Honours Mendes Correia took part in congresses and scientific meetings48 in Porto (1921, 1928, 1930, 1934 and 1940), Lisbon (1935, 1940, 1941, 1945 and 1949), Coimbra (1930 and 1942), Bissau (1947), São Tomé and Príncipe (1956), Madrid (1919 and 1946), Rome (1926), Amsterdam (1927), Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Lyon, Lille and Berlin (1931), Brussels (1931 and 1949), Rio de Janeiro (1934), Sao Paulo (1937), Barcelona and Nice (1941), Washington DC (1950), San Sebastian (1950), Madrid (1954), Bissau (1946), and Luanda, Nairobi, Dakar, Bukavu, Tananarive and Yangambi (Rolo 2004: 435). Some of the congresses were the following: the Portuguese-Spanish Congress for the Progress of Science (Porto, 1921; Coimbra, 1942; and San

30  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Sebastian, 1950); the International Congress of Americanists (Rome, 1926); the International Congress of Anthropology and Pre-history (Amsterdam, 1927; Paris, 1931; Brussels, 1949; and Madrid, 1954); the National Medical Congress (Porto, 1928); the International Congress of Anthropology (Coimbra and Porto, 1930); the International Congress of Geography (Paris, 1931); the National Congress of Colonial Anthropology (Porto, 1934); the Brazilian Congress of Identification (Rio de Janeiro, 1934); the International Congress of Zoology (Lisbon, 1935); the Congress of Pre-history and Protohistory and the National Congress on Population Sciences (CNCP) of the Congresses of the Portuguese World (Porto, 1940); the Portuguese-Brazilian Congress and the Colonial Congress at the Congresses of the Portuguese World (Lisbon, 1940); the National Congress of Natural Sciences (Lisbon, 1941); the Congress of the Anatomy Association (Lisbon, 1945); and the Congress on the Discovery of Guinea (Lisbon, 1946). He took part in the Colloquium of Portuguese-Brazilian Studies (Washington DC, 1950) and in the International Conferences of Western Africanists (Bissau, 1947; and São Tomé and Príncipe, 1956, over which he presided), where he belonged to the Permanent Committee (Anonymous 1960a: 115). As a delegate, he took part in the Scientific Council of Sub-Saharan Africa from the moment of its foundation, having participated in almost all its annual meetings in Dakar, Bissau, Nairobi, Tananarive, Bukavu,49 Yangambi and Luanda, among others. He also participated in the First African Regional Scientific Conference at the invitation of the government of the Union of South Africa (Monod 1950) in Johannesburg (October 1949). He was connected to several scientific societies: the Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading of Rio de Janeiro (honorary member from 1937); the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (from 1956); the Cervantes Society of Madrid (honorary member); the Société d’Anthropologie and Société des Africanistes, both in Paris; the Académie des Sciences, Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de Toulouse; the ACL (corresponding member from 4 April 1918 and full member from 16 June 1938; he later presided over its science class, although he did not actually hold the office due to his death); the National Medicine Academy of Rio de Janeiro (honorary member); the Pontifical Academy of Sciences50 (Nuovi Lincei) (full member, corresponding member from 1924); the Portuguese Academy of History51 (full member); the Association of Portuguese Archaeologists (honorary member, full corresponding member from 1925 and corresponding member from 1928);52 the Association pour l’enseignement des sciences anthropologiques (Paris); the German Archaeology Institute in Berlin (ordinary member from 1953); the Coimbra Institute; the Brazilian History and Geography Institute in Rio de Janeiro (corresponding member from 1937); the International African Institute (London); the International Institute of Differing Civilizations

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  31

(INCIDI) (Brussels); the Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene (honorary member); the Royal Galician Academy; the SGL (ordinary member from 1934);53 the Brazilian Society of Forensics Medicine and Surgery (Sao Paulo); the Scientific Society of Malaga; the Anthropology Societies of Barcelona, Florence, Rome and Vienna; the Society of Criminology and Forensic Medicine (Sao Paulo, Brazil); the Society of London Antiquarians (honorary member, full member from 1933); the Spanish Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Pre-history (honorary member); and the Society Martins Sarmento in Guimarães (honorary member, corresponding member from 1932). He was awarded the honorary doctoral degree of the Universities of Lyon (1931), Montpellier (1941) (see Figure 1.5.) and Witwatersrand (Johannesburg, 1949) and the title of ‘Excellency’ by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Nuovi Lincei (Rome, 1940).54

Figure 1.5. Mendes Correia at Montpellier, 1941. Back of the photo: ‘Montpellier, 8 May 1941. Enlargement of a photo of Henri Manuel’

32  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Mendes Correia’s death was reported in national newspapers, such as Primeiro de Janeiro, or local papers, such as Comércio do Porto or O Ilhavense. His photograph was on the front cover of the thirteenth edition of Livros de Portugal dated January 1960 (Anonymous 1960b). These news pieces refer the numerous individuals present in the funeral ceremonies at the SGL and in Porto, many of them representing national and foreign scientific and cultural institutes and entities connected not only to the university, but also to politics.

Tributes to Mendes Correia in His Lifetime and after His Death Some of the tributes paid to Mendes Correia in his lifetime are published testimonies (Júnior 1934; Anonymous 1951, 1957; AAVV 1957, 1959; Gonçalves 1957; Monteiro 1959; Serrão 1959). On 16 April 1951, he was honoured at the Museum of Anthropology of the UP. This occasion gathered several members of the SPAE, the rector of the UP (member of SPAE), the vice-rector of the UP, the directors of the FCUP and the FMUP, and the director of the Porto University Centre for Portuguese Youth.55 The aim of the meeting was the public handover of a bust of Mendes Correia in gesso, made by the sculptor Pinto do Couto, to the IAUP. On 4 April 1957, a tribute was paid at the SGL,56 which included a formal sitting, a bio-bibliographical exhibition, the offer of a bronze bust of Mendes Correia, a banquet with more than 250 attendees and a message delivered by Rui Enes Ulrich (law professor) in parchment, signed by hundreds of friends and admirers. Among those present were the following people: counsellor Afonso de Melo; Ezequiel de Campos; Manuel Maria Sarmento Rodrigues; Sá Carneiro; Carrington da Costa;57 António de Almeida Garrett; Joaquim Fontes (President of the Portuguese Archaeologists Association); Álvaro Lins, the Brazilian ambassador; French and Belgian scientists with whom Mendes Correia had worked in Africa; and missionaries operating in Africa. The pretext for the event was the awarding of the title of honorary member of ‘one of the most renowned areopaguses in the world – the “Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland”’.58 During the tribute, attended by 600 people, Mendes Correia received various telegrams, letters and cards.59 When he reached the age limit for teaching in the public education system, a jubilee volume of Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia (TAE) was published (AAVV 1959) – this tribute was promoted by a committee presided over by Amândio Tavares, the rector of the UP. This volume featured contributions from more than fifty Portuguese and foreign specialists in anthropology, ethnography and archaeology.60

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  33

After Mendes Correia’s passing, other publications honoured him (Monteiro 1960; Ribeiro 1963; Castro 1964; Teixeira 1964). In 1963, the CMP named one of Porto’s streets after him: ‘Rua do Professor Mendes Correia (1888‒1960) – Anthropologist and Archaeologist’.61 On 25 January 1964, he was praised (as was published subsequently)62 at the Portuguese Academy of History, at a session presided over by Possidónio Mateus Laranjo Coelho and Damião Peres acting as secretary. In 1988,63 on the occasion of the centenary of his birth, a tribute was organized that included a publication64 and an exhibition, with some of his works and belongings, in the former FCUP building, which is nowadays home to the UP rectorship. His biography is included in the Dicionário de Educadores Portugueses (Roque 2003) and the Dicionário Biográfico Parlamentar (Rolo 2004). The archaeology journal Al-Madan (AAVV 1999) recalled him in articles on this discipline’s path in Portugal,65 based on which we are able to understand with whom he cooperated in the production of events, the research and dissemination of archaeological knowledge, and whom he was opposed to, or with whom he disagreed, when defending some of his theories and ideas, mainly Manuel Heleno (the archaeologist and Leite de Vasconcelos’ disciple), but also José Coelho, Henri Vallois and Damião Peres. In 2005 Mendes Correia was honoured at the ‘Adventurers, Naturalists and Collectors’ cycle of exhibitions, an initiative of the Junior University, directed at pupils in the primary and secondary levels of education, which took place in the FCUP Botanical Garden. The organization was sponsored by the UP Centre of African Studies and it received the estate of the Museum of Natural History of the FCUP.66 Each of the cycle’s exhibitions was devoted to a collection, an event and a character.67 The first was dedicated to ethnology and archaeology, and to Mendes Correia. Showcases with objects were exhibited, as well as excerpts from texts and photographs. The selected pieces, from several regions in the world (Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania), belonged to the collections of the former IAUP. The exhibition also included a panel with frontal and profile photographs of autochthonous inhabitants of the then Portuguese colonies (see Figure 1.6). Visitor was invited – based on their unprotected and distanced perspective and on their sensitive experience – to find an order to the apparent chaos: men and women from different territories, with different hairstyles, accessories and tattoos, with more or less clothing, but mingled together as if they were part of the same set. In August 2007, when I visited the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro, which accommodated the largest and most diverse library of Portuguese authors outside Portugal, it was celebrating the 170th anniversary of its foundation on 14 May 1837 with a photo exhibition; Mendes Correia was present in some of the photos, side by side with noteworthy

34  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

figures of the Brazilian society of the time. One of these photographs, taken on the centennial celebrations of the foundation of the Cabinet (1937), coincides with one of Mendes Correia travels to Brazil. During my visit, I confirmed the existence of some of his works in some places. In the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading68 of Salvador (Bahia) I only found the second edition of his Raízes de Portugal 69 (1944b [1938]). The place where I found the greatest number of texts was the National Library of Brazil in Rio Janeiro, and mainly at the facilities of the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in the same city, where I found more than ninety texts. By way of comparison, in these same libraries, the works by Eusébio Tamagnini (1880‒1972), a contemporaneous doctor and anthropologist who led the Coimbra School of Anthropology, are far fewer or even non-existent. For example, in the National Library of Brazil I did not find any reference to Tamagnini’s works, either by means of a general research or in the ancient catalogue, and in the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro I only found three texts. This near-absence proves the fact that Tamagnini was not given the same social, academic and international relevance as the founder of the Porto School of Anthropology.

Figure 1.6. Photos from the ‘Aventureiros, Naturalistas e Coleccionadores’ exhibition, Porto, 2005. Photos by the author

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  35

Mendes Correia was honoured on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his death in two events (in which I took part presenting a talk) entitled: 1) ‘First Seminar on Heritage and Science History – A. A. E. Mendes Corrêa (1888‒1960) between Science, Teaching and Politics’,70 organized by the Section of History of Heritage and Science of the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, in cooperation with the history course and the Lusophone Centre of History of Universidade Lusófona, Lisbon, on 9 December 2010, with the subsequent publication of a book (Martins 2011); 2) the ‘University and Science, the City and the Nation’ transdisciplinary conference,71 organized by the Department of Science and Heritage Techniques of the FLUP, with the cooperation of the FCUP and support of the CMP, on 6 January 2011. He was also remembered in a tribute session that included António de Almeida72 (perpetual secretary of the SGL) and his daughter Maria Emília de Castro e Almeida (chairperson and member of the anthropology and ethnography sections of the SGL), which took place on 15 October 2011 at the SGL.

Conclusion Mendes Correia was born into a privileged family in Porto, which gave him a base upon which he was able to build his path in life. He was the eldest of four brothers and the only one who studied medicine. His family was essentially connected to Porto and, despite not having any children, he was close to his nephews, with whom he maintained a warm relationship. In secondary school his thinking was initially formed and his first interests in science and history were born simultaneously. He finished his degree in medicine in 1911. However, despite his father being a doctor, he decided to devote his attention to other areas. He divided his life mainly between two cities – Porto during the first phase and Lisbon in the second. However, although he married and lived in Lisbon during the second phase, he was always considered as a ‘man of Porto’. In his biography, his activities connected to teaching and research stand out, but so too do those connected to cultural diffusion and political offices. At a local level, the fact that he was Mayor of Porto (1936‒42) is notable and, at a national level, so too are his role as deputy to the AN (1945‒57) and as President of the SGL (from 1951). But he was mainly the founder and mentor of the Porto School of Anthropology, having promoted the implementation and development of anthropology in Portugal. Despite his importance in the past, his name almost fell into oblivion. However, he was honoured in his lifetime and his name is still remembered, although only sporadically. In the events marking the fiftieth anniversary of his death (in 2010 and 2011), each participant

36  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

associated him with a specific area and not several areas (as had occurred in the tributes paid during his lifetime). This new trend of associating his name with a scientific area, or with politics, and not with several activities could motivate a future reflection. However, more than mentioning the descriptions that these tributes may reveal, it is important to analyse his scientific production and his legacy. And that is exactly what I will do in the following chapters.

Notes   1. There are two calendars (diaries) from 1926 to 1928, which were preserved by Huet Bacelar (retired advanced technician at the Museum of Natural History of the FCUP) and were recently returned to the FCUP. There are three further calendars, acquired by archaeologist João Luís Cardoso in secondhand bookshops, following an auction organized by the Museum of Natural History of the UP. In them we find three sets of handwriting: Mendes Correia’s, Rui Serpa Pinto’s and Santos Júnior’s. Another calendar is in the possession of his family and a further thirteen are preserved at the Biology Department of the FCUP. Considering their size and portability, these calendars, a gift from medical sales representatives, were Mendes Correia’s favourites.  2. He recorded the list of people he intended to visit and notes to remind him to take ‘Anais, Trabalhos’ (UP’s publications) for offer and exchange. The countries he travelled to were mainly Brazil, Germany, France and Belgium.   3. Retrieved 1 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina?P_ pagina=1004189.   4. I chose to use the name ‘Correia’, as in his birth record, and not ‘Corrêa’ – a common option at the time that perhaps the author appreciated, since it appears in some of his works and in the works of authors who quote him.  5. When the Mendes Correia family moved to Porto, their mansion in Vagos was a shelter for days spent resting and for the frequent political dinner parties (information given by Mendes Correia’s grandnieces in an interview, March 2010).  6. O Jornal de Vagos, Semanário progressista, noticioso, científico, literário e agrícola, no. 378, 23 June 1906.   7. The Medical and Surgical Schools (in Lisbon and Porto) were the heirs of the Royal Surgery Schools established in 1825 that were converted into Medical and Surgical Schools by the Decree-Law dated 29 December 1836.  8. Oliveira Martins is considered to be one of the founders of Portuguese modern historiography. When Mendes Correia mentioned to writer Guerra Junqueiro the work Vida de Nun’Álvares (Nuno Álvares Pereira was a reputed fourteenth-century general) by Oliveira Martins, Junqueiro declared he had taught Oliveira Martins to how to ‘“understand” the figure of Nuno Álvares’. When Mendes Correia told his father ‒ an ‘admirer and close and dedicated friend of Oliveira Martins’ (who he recalls seeing at home when he was a child) ‒ his father was indignant, as he thought ‘Oliveira Martins did not need Junqueiro to teach him anything whatsoever!’ (Mendes Correia 1946b: 46).

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  37

  9. Alberto Aguiar was a colleague of Hernâni Monteiro and Álvaro Teixeira Bastos, both professors at the FMUP. 10. A letter written when he was eighty-five years old in 1934, requesting his retirement, after almost forty years of service (family estate). 11. The name also comes up as Cármen de Boàda Loureiro Mendes (www.geneall.net) or Cármen de Loureiro Boada, as in Mendes Correia’s marital record to his second wife (Maria do Carmo Bahia). 12. Information given by Huet Bacelar. 13. Daughter of Francisco Jorge de Sousa Bahia, piano teacher, and Carlota Irma Colette Bahia. When she married Mendes Correia, with ‘full and absolute separation of property’, she was fifty-nine years old, had been divorced from Joaquim Gaudêncio Bandeira since 1945, lived in Avenida da República in Lisbon and had two children. She had first married in 1909 in Lisbon to writer and playwright Jorge Santos. She did not leave any heirs subject to guardianship provisions, did not leave any assets and did not issue any public will, nor did she approve a closed will. 14. Since the notary of this Notary Office died in December 2009, I searched the office of Eduardo Fernandes (Rua Rodrigues Sampaio, in Lisbon) who temporarily kept the data from the Fourth Notary Office. 15. The nephew of Humberto’s (Mendes Correia’s brother) second wife. 16. Óscar Carmona was President of the Portuguese Republic for five terms from 1926 to 1951. 17. On memory and transmission of family stories, see Sobral (2006). 18. He was proposed by Mendes Correia when he was in the School Council on 24 July 1922 (Pina 1966: 95). 19. He was also head of the Registry Office of Santa Casa da Misericórdia and a publicist, having cooperated with the newspaper Primeiro de Janeiro (he continuously published 1,445 weekly chronicles from 1930 to 1960). In 1945 he achieved the re-edition of the journal O Tripeiro and became its director. He also published texts in the Boletim Cultural da CMP. 20. First year (first discipline – descriptive anatomy, fourteenth discipline – histology); second year (second discipline – physiology, twelfth discipline – general pathology and semiology, fifteenth discipline – topographical anatomy); third year (third discipline – medical matter, fourth discipline – external pathology, tenth discipline – pathological anatomy, auxiliary course – surgical propaedeutics); fourth year (fifth discipline – operative medicine, seventh discipline – internal pathology, thirteenth discipline – public hygiene, auxiliary course – surgical propaedeutics, auxiliary course – medical propaedeutics, auxiliary course – mental and nervous diseases); fifth year (sixth discipline – obstetrics, eighth discipline – clinical medicine, ninth discipline – clinical surgery, eleventh discipline – forensic medicine, special course – mental and nervous diseases). 21. Correia attended the last year of the medical degree when Hernâni Monteiro was first admitted. 22. With the 1911 reform, the teaching staff were divided into sections. Mendes Correia’s career underwent changes according to the changes at the FCUP. 23. The FCUP, created by Decree-Law of 19 April 1911 by the minister António José de Almeida of the Provisional Government, was divided into sections, which were subdivided into groups. The first section (mathematical sciences) included the first group (analysis and geometry) and the second group (mechanics and astronomy). The second section (physical-chemical sciences) included the first group (physics) and the second group (chemistry). The third section (historical-natural sciences) included the

38  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

first group (geological sciences) and the second group (biological sciences). Among the assistant professors we can find Mendes Correia and doctors Américo Pires de Lima and Celestino da Costa Maia (Santos 2007: 125). 24. Retrieved 1 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina? P_pagina=1004189. 25. On 23 March 1927, Mendes Correia announced that he could no longer coordinate the anthropology discipline, which was then transferred to Pinto de Lima; from 1927 onwards, Pinto de Lima was also assistant professor to Mendes Correia in the discipline of general geography at the FLUP (Pina 1966: 123‒24). 26. He was then also President of the Porto section of the Portuguese Meteorological and Geophysical Society. 27. The son of Augusto Pereira Nobre, professor at the FCUP and Minister of Education. 28. The son of zoologist and medical doctor Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (1863‒1921). 29. He collaborated in the work História da Cidade do Porto, which was planned by him, published in three volumes (from 1962 to 1965). 30. Retrieved 1 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina? P_pagina=1004189. 31. On 2 December 1930, the FLUP’s School Council appointed Magalhães Basto to replace Mendes Correia in the discipline of Portuguese colonial geography for six months (Pina 1966: 132), since he was responsible for the Portuguese section of the 1931 Paris Colonial Exhibition. 32. Retrieved 1 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina? P_pagina=1004189. 33. For the summary of minutes of the FLUP’s School Council meetings, see Pina (1966). 34. Actas da Assembleia-Geral da Universidade do Porto, 1911‒1935. 35. Appointed by the Estado Novo as mayor (from 1933 to 1936), he was succeeded by Mendes Correia. 36. Mendes Correia was connected to the movement in the typography of ‘Renascença Portuguesa’, created in 1912 and headed by Teixeira de Pascoais until 1916, and subsequently by Leonardo Coimbra. He published in the typography of ‘Renascença Portuguesa’. (Mendes Correia 1916a, 1916c, 1919b, 1925j) and cooperated in its main publication, the journal A Águia (Mendes Correia 1916d, 1924b), founded by Jaime Cortesão, Teixeira de Pascoais, Leonardo Coimbra and Álvaro Pinto, and owned by the group from 1912 to 1932. It gathered individuals with different modes of thinking, but who shared a common nationalist ideal. António Sérgio (who opposed Pascoais’ traditionalist Lusitanianism), Jaime Cortesão and Raul Proença distanced themselves from this and founded the journal Seara Nova (1921), and this group took on the ideological fight against Salazarism. Mendes Correia also published in Seara Nova (Mendes Correia 1932b). After the revolution on 25 April 1974, the ‘Nova Renascença’ movement arose and published in 1980 its journal’s first edition. 37. Founded in 1908, it reappeared in 1945, directed by Magalhães Basto until his death in 1960. 38. This existed from 1933 to 1936. 39. This existed from 1929 to 1936; it was then reincorporated into the National Education Committee and converted into the Institute for Higher Culture (IAC). 40. The Anais was also from the Institute of Scientific and Anthropological Research. 41. The Estado Novo regime (1933‒74) was contemporaneous with other dictatorships, such as in Italy (Mussolini, 1922‒45), Germany (the Third Reich, 1933‒45) and France (the Vichy government, 1940‒44).

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  39

42. Retrieved 1 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina?P_ pagina=1004189. 43. Its name was changed in 1966 to the Institut Fondamental de l’Afrique Noire. 44. Théodore Monod was a doctor in science (naturalist) and was the first director of the IFAN until 1965. 45. Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné (1945‒46). 46. He referred to Mendes Correia as a ‘friend and colleague’ (Vasconcelos 1928: 19). Mendes Correia visited him several times at his Lisbon home. On one occasion, they talked about the ethnography of the region where Mendes Correia had been. Leite de Vasconcelos wrote several notes with Mendes Correia’s information and cast them ‘in the numerous mail boxes included in his file’. Leite de Vasconcelos was peremptory: ‘Nobody else in Europe has collected more material than me!’ (Mendes Correia 1946b: 16). 47. Father-in-law of Admiral Sarmento Rodrigues, who attended the ESC and later became Minister of the Overseas. The Guerra Junqueiro House-Museum was set up in 1941 when Mendes Correia was Mayor of Porto. 48. Due to his eloquence and extreme voice projection, as well as his physical proportions, he had commonly been called the ‘Lion of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’ or ‘Lion of Metro’. 49. He had the company of the then young Adriano Moreira (1922–2022), already professor at the ESC and future Minister of the Overseas. 50. In 1922, Pope Pius XI allowed him to set up at the ‘Casina di Pio IV’ (Vatican). He sat in chair no. 43 of the most solemn room on 26 October 1936. On 25 November 1940, as per Pontifical Law, he was allowed the treatment of ‘Excellency’, awarded by Pope Pius XII, rising to the level of the members of the Royal Academy of Italy (Castro 1964: 18‒19). 51. He was designated as one of its founding members on 22 December 1937 and became full member, being assigned chair no. 10, on 19 March 1945 (Cardoso 1999: 139). 52. Professor Mendes Corrêa. 1888-1988: 1.º Centenário do seu nascimento. 53. According to the ‘General Registry of Admitted Members’, book no. 37, of SGL, Mendes Correia was proposed by Francisco Reis Santos (professor at the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Lisbon (FLUL)), João Alexandre Lopes Galvão (military officer and engineer) and Henrique de Vilhena (doctor and university professor), and was admitted on 19 February 1934. He was then director of the FCUP. His registry number is 13,339; at the SGL he was: vice-president of the Emigration Committee from 1946; member of this committee from 1951; member of the geodesy, ethnography, cartography and anthropology sections from 1951 to 1959; member of the board from 1950 to 1952; chairman of the board from March 1952; member of the sociology section from April 1954; member of the prehistorical archaeology section from April 1959; and member of the demography and social hygiene section from May 1959. 54. He also received the following international decorations: Knighthood of the Civil Order of Alfonso XII (Madrid, 1921); Collar of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Nuovi Lincei (Rome, 1924); Commander of the Order of the Crown of Belgium (Brussels, 1931); Officer of the National Order of the Southern Cross (Rio de Janeiro, 1937); Commander of the Order of the Crown of Italy (Rome, 1939); Benefaction, with gold medal National Dante Alighieri Society (Rome, 1940); Officer of the National Order of the Legion of Honour (Paris, 1941); Commander of the Order of Alfonso X the Wise (Madrid, 1945); Medal of Vermeil of the French League of Social and Philanthropic Mutual Aid (Paris, 1955); and Grand Officer of the Order of Public Instruction (France). He also received the Honour of the Portuguese Royal Beneficent

40  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Society (Petropolis, Brazil, 1937). In the Portuguese context he received the following honours: Grand Officer of the Order of Public Instruction (Lisbon, 1931); Grand Officer of the Military Order of Christ (Lisbon, 1937); Grand Cross of the Order of Public Instruction (Lisbon, 1941); Grand Officer of the Military Order of Saint James of the Sword (Lisbon, 1957); Grand Officer of the Order of the Empire (Lisbon, 1958); and Commandery of the Porto Volunteer Fire Brigade (Porto). He was also honoured with the Portuguese Red Cross. 55. The World Organization of the Portuguese Youth (1936‒74) was a youth organization of the Estado Novo. Its aim was to promote physical activity, the devotion to the Motherland, and an inclination for discipline and military duty. 56. Anonymous 1957; AAVV 1957. 57. He presided over the Executive Committee of the JMGIU and he succeeded Correia in coordinating the geology chair. 58. AAVV 1957: 125. 59. From: the Minister of the Presidency; the Ministers of the Navy, Foreign Office and Overseas; Júlio Dantas; Caeiro da Mata; Cordeiro Ramos; Pedro Calmon, Maximino Correia, Amândio Tavares and Moisés Bensabat Amzalak (rectors of the Universities of Brazil, Coimbra, Porto and Técnica of Lisbon, respectively); the ambassadors of Brazil, Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Union of South Africa; the general governors of Angola and Guinea and former overseas governors; Henri de Breuil; Enrico Cerulli (President of the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia); Marc-Rodolphe Sauter (President of the Institut suisse d’anthropologie générale à Genève); Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt (Institute of Anthropological Research of the University of Mainz, Germany); Norbert Laude, from the Royal Academy of Colonial Sciences and director of the University Institute of Overseas Territories of Belgium; Renato Biasutti, from the National Academy of Lincei, Rome; José Maria Cordero Torres, from the Society of International and Colonial Studies, Madrid; Melville Jean Herskovits, from the Northwestern University, Illinois; Raymond Furon, of the National Museum of Natural History, Paris; Frans Olbrechts, director of the Royal Museum of the Belgian Congo; Emory Ross and Daryll Forde, of the International African Institute in London; Julien Vanhove, of the International Institute of Differing Civilizations; general governor Oswald Durand, perpetual secretary of the Academy of Colonial Sciences of Paris; and Émile Verleyen, from the University Institute of Overseas Territories, Belgium (AAVV 1957; Anonymous 1957). 60. Several archaeologists took part, such as: H. Breuil; F. Bouza-Brey; J. Maluquer de Motes; J. M. Blázquez; P. Bosh Gimpera; J. Desmond Clark; A. Garcia y Bellido; J. Roche; and R. Dart. 61. Acta da reunião da Comissão de Toponímia da Câmara Municipal do Porto, 8 January 1963. 62. Elogio do Professor Doutor António Mendes Correia, Lisbon, Portuguese Academy of History; Castro 1964. 63. Machado Cruz was then director of the Museum of Natural History. Huet Bacelar collaborated in this tribute. 64. Professor Mendes Corrêa, 1888‒1988: 1.º Centenário do seu nascimento. 65. The first Portuguese association of archaeology – the Sociedade Arqueológica Lusitana – can be dated back to 1849. Several renowned names were associated with it, such as João Batista da Silva Leitão de Almeida Garrett, Feliciano Castilho and Alexandre Herculano. Only in 1933 was the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology, History and Ethnology founded, which published the journal Ethnos. 66. Reitoria da Universidade do Porto 2005.

Biography of Mendes Correia  •  41

67. At the UP Botanical Garden, the following exhibitions took place: Ethnology and Archaeology, Mendes Correia (October‒December 2005); Medicine, Luís de Pina (February‒March 2006); Botany, Gonçalo Sampaio (June‒September 2006). The tribute to the zoologist Augusto Pereira Nobre took place from 2006 to 2007. 68. The Portuguese have created several ‘cabinets of reading’: Rio de Janeiro (1837), Recife (1850) and Salvador (1863). 69. This is a relevant work from the perspective of the interpretations of the formation of the Portuguese nation. Perhaps that was the reason why he was present in libraries that institutionalized a certain Portuguese national presence in Brazil. 70. In addition to myself, the following people participated: Teresa Salomé Alves da Mota (UL); Catarina Casanova (Higher Institute for Social Sciences and Politics (ISCSP)); João Luís Cardoso (Universidade Aberta); Ana Cristina Martins (IICT and Universidade Lusófona); and João Pereira Neto (ISCSP). 71. Also participating were: Huet Bacelar; João Luís Cardoso; Armando Coelho and Sérgio Gomes (FLUP); Fernando Sousa (FLUP and Universidade Lusíada of Porto); Maria José Cunha (FCUP); and Fernando Noronha (FCUP). 72. He completed a degree in medicine. He was professor at the ISCSPU, where he taught ethnology of the Portuguese overseas and was responsible for the complementary course in anthropological and ethnological sciences. In his fieldwork in Angola he counted on the support of missionary anthropologist Carlos Estermann. Along with his daughter, he performed studies among the Bushmen.

Chapter 2

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal The Case of the Porto School of Anthropology

This chapter deals with the context in which the Porto School of Anthropology emerged, i.e. the time before Mendes Correia and the phase of the school’s institutionalization and development. The process of affirmation of anthropology in Portugal – in its biological and sociocultural dimensions – was influenced by the scientific action and production of its mentors. Furthermore, this institutional consolidation is connected to the development of scientific organizations and to the disciplines that arose, or expanded, in the late nineteenth century, such as geology, archaeology, natural sciences and medicine on the one hand, and philology, history, ethnology and ethnography on the other. This process was influenced by political and ideological factors. Among these, we should highlight the concerns regarding the consolidation of the colonial empire and also the knowledge on the origins, ethnic identity and cultural practices of the Portuguese people. The first efforts to create a chair of anthropology at a university were started in Coimbra by Bernardino Machado (1851‒1944). However, in Porto, the SPAE was created, a unique society in the country, despite its similarity to others abroad, with a remit to stimulate and develop anthropological studies; it is connected to the Porto School of Anthropology, and over several decades it maintained relationships with national and foreign scientists, promoting the exchange of works and the debate of ideas. Mendes Correia, professor at the FCUP and the FLUP, was one of the SPAE’s founders and one of its main mentors. Due to the SPAE, a considerable estate started to be collected, composed of books and scientific journals

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  43

from several countries, particularly from Europe, the Americas and Russia. As mentioned by João de Pina-Cabral (1991), rather than trying to define anthropology, it is better to identify the contexts where it is positioned. Next I will also present the (historical and sociological) context in which anthropology in Portugal is set and, in particular, the SPAE and the Porto School of Anthropology. I will start by presenting some of the paths of the anthropological thinking and of the institutionalization of anthropology in general, approaching mainly the Enlightenment and modern periods. Subsequently I will describe the movements within which formulations on the nation and the motherland (Portugal) were made, such as Romanticism, nationalism and positivism. I will also analyse the separation between the study of the natural facts and the study of social facts. I will also have the opportunity to name some scientific societies and institutes that arose in parallel to schools of anthropology. I will then describe the context where the Porto School of Anthropology emerged ‒ this is essential to understanding some of the options taken and the choice of interests.

Paths in Anthropological Thinking and the Institutionalization of Anthropology Anthropology is the study of the human being in its various perspectives – biological, social and cultural – and can be divided into specialization areas, considering the aspects it prioritizes: physical or biological anthropology, social anthropology (social organization, kinship and social institutions) and cultural anthropology (religion, symbolic systems, and practices). According to Marvin Harris, the period since the publication of John Locke’s work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), which deals in a systematic way with the issues of origin and the essence of human knowledge, up to the French Revolution (1789), of around a hundred years, coincides with the Enlightenment, during which the anthropological theory began to be developed (Harris 2001 [1968]: 8). It is mainly during this period, which approximately corresponds to the eighteenth century, that anthropology obtained a scientific character. Among the phenomena that enabled this advancement, we can notice the fact that the bourgeoisie was trying to free itself from the power of the Church and of the nobles and, on the other hand, seeking to replace that power with democracy. Certain religious beliefs were then denounced as superstitions and the idea that society should be governed by reason was widespread. In addition, the maxim was disseminated that only technological advancements could open the way to progress, industry and science. Several authors regard this period as playing a central role in the

44  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

emergence of anthropology. Durkheim (1858‒1917) included Montesquieu (1689‒1755) among his academic ancestors; Claude Lévi-Strauss adopted Rousseau’s ideas (and Chateaubriand’s); Radcliffe-Brown and EvansPritchard recognized the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment as their intellectual ancestors; Franz Boas was inspired by Johann Gottfried von Herder; and Edmund Leach claimed Giambattista Vico as the founding father of social and cultural anthropology. The study of universal history was also important in the German Enlightenment. Here, a new area of study emerged: the Völkerkunde, or science of ‘others’ (the study of said ‘primitive’, non-European cultures), in contrast to the Volkskunde, or science of the people (the study of the popular traditions or of the folklore of a country). From the 1760s and 1770s onwards, several authors in German-speaking countries and in Russia formulated, classified and applied a discipline called Ethnographia (1767) or Ethnographie (1771).1 In the 1870s, the Völkerkunde (ethnography and ethnology) grew within a discipline that developed in relation to history, geography, natural history, anthropology, language and statistics. Scholars in Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Bohemia (currently the Czech Republic), Austria-Hungary, Holland and France quickly adopted the new disciplinary vocabulary during the last decades of the eighteenth century and were then followed by scholars in the United States and England. At the same time, the physical study of humankind was developed by Georges-Louis Leclerc from France, known as the Comte de Buffon (1707‒88), by the Dutch anatomist Petrus Camper (1722‒89), James Burnett (Lord Monboddo) (1714‒99) from Scotland, the Scottish surgeon John Hunter (1728‒93), Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752‒1840) from Germany, Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring (1755‒1830) from Germany, and the French anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769‒1832), among others. Furthermore, Carl Linnaeus (1707‒78), the pre-eminent naturalist of the eighteenth century, was the author of one of the oldest classifications of humankind in terms of ‘races’. Linnaeus, and other biologists of his time, claimed that species were units created by God and that the variation within them represented imperfections in the reproduction of the original ‘type’. His book System of Nature (1735) divided all living beings in species and genera, launching the bases for ulterior classifications. Therefore, alongside the comparative study of the moral systems in France, the study of the development of human society during the Scottish Enlightenment period and the biological study of humankind, we find a tradition of research in Central and Eastern Europe that focused on the historical relationships between peoples and nations not only in the non-Western world, but also in Europe itself. This tradition was promoted in centralized states, such as France and the United Kingdom, and in

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  45

multiethnic countries with a greater sensitivity towards social formations, from ethnic groups to national cultures and nation-states (Vermeulen 2006: 184). Anthropology during the Enlightenment was therefore diverse and diffuse. The idea of anthropology in the beginning of the twentieth century as a unified science of the human being does not apply in the eighteenth century. However, steps have been taken towards a formation of anthropology as a general study of humankind, its history and diversity. Among these we find natural philosophy, comparative religion, historical linguistics, geography, universal history, natural history, ethnology and protosociology (Vermeulen 2006: 185). In general, we might say that the modern world emerged between the Napoleonic Wars (1792‒1815) and the First World War (1914‒18). This period coincided globally with the era of the Industrial Revolution. The technological transformations and people’s greater possibilities of movement led to a greater diffusion of goods, information and knowledge. On the other hand, the relations of power were being reflected upon and many were criticized, abolished or replaced by others. All these changes were favourable to the emergence of anthropology as a science. This evolved under the influence of the ideas of some thinkers and of the change that had been occurring in Europe for several years, since the formation of capitalism to secularized science, through nationalism. As referred to by Bruno Latour (1991), the idea of an autonomous individual was a prerequisite for the idea of society. The free individual would be the ‘measure of all things’ and, as such, society might become the object of a systematic reflection. Both modern philosophy and the scientific and technological advancements of the eighteenth century were important in terms of collecting knowledge, although anthropology only became an academic discipline in the nineteenth century. The turn from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century, in which the human being was no longer considered as a subject and became an object, was described by Michel Foucault (1966). The turn of the human being into the order of ‘scientific’ objects occurred due to an event at a knowledge level, that is, because at the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was a general redistribution of the episteme. In the study of the human being, new approaches emerged, of which evolutionism was one of the most important and most influential. Evolutionism During the second half of the nineteenth century, two books by Charles Darwin (1809‒82) were published that made an important contribution to the systematization of the evolutionist idea: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the

46  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Struggle for Life (1859) and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). These works influenced the current designated as evolutionist anthropology. According to this train of thought, certain cultures would still remain behind the level of civilization that had been reached by Western society at that moment. It was considered that these societies, which were seen as ‘primitive’, had no history because they had stagnated in it. Other factors connected to the idea of evolution were industrial revolution and urban development. When the data on other peoples were collected, this was mostly done not by the people who analysed them – office scientists – but rather by travellers, missionaries, merchants or local employees. The evolutionist method used the comparison of data that was subsequently classified; by means of these data, societies were compared and recorded into a linear, diachronic sequence and organized into a hierarchy. Certain elements – such as objects or cultural practices – could be examples of its individual evolutionary status, being identifiable and denouncing the place in which a certain society was placed on the civilizational scale. Western society, which was considered to be at a higher level, was seen as the norm from which all others were distinguished, classified and hierarchized. The main topics of evolutionism were religious, family and legal institutions, as well as the aspects of material culture; it aimed at evidencing how culture was influenced by a universal and single linear evolution. Evolutionists considered some peoples as ‘primitive’ and these, although seen as having potential to be identical to the said ‘civilized’, were considered backward in their cultural evolution and attached to the values and institutions of the past (Jahoda 1999). Few evolutionists performed fieldwork and this was one of the main criticisms directed at them. Therefore, and due to the range of the object of study of evolutionism (which included the study of culture, but also the origins of the human being and its evolution), prehistoric archaeology and human palaeontology had, in a way, filled that gap. The result of an increase in archaeological and palaeontological research led to important discoveries, such as Cro-Magnon and Pithecanthropus fossils. At the Porto School of Anthropology, several studies by Mendes Correia and his collaborators were inspired by these methodologies and have contributed to the development of these disciplines and to their autonomy in the university. Therefore, despite the criticism, evolutionism allowed a better knowledge of the human being’s past. Moreover, it allowed the study of humankind to be less compromised with religious dogmas. However, to him, this issue arose in the middle of the 1940s when he exposed his evolutionist ideas, on the one hand, and his faith, on the other (Mendes Correia 1946b). Franz Boas (1858‒1942), a dominant figure of American anthropology from the 1890s until the 1920s, was the first to emphatically oppose to

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  47

the procedures used by evolutionist anthropologists, and this opposition materialized in the lecture ‘The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology’, presented in 1896, in which he tried to suggest methods more suited to the study of sociocultural facts. Boas was born in Westphalia (Germany) and initially studied physics and geography in Heidelberg and Bonn. The geographical expedition to Baffin Land (1883‒84) and the contact with Eskimos had probably stimulated his interest in anthropology. His ethnographic research of the Inuit in Baffin Island and of the Native American of the Northwest Coast was complemented by his work on language and linguistics, as well as in biological anthropology (Boas 1940; Stocking Jr. 1974). He divided anthropology into four branches: physical anthropology, linguistics, cultural anthropology and prehistoric archaeology. He opposed the prevailing evolutionist paradigm of Victorian anthropology and insisted that positioning individual cultures on the savagery‒barbarism‒civilization scale not only made it impossible to see their particularism and integrity, but also made it difficult to accomplish the task of rebuilding the nonwritten stories of the people being studied. The idea of the particularism of each culture, with an individual story, the knowledge of which should demand the performance of fieldwork, was therefore developed by Boas’ school. Culturalism,2 sometimes designated as historical particularism, and the criticism of evolutionism, which still held during the first half of the twentieth century, were characteristic features of this school. From this school the concept of cultural relativism and the idea that evolution can also occur from a more ‘complex’ to a ‘simpler’ state was created. Romanticism, Nationalism and Positivism: Founders of the Nation and of the Motherland The Romantic movement is usually seen as a replacement for the Enlightenment in the reactionary years following the French Revolution. While the Enlightenment focused on the individual and the rational mind, Romanticism emphasised the group and emotion. At that time, the change from ‘a universalistic discourse about free individuals and democracy, to a particularistic discourse about nation-building and national sentiment’ was observed (Eriksen and Nielsen 2001: 12). However, despite these considerations, Ernest Gellner (1991), for example, claims that perhaps it is better to see the two movements as parallel flows that alternately converge and diverge. In Portugal, the collection of folklore elements, with a fundamentally rural character, was related to Romanticism,3 a movement that was associated there with the idealized vision of peasantry and the escape from social realities in urban areas. A scientific tradition was developed regarding the study of the ‘uses and customs’ of the ‘Portuguese people’, influenced

48  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

by the ideas of social evolutionism. The different aspects of popular culture were then seen as representative of past survivals (that humankind’s progress had overcome (Fabian 1983)), but also of the national essence. On the other hand, some postromantic currents were influenced by positivist concepts. Positivism,4 a term with varied (although related) meanings, was yet another influence in Portugal. In anthropology, it tends to mean any approach that deals with this discipline as a science devoted to the search for objective knowledge by means of the collection of facts and the formulation of laws. In a strict sense, it refers to the scientific methodology of Auguste Comte (1798‒1857), who, in the early nineteenth century, sought to give social sciences the same philosophical status as natural sciences. Historian Fernando Catroga wrote two texts: on the ‘beginnings of positivism in Portugal’ (1977a) and another on ‘the importance of positivism in the consolidation of Republic ideology’ (1977b), which resumes the issue of the previous text. According to him, although positivism has initially penetrated the domains of the exact sciences, it started to be ‘adopted by the promoters of social sciences’ (1977b: 285); furthermore, in the last three decades of the nineteenth century, there was a ‘mating’ between the political expression of republicanism and positivism (1977a: 287). For him, both republicanism and positivism were tributaries of French events. Auguste Comte (disciple and secretary of Henri SaintSimon) was probably the first who sought to systematize an explanatory theory for social phenomena, which must have occurred as a result of the influence of the contemporaneous French society and the sequels of the French Revolution (1789‒99). The explanation of the ‘irruption of sociological positivism in Portugal’ should further involve adding to the socioeconomic and ideological conditionings the importance of increasing scientific studies in the Medical and Surgical Schools and the Polytechnic Schools of Lisbon and Porto, mainly in the domain of sciences – physics, chemistry and anatomy (Catroga 1977a: 313). In fact, as positivism is a philosophy of sciences, it was also influential on anthropology, biology, mathematics, medicine, psychiatry,5 linguistics, ethnography, literature, pedagogy and law. Deep down, positivism consisted of the awakening of a certain scientific mentality. The proximity of medicine and anthropology in some of the works produced by the Porto School of Anthropology, as well as the fact that some of their authors had medical studies, suggests the need to understand the context of the institutionalization of this school. It was also during the emergence of positivism that medicine, by using the experimental method, established itself as a scientific discipline in a period marked by the prestige acquired by life sciences and greater economic development, as well as of the industries, namely those connected to chemistry (such as pharmacy).

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  49

According to Catroga, positivism contributed to the doctrinal cohesion and the organization of the Republican Party, in connection with the ‘political awakening of the middle classes and mainly of the urban small bourgeoisie’ (1977b: 289). The positivist republicanism defended the peaceful extinction of religions, the ‘separation between the Church and the State’ and the ‘laicization of consciences and of education and teaching institutions’ (Catroga 1977a: 391‒92), since ‘the clerical influence’ conveyed ‘notions contrary to the liberal democratism and to scientific progress’ (Catroga 1977b: 310). However, freedom of worship was accepted. This religious void did not correspond to the absence of moral relationships between individuals: the positivist atheist humanism ‘could not be indifferent to the moral problem, because, as a philosophy with a social inclination, it would necessarily have to equate the ethical relationships among individuals’; in Comte’s positivism, this remains clear – his political system ‘was surmounted with a morality and found its standard of conduct in the principle vivre pour les autres, that is, in altruism’ (Catroga 1977b: 316‒17). As we shall see, some of Mendes Correia’s texts were influenced by the idea of a nonreligious, but altruistic morality, partly inspired by the work of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844‒1900) – a philanthropic morality that, nevertheless, does not renounce the advantages of individualism (Mendes Correia 1913a, 1925a, 1931a, 1946b). Teófilo Braga also considered in ‘Systematization of Morality’6 that ‘the preservation instinct was rooted in egotism, an impulse that was inherent to the nature of animality’, but ‘in the individual, one would also find the instinct of solidarity of the species, the naturalist foundation of altruism’ (Catroga 1977b: 322). According to Catroga, Braga was the ‘leader of positivism in Portugal’, becoming the ‘most prestigious ideologist of the republican movement’ (1977b: 326). The fact that he presided over the Provisional Government of the Portuguese Republic, and subsequently became President of the Republic, is a significant symbol and the materialization of the triumph of republican positivism in Portugal. Study of Natural Facts/Study of Social Facts The term ‘anthropology’ is often defined as a science between biology and culture. However, the fracture between the biological and the sociocultural has sometimes raised more problems than solutions for anthropological thought. Some authors have dealt with this subject, such as Sahlins (2008) (from a rather interpretative point of view) and Ingold (1988, 1990) (seeking to establish a bridge between the biological and the social). The terminology used over time can also be valid in the analysis of the distinction between the study of natural facts and the study of social facts. The term ‘anthropology’

50  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

emerged in the late eighteenth century and, in 1855 in France, was used to name a chair in a university; meanwhile, the term ‘ethnography’ was used only in the early nineteenth century. As knowledge accumulated, anthropology began to encompass several specializations. Mendes Correia’s own work was marked by the exploration of the contributions not only of biology, but also of culture, to anthropology; several of his works are an example of this, featuring both fields in the title (1934c, 1940f, 1944d, 1954a). Physical anthropology was still developed in the nineteenth century, mainly in the French context (but also the German and Italian contexts, among others), inspired by the Paris school of anthropology, directed by surgeon and anthropologist Paul Broca (1824‒80) and influenced, for example, by the prehistoric archaeology studies by Gabriel de Mortillet (1821‒98), the phrenology studies by François-Joseph Gall (1758‒1828) and anthropometry studies by Adolphe Quételet (1796‒1874). The definitions of anthropology varied throughout the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century. Armand de Quatrefages (1810‒92) has conceived of anthropology as the ‘natural history of Man’. Broca understood anthropology as the study of the human group as a whole and in its relations to nature. In 1866, Broca divided the discipline into: zoological anthropology, descriptive or ethnological anthropology, and general anthropology. In 1885, Paul Topinard (1830‒1911) suggested another division: 1) anthropology itself, or zoological anthropology, was divided into two groups: general anthropology (regarding the human species) and special anthropology (regarding human ‘races’); 2) ethnography was divided into two groups: general ethnography (common to all peoples) and special ethnography (specific of each people). In 1892, the American archaeologist and ethnologist Daniel Garrison Brinton (1837‒99) proposed another division: somatology (including anatomy, physiology, human biology and psychology), ethnology, ethnography and archaeology. In 1900, the Swiss anthropologist Rudolf Martin (1864‒1925) equated two sections: physical anthropology (synonym to somatology or morphology) and psychical anthropology (synonym to ethnology and ethnography). Edward Burnett Tylor (1832‒1917)7 divided it in 1906 as follows: physical anthropology (zoological anthropology, palaeontological anthropology and ethnological anthropology) and cultural anthropology (archaeology, ethnology, sociology ‒ subdivided into organization of government and society ‒ moral ideas and codes, religious practices, expression of thought, written language, drawing and technology ‒ arts, industries and its geographical distributions). For a long time, some physical anthropological studies mainly privileged anthropometry – based on measurements of the fossil human being and, afterwards, of the living being – and this was one of the methods that most influenced some of the works of the Porto School of Anthropology.

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  51

Anthropologist Jorge de Freitas Branco named five phases that contributed to the gestation of social sciences and anthropology in Portugal: 1) ‘anti-traditionalism and State dirigisme’ ‒ a phase in which the Crown’s employees were entrusted with the task of covering delimited areas of the country and the colonies to collect information; 2) ‘travel literature’ ‒ reports and diaries of authors influenced by the physiocratic currents that supplied data on agriculture, work instruments and technologies; 3) the ‘Romantic School’ ‒ romantic movement that consolidated the interest in the collection of archives, oral traditions, ‘uses and customs’, ‘folk traditions’ and materials from archaeological excavations, thereby discovering the ‘Portuguese people’ and the ‘historical continuity connected to the territory’; 4) the ‘Philological-Cultural School’, which included Adolfo Coelho8 (1847‒1919) (who in one of his works distances himself from the romantic inspiration and draws a study on a minority: the Gypsies (1892)), considering language as a feature of culture, and Leite de Vasconcelos (1901), with a work on Portuguese dialectology and a compilation of materials systematized in Etnografia Portuguesa, published in volumes from 1933 (volume 1) to 1988 (volume 10),9 and who was also devoted to museology;10 5) the ‘Historical-Geographical School’, in which Alberto Sampaio (1841‒1908) is included (with historical and economic studies, where the analysis of social phenomena considers the determinisms of history and the environmental conditionalisms (1923)) and Rocha Peixoto (1908), who raised the question of communalist aspects in the country. According to Freitas Branco, from these phases we find the ‘link’ to the anthropological discourse, which formation and consolidation is found especially in the second half of the nineteenth century (1986: 76‒79). The interest in the study of folk traditions dates back to the nineteenth century and was influenced by romantic ideals.11 João Batista da Silva Leitão de Almeida Garrett and Alexandre Herculano were the first to be fascinated by the Romanticism of origins and by popular elements, in the 1820s, when they were exiled in England during the Liberal wars (Pina-Cabral 1991: 22). Joaquim de Vasconcelos, having received his education in Germany (where he met philologist and medievalist Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos,12 whom he married) and Mendes Correia’s secondary school teacher, asserted that the popular element was the most solid stratum of nationality; he mainly devoted himself to the history of art and defended a ‘nationalization program of the Portuguese art … against the one coming from abroad’ (Leal 2006: 127). At the turn of the twentieth century, and under the designation of anthropology, two types of knowledge were practised in Portugal ‒ anthropology (rather more closely connected to physical anthropology) and ethnology ‒ the former connected to natural sciences and the latter

52  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

of a rather ethnographical nature, connected to traditional literature and folk traditions, dating back to Romanticism. There were therefore two types of scientific projects in anthropological practice, but both were variations of evolutionist theories and were formed by means of complementary studies on ‘race’ and ‘people’. The term ‘anthropology’ corresponded to a more comprehensive science and was essentially motivated by biological research. Ethnology (which included folklore studies) corresponded to the study of the ‘Portuguese people’, in connection with a bourgeois nationalist project influenced by the German and French schools. According to João Leal, who in his research mainly considers the ethnological strand, the ‘emergence of Portuguese anthropology as an autonomous disciplinary field’ (2000: 29) occurred in the 1870s and 1880s. He highlights Adolfo Coelho, Teófilo Braga, Leite de Vasconcelos and Consiglieri Pedroso (1851‒1910). These authors developed their work in the intellectual context that was influenced by the Conferences of the Casino in 1871 (in which Adolfo Coelho and Teófilo Braga took part), which was a ‘turning point in the Portuguese culture and science’ (Leal 2000: 29). Ethnologist Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira (1972: 5) also agrees that the founders of the ‘Portuguese ethnological school’ are Adolfo Coelho, Leite de Vasconcelos and Rocha Peixoto. The question ‘who are we’ was, according to Veiga de Oliveira, prevailing in Adolfo Coelho’s work and that, according to geographer Orlando Ribeiro, underlay everything Leite de Vasconcelos has written. For Vasconcelos, the ‘general science of knowledge of the peoples’ is: The Ethnology that includes: 1) Ethnogeny … which studies the origins of the people in question from the data of Physical Anthropology, History and Glothology; 2) Ethnography – which may be descriptive or comparative-genetical, and refer to a specific period or to a set of periods (since Antiquity) and which shall study: a) the Territory and the Race; b) the Folklore; and c) the Ergology of that people; 3) General Ethnology, of general conclusions and summaries. (Oliveira 1972: 6)

According to Veiga de Oliveira, Leite de Vasconcelos’s systematics ‘marks a step forward, in relation to Adolfo Coelho, mainly concerning the framework of General Ethnology as a fundamental study of a people; and, above all, in the concise definition of the positioning of Folklore in relation to Ethnography’ (1972: 6‒7). However, there are other aspects to be raised in the definition. It includes in ethnology the studies of physical anthropology and the study of the territory and ‘race’. In this case, I believe that, for the author, ‘race’ was a synonym of people and not a distinguishable biological entity; in that sense, one of the components of ethnology would be to study the people of a territory.

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  53

From 1878 to 1885, Oliveira Martins (1845‒94) organized the Social Sciences Library, an endeavour for the diffusion of knowledge that ‘encompassed the evolution of institutions and societies since their primitive forms until the modern State’ (Saraiva and Lopes 1996: 842). As part of this endeavour he published Elementos de Antropologia: História Natural do Homem (1880); As Raças Humanas e a Civilização Primitiva (1881); Sistema dos Mitos Religiosos (1882); Quadro das Instituições Primitivas (1883); Tábuas de Cronologia (1884); História da República Romana (1885); História da Civilização Ibérica (1879); and O Brasil e as Colónias Portuguesas (1880), in which he defended colonization mainly in Angola. In História de Portugal (1879), which was continued in Portugal Contemporâneo (1881), he considered that Portugal owed its existence ‘not to geographic, ethnic or economic conditions, but rather to a collective will’ (Saraiva and Lopes 1996: 848). The above-mentioned Teófilo Braga, Joaquim de Vasconcelos and Alberto Sampaio,13 and also Joaquim Mendes dos Remédios (1867‒1932), Antero de Quental (1842‒91), Manuel Pinheiro Chagas (1842‒1895) and Francisco Morais Sarmento (1833‒99) were other precursors of ethnological studies. The separation between the study of natural facts and the study of social facts may also be depicted based on the creation of different institutions or the organization of events that promoted varied studies. In the late nineteenth century, some attempts to build ethnographic and anthropological museums and related institutions began to emerge. In the Portuguese Ethnographic Museum (created in 1893), which in 1897 adopted the more comprehensive designation of Portuguese Ethnologic Museum, the archaeological estate still prevailed over ethnographic materials (Leal 2000: 35). On the other hand, the names of some institutions prove the role played by anthropology in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century in relation to zoology or natural history. This is the case for the Bocage Museum (National Museum of Natural History, which combines zoology and anthropology); the Department of Zoology and Anthropology of the FCUP; and the Museum of Anthropology of the UC, associated with the Museum of Natural History of that university, where zoology, mineralogy, geology and botany are also represented. In Portugal, perhaps because the naturalist variant of anthropology is not really an ancestor of the discipline currently taught in courses, it has been widely ignored. However, this variant influenced not only the Coimbra School of Anthropology, but also that of Porto, from the late nineteenth century until the 1950s. On the other hand, some scientific societies allowed the structuring of interests and paradigms that later shaped the schools of anthropology and vice versa. Therefore, the creation of schools was often associated with the creation of scientific societies and research institutes, as well as museums and journals, which contributed to the institutionalization of

54  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

anthropology. Although the systematic collection of objects only emerged in the nineteenth century, the European courts of monarchs possessed important collections from remote countries, some of which were later integrated into cabinets and museums. The first ethnographic museums emerged in German-language regions, such as Vienna (1806), Munich (1859) and Berlin (1868). A fact often overlooked in the histories of anthropology is precisely that the institutionalization of this field of study began in German-language regions, and not in France or England. This phenomenon is noteworthy, since both Germany and Austria did not have any colonies, but are examples of the influence of Johann Gottfried von Herder’s work, which led Germans to promote studies on the ‘people’. For that reason, these first museums were mainly interested in the Völkskunde (domestic peasant cultures) and less in the Völkerkunde (remote peoples). Among the greatest national museums, we can mention those in London (1753), Paris (1801) and Washington DC (1843). In the beginning, some erudite societies reflected the amateur origins of anthropology. With the evolution of their academic pretensions, these societies became professionalized groups. Many societies (as SPAE at a later time) served as centres for debate and information sharing, conference organization, obtaining financial support for research, publication of works and knowledge dissemination, both for its members and external individuals. Likewise, they promoted job opportunities and established professional standards, including the formulation of ethics rules in the academic research and practice. The former societies often presented different membership categories, including honorary members, and offered medals and other gifts in recognition for professional and academic contributions. Some societies offered additional benefits to its members, including library and bibliographical services, among other isolated benefits. The first society of this genre was perhaps the Société des Observateurs de l’Homme, founded in Paris in 1799, although it did not last long. The greatest European and North American societies emerged after 1840. The most significant erudite society was the Ethnological Society of London (1843), which in 1871 was united with the Anthropological Society of London (1862) and formed the (Royal) Anthropological Institute (RAI). Its first members were amateurs and they were subsequently followed by colonial officers and missionaries; over time, these members were replaced by professional anthropologists and the number of members in 1992 was 2,408 (Urry 2006: 44). Not all European anthropological societies survived as long as the RAI, but there were other notable ones, which were often involved not only in social and cultural anthropology, but also in archaeology and areas of human biology, which emerged in Paris (1859), Berlin (1869), Vienna (1870), Italy (1871) and Sweden (1872). In the second half of the nineteenth century,

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  55

further societies were created in Göttingen and Krakow (1864), Madrid and New York (1866), Manchester (1869) and Stockholm (1873), among others. In the United States, the American Ethnological Society was founded in 1842 and, in 1879, the Anthropological Association of Washington, whose members were associated with the Smithsonian Institution and the National Museum. On the other hand, the creation of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1902 echoed the growing professionalization of anthropology in North America. The AAA grew into a massive organization with 10,810 members and thirty-one subsections devoted to several specialities, interests and professions. Among all the American associations, this one has played the greatest role in the diffusion of the discipline and its professionalization. Other societies in North America include the American Folklore Society (1888) and the Society for Applied Anthropology (1941). In Japan, the Anthropological Society of Nippon was created in 1884 and, in India, the Anthropological Society of Bombay was created in 1887, followed by specialized groups, such as the Japanese Society for Ethnology (1934), which had 1,552 members in 1993. In Australia, regional societies were founded, first in 1926 (South Australia), and in 1973 the Australian Anthropological Society was created to represent professional anthropologists (Urry 2006: 44‒45). There were also societies representing regional interests, such as the Société des Américanistes (1875), the Polynesian Society (1892), the International African Institute (1926), the Société des Océanistes (1937) and, in the 1960s, the Association of Social Anthropologists in Oceania, with its headquarters in North America. Attempts at international cooperation occurred with the foundation of the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) in Basel in 1933, and this congress had meetings since 1934. In 1948 the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences was established to promote research and publication activities. Before and after the Second World War, several national societies dedicated to ethnology and sociocultural anthropology were created or re-created in Europe. In 1946, the Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth (ASA) was founded to represent the interests of social anthropologists in Great Britain and abroad, and it had about 600 members in 1993 (Urry 2006: 44). In 1989 the European Association of Social Anthropologists was founded and quickly surpassed several national organizations, both in terms of its number of members (more than 1,000 in 1994) and the scale of its biennial conferences. Some of these societies are sometimes considered as philanthropic and scientific-humanitarian entities, since they were created explicitly or implicitly, bearing in mind the defence of some of the studied peoples or groups – some of them once under the sphere of colonialism or otherwise dispossessed and discriminated against.

56  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

The Anthropology of ‘Nation-Building’ and of ‘Empire-Building’ According to George Stocking Jr. (1982), from the late nineteenth century onwards, there were two traditions in anthropology’s development process: one regarding ‘empire-building’ (in the United States and European countries such as Great Britain14 and France, which had a colonial empire) that focused on the study of the cultural ‘primitiveness’ and alterity; and the other regarding ‘nation-building’ (in peripheral or semi-peripheral European countries that did not have colonies and still fought for their autonomy) that was oriented towards the study of the national peasant tradition, connected to the building of ‘national identity’. Based on this formulation, João Leal felt that ‘despite the existence of an empire and the non-existence of a national problem identical’ to that in ‘peripheral and semi-peripheral European countries’, ‘anthropology developed and established itself in the Portuguese cultural and intellectual scene from the 1870s and 1880s as an anthropology of nation-building’ (2000: 27). According to Leal, perhaps due to the feebleness and the dependence of Portuguese colonialism, the anthropological interest centred on the colonial field emerged rather late. Until the late 1950s, when Jorge Dias started his research among the Makonde in north Mozambique, the anthropological works in the colonial context mainly targeted the research in physical and/or biological anthropology (Leal 2000: 27‒29). However, in the Portuguese case, I consider that the process of affirmation of anthropology was not as directed as suggested in Stocking’s article (1982) or as interpreted by Leal. I bear in mind the political and institutional interests in the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as the speeches of intellectuals (scientists, publicists or artists) on Portugal, which see or imagine the country as a nation, in the sense of an ‘imagined community’ (Anderson 1991), which included a ‘colonial empire’. It is therefore my opinion that these two realities are not mutually exclusive, nor should be analysed regardless of one another. We could say the same of France. Stocking Jr. does not mention that this country had an ethnological tradition connected to the nation. Besides, his classification is very restricted, as it does not consider the work by anthropologists in all national traditions, but rather in a specific setting that he assumes to be normative for the ‘international anthropology’ and includes the hegemonic national traditions of England, France, Germany, United States and the Soviet Union. He also notes that the seven peripheral anthropologies are the second-class metropolitan anthropologies (Sweden and Poland), the white-colonization anthropologies (anglophone Canada, Québec and Brazil) and ex-colonial anthropologies (India and Sudan). For him, although they may sporadically be involved in the anthropology of

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  57

the empire, these ‘peripheral anthropologies’ predominantly relate to the nation-building (Stocking Jr. 1982: 182). Regarding Stocking’s categorization, we may say, at best, that Portugal was in an intermediate position between the anthropologies of ‘empirebuilding’ and the anthropologies of ‘nation-building’. Unlike other countries, it had an established nation and also an empire, despite the latter being feeble and scarcely occupied. More importantly, in terms of its political economy, it did not have the adequate conditions to finance research abroad. While in the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, financing for research was available in England (being performed in Melanesia, for example), this did not happen in Portugal. In paradigmatic terms, what happened in Portugal cannot be categorized according to Stocking’s proposal (1982). Several initiatives were developed in the country, in institutional terms, to stimulate research in the colonies from the late nineteenth century and, more effectively, from the 1930s, with the anthropological missions.

The Context of Anthropology’s Emergence in Portugal The emergence, institutionalization and diffusion of anthropology in Portugal began in the 1870s, which saw the emergence of several sciences, including anthropology and ethnology, although they were connected to archaeological studies, for example (Catroga 1996). During this period, some areas of knowledge were excluded and marginalized, reduced to the ‘condition of local knowledge’ and ‘tended to be invariably disqualified as “traditional”, “pre-scientific” or … “ethno-scientific knowledge”, which relevance would be demonstrated through its validation by the “official” science’ (Nunes and Gonçalves 2001: 13‒14). Nunes and Gonçalves consider that ‘from the point of view of the capitalist world-economy and of the inter-state system, Portugal is a peripheral country’15 and that this condition is ‘one of the keys to understand the specific features of the history of sciences in Portugal’ (2001: 19). In fact, in all sciences, we can almost always mention a ‘centre’ and a ‘periphery’. In the case of anthropology, there was an Anglo-American centre and a French centre (in the 1960s and the 1970s with Lévi-Strauss, for example). However, although there were relations between them, British social anthropology and American cultural anthropology were driven by different orientations. Durkheim, for example, was important for the British, but not for the Americans. As we shall see, the Porto School of Anthropology received influences from several ‘centres’, mainly the French-German centre, and less from the Anglo-American centre, although some works were exchanged with researchers from all

58  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

continents, some of whom were honorary or correspondent members of the SPAE. The period of the institutionalization of anthropology that this book deals with crosses several political phases: the last decades of the Portuguese monarchy, the troubled First Republic (1911‒26), with about forty prime ministers, and the years of consolidation of the dictatorship (1926‒50). In fact, in different periods, we find different paradigms that are worth analysing. An important figure was José Leite de Vasconcelos, whose intense activity was highly diversified: in 1887, when he was appointed director of the BN, he taught numismatics, with contact points with archaeology, and he initiated a museum collection with archaeological value; he worked in archaeology, philology and compared ethnography, and wrote a doctoral thesis at the Sorbonne University (‘Esquisse d’une dialectologie portugaise’, 1901); he founded the Revista Lusitana in 1889 and the journal O Arqueólogo Português in 1895; he directed the Portuguese Ethnographic Museum;16 he published Religiões da Lusitânia in three volumes and Etnografia Portuguesa17 in eleven volumes; his disciples, particularly Orlando Ribeiro and Manuel Viegas Guerreiro (1912‒97), continued organizing the materials he had gathered and published them; and he was also an important influence on the work on anthropology, ethnography and art by Father Francisco Manuel Alves (known as abbot of Baçal) (Pina-Cabral 1991: 27‒28). According to Vasconcelos: The scientific study of Anthropology began in Portugal in 1857, more specifically in 1865: and whoever wants to methodically write its history shall first appreciate it as a whole, that is, in its chronology and internal development, and consider separately the three social centres in which, successively or in parallel, it has been accepted: Lisbon, Coimbra, Porto. (Vasconcelos 1928: 5)

Vasconcelos recognized three phases in the history of Portuguese anthropology: 1) from 1857 (1865) to 1880, or the phase of ‘the beginnings’; 2) from 1880 to 1911, as a consequence of the ideas triggered by the Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology (1880); and 3) from 1911 onwards, after the public education reform. In other words, he did not recognize a second phase until 1885, when the anthropology chair was created in the UC, and leaves the task of judging him to the ‘experts’18 (Vasconcelos 1928: 19). He also claimed that, before 1857, only the following had emerged: ‘scattered observations, usually subjective, by doctors, corographers, historians, travellers, etc., regarding physical, physiological (temperament, make-up), pathological and psychic characters … vulgarization articles, of no importance … incomplete lexical definitions’ (1928: 5‒6). 1857 is the date when Decree-Law dated 8 August was published, which founded in Lisbon the Committee for Geologic Works,19 headed by Carlos

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  59

Ribeiro (1813‒82) and to which António Pereira da Costa (1809‒98) and Nery Delgado (1835‒1908) belonged. Pereira da Costa published on prehistoric anthropology; Nery Delgado wrote on the Cesareda caves, where ‘anthropology is dealt with’; and the efforts of Carlos Ribeiro enabled the accomplishment in 1880 of the Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology20 that boosted anthropological studies (Vasconcelos 1928: 6). However, according to Leite de Vasconcelos (1928: 7), the ‘first research in the scope of an effectively Portuguese anthropology’ was initiated by physician and anthropologist Francisco Ferraz de Macedo21 (1845‒1907), who in 1882 asked the CML that he be allowed to measure skulls from the eastern and western cemeteries of the city. Ferraz de Macedo ‘diligently devoted his efforts to criminal anthropology’, having published Crime et criminel (1892), Bosquejos de Antropologia Criminal (1900) and Os criminosos ‘evadidos do Limoeiro em 1847 (1901). In these works, among others, such as Lusitanos e romanos em Vila Franca de Xira22 (1893), ‘he always offers some element of national anthropology’ (Vasconcelos 1928: 9). António Aurélio da Costa Ferreira 23 (1879‒1922), a ‘close friend of Ferraz de Macedo’, called him master and considered him, together with the doctor and naturalist José Júlio Bethencourt Ferreira (1866‒1936), to be ‘the patriarch of Portuguese anthropology’ (Vasconcelos 1928: 9). On the other hand, Júlio de Matos considered Ferraz de Macedo mainly as an ‘observer’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 12). It was probably Ferraz de Macedo’s ‘observations’ that inspired Costa Ferreira and Álvaro José da Silva Basto (1873‒1924) to write their memoirs on the cephalic index and the cranial capacity of the Portuguese, respectively. Besides Ferraz de Macedo, another anthropologist who worked alone was Francisco Arruda Furtado (1854‒87), author of Materiais para o estudo antropológico dos povos açorianos: Observações sobre o povo micaelense 24 (1884) and Notas psicológicas e etnológicas sobre o povo português, I, Nomes vulgares de peixes (1886). In this context, by the Royal Decree dated 20 December 1893, the Portuguese Ethnographic Museum was created, and renamed Portuguese Ethnologic Museum,25 in 1897. This proposal was presented by the ministers Bernardino Machado and João Franco, and was drafted and based on Leite de Vasconcelos’ suggestion, who was subsequently appointed director of the museum. This structure was, in a way, an extension of the Museum of Anthropology set up at the at the Committee for Geologic Works. It had two sections: an archaeology section (up to the eighteenth century) and a modern section.26 However, anthropology was not greatly developed. Although he settled in Lisbon in 1907, it was with Bernardino Machado in Coimbra that Aurélio da Costa Ferreira was initiated into anthropology in 1898. He was the author of the following works, among others: Crânios portugueses (three booklets: 1898‒99); La capacité du crâne et la composition

60  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

ethnique probable du peuple portugais (1903); La capacité du crâne et la profession chez les Portugais (1903); La capacité crânienne chez les criminels portugais (1905); Négroïdes préhistoriques en Portugal (1907); Crânes préhistoriques du type négroïde (1908); Sur quelques crânes de l’Alentejo et de l’Algarve (1909); O povo português sob o ponto de vista antropológico (1909); Mésaticéphales du Sud de Portugal (1910); Contribuição antropológica para o estudo de alguns cemitérios antigos de Portugal (1913). As we can see, these works mainly related to archaeology and physical anthropology. On 12 May 1911, the government published a decree that organized the faculties of sciences of Lisbon and Porto; anthropology was included, although it already existed at the UC; the decree also included the ethnology disciplines at the faculties of humanities of those three universities (Vasconcelos 1928: 12). In Lisbon’s case, the anthropology chair was first coordinated by zoology professor Baltasar Osório (1855‒1926) with Bethencourt Ferreira as his assistant professor and, later, by doctor, naturalist and politician Artur Ricardo Jorge (1886‒1974). From 1912, the Anatomy Institute27 at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Lisbon (FMUL) began publishing the periodical Arquivo de Anatomia e Antropologia, directed by Henrique de Vilhena, where its director (Henrique de Vilhena) and Costa Ferreira, Mendes Correia, Joaquim Fontes (doctor and archaeologist), among others, published articles on anthropology. After discussing the first incursions of anthropology in Lisbon, Leite de Vasconcelos devotes some pages to Coimbra, stressing the role of Bernardino Machado, and to Porto, highlighting figures connected to the Carlos Ribeiro Society (Rocha Peixoto, Fonseca Cardoso and Ricardo Severo) and to the Porto School of Anthropology, particularly Mendes Correia. In the nineteen pages of his text, Mendes Correia is the most often-mentioned person, occupying three pages. Vasconcelos is eventually largely inclusive concerning anthropology and his work exemplifies his level of detail. António Augusto da Rocha Peixoto (1866‒1909), naturalist, ethnologist and archaeologist, was also connected to anthropology and was one of the leading figures of cultural life in the transition from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century. His work was influenced by evolutionism in its most archaeological component. He was one of the founders of the Carlos Ribeiro Society (1888) and in 1891 he was secretary of the journal Revista de Portugal, founded by writer Eça de Queirós, where he collaborated on different projects. He organized the Cabinet of Mineralogy, Geology and Palaeontology of the Porto Polytechnic Academy. He wrote for the newspapers O Século and O Primeiro de Janeiro and, as editor-in-chief, he was one of the promoters of the journal Portugália: Materiais para o estudo do povo português. He was also director of the Public Library and of the Municipal Museum, both in Porto. His ideas, influenced by Oliveira Martins, stood

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  61

out, among other studies, in the study of the material culture. João de PinaCabral considers him ‘a very devoted field ethnographer who knew the Portuguese North like few others of his contemporaries’ and whose work on the ways of communal life ‘founded a long-standing study tradition on this form of social organization’; he also worked in such varied fields as those of tattoos, fishermen housing, votive paintings, ceramics, filigree and nicknames (Pina-Cabral 1991: 26). However, he bore a negative vision of popular culture. However, João de Pina-Cabral considers that in Portugal, there was a tendency for academic anachronism, and even in Leite de Vasconcelos this becomes apparent. Although at the turn of the twentieth century his scientific output shows that he was aware of the international trends, this was not the case in the period up to his death, when the first volumes of Etnografia Portuguesa (1933, 1936 and 1941) were published. Even comparing his theoretical lines with those of his contemporaries, such as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl in La Mentalité Primitive (1922) or Mauss in Essai sur le Don (1925), his scientific anachronism is clear; the same happens if we compare his disciples, ‘such as Luís Chaves (1945) or the Pires de Lima family … with their French and English contemporaries (Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski, Firth, Evans-Pritchard or Lévi-Strauss)’ (Pina-Cabral 1991: 27).

The Coimbra School of Anthropology (1885) The official teaching of anthropology in Portugal began with the creation of the ‘Anthropology, Human Palaeontology and Prehistoric Archaeology’ chair28 by a Charter dated 2 July 1885, written by Bernardino Machado and Corrêa Barata 29 (1847‒1900), published in the Diário do Governo no. 149 dated 9 July 1885, at the then Faculty of Philosophy of the UC (today the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra (FCTUC)). In academic year 1885‒86, this chair was coordinated by physics professor Henrique Teixeira Bastos as substitute professor. He was succeeded by Bernardino Machado, who had completed studies in physics and mathematics and was mainly inspired by the works of Francisco Ferraz de Macedo; he was therefore the first professor to occupy the first chair of anthropology in Portugal. Besides anthropology, Machado taught the disciplines of agriculture, physics and geology at the UC. In 1893, as mentioned above, he created the Portuguese Ethnographic Museum and in 1898 he founded the Society of Anthropology – the first anthropology scientific society in Portugal – the purpose of which was to ‘develop anthropological studies in Portugal’ (Article 2 of the Statute).30 The society had three member categories: full members, correspondent members and honorary

62  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

members (national or foreign). To be a full member, one had to ‘have special works in anthropology’, ‘be proposed by two members’, ‘obtain an absolute majority of the votes at the general meeting’ and ‘reside in Coimbra’. Except for the last condition (residence), the same conditions were applied to correspondent members. The society’s activity was short-lived, since Machado, its first and only chairman, became involved in the Republican Party, which he joined in 1903 and eventually prioritized in 1907. When he moved away from the university31 due to his election as President of the Republic on two occasions, Eusébio Tamagnini was the one who contributed to the consolidation and affirmation of this school (Santos 2005; Matos 2007). In 1911, Coimbra’s museum and laboratory were considered a scientific research institute, which only happened in its Porto counterparts in 1923. The Coimbra School of Anthropology can be compared to schools with naturalist anthropological traditions, such as the Paris School of Anthropology. In its early years, the focus of the topics chosen to be studied at this school was mainly on physical anthropology. Under the guidance of Bernardino Machado, the students carried out osteometric works, from 1884‒85 to 1904, published under the title Aula de Antropologia da Universidade de Coimbra – trabalhos dos alumnos [Anthropology Class at the University of Coimbra – students works] (1904). In the academic year 1887‒88, the recommended workbooks were Manuel d’Anthropologie by Paul Topinard 32 (1876), Instructions cranéologiques et cranéométriques, de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris by Paul Broca (1875) and Le Préhistorique, antiquité de l’ homme by Gabriel de Mortillet.33 The dissertations for the anthropology chair dealt with the fields of osteology, ethnography, sociology, anthropometry and human ecology. The anthropological studies at the UC, as well as in Paul Broca’s school, were mainly established as anthropometric practices that sought significant characters to categorize human groups. The chair’s bibliography evidences the weight of physical anthropology and the influence of the French school in Coimbra. From 1907 to 1950, following Bernardino Machado’s resignation, Eusébio Tamagnini took his place as the main professor of the chair of anthropology and assumed the role of director of the Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology section of the Museum of Natural History. The chair was then divided into two components: ‘Zoological Anthropology’ (Tamagnini’s designation), which was intended to be a general introduction to primatology, and ‘Ethnological Anthropology’, which aimed the study and characterization ‘of human races’ (Areia and Rocha 1985: 17‒18). From 1914, and as a successor of the aforementioned Aula de Antropologia (students works), the Anthropology Institute of the University of Coimbra (IAUC) started publishing the Contribuições para o estudo da Antropologia portuguesa journal.

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  63

The UC also stood out with the creation of the course on cultural ethnography,34 the curriculum for which, written by João Gualberto de Barros e Cunha (1865‒1950) in the academic year 1912‒13, advocated the importance ‘for the colonizing peoples’ of the ‘exact knowledge of the ethnography of the indigenous peoples of their colonies’. Almost all matters regarded Africa and its peoples, their social organization or the objects they produced, but the populations of India, Macao and Timor were also considered. There was also a different component regarding the course on criminal anthropology, which was approved in the academic year 1908‒9, under the title ‘Course of Anthropometry’. In the area of ethnological anthropology, there were no great developments, despite the many collections of objects gathered in the scope of material culture. Nevertheless, the chair of ethnological anthropology, the curriculum for which said it was a ‘general introduction to the study of races’, was maintained for the FLUC’s students. In the academic year 1929‒30 the curriculum of the FCTUC’s chair of anthropology included the following topics: ‘Ethnology and ethnography, general considerations’; ‘Notions of species and races’; ‘Distinctive characters of races’; ‘Skin colour, melanins, etc.’; ‘The several anthropometric indexes’; ‘Classification of human races’; ‘Topinard classification’; ‘Deniker Classification’; ‘Strats Classification’; and ‘Schertz, Ruggeri, Haddan Classification’. Alongside these matters, Tamagnini and his disciples developed works in somatometry and osteometry, physiology and biodemography. Coimbra was therefore developing a perspective that was similar to the German anthropology in the sense of a rassenkunde. In the academic year 1939/40, this anthropology chair maintained content such as: ‘Compared morphology in modern hominids’; ‘Anthropometry’; ‘Compared morphology of soft tissues’; ‘Osteometry’; ‘Craniometry’; ‘Morphologic types of modern hominids’; and ‘Notions of species and race according to the principles of Genetics’ (Areia and Rocha 1985: 21, 52). In Coimbra from 1921, following agreement among the Portuguese anthropologists, the seat of the Portuguese section of the Institut International d’Anthropologie was established, which also had a delegation in India represented by researchers from the Goa Medical School.35 Considering the similarity of the topics dealt with at the Coimbra and Porto schools, as well as their political similarities36 due to the offices held by some of the figures connected to them, we might feel tempted to imply a possible personal proximity between their main representatives, namely Mendes Correia and Eusébio Tamagnini; however, this was not the case and there was actually a climate of rivalry between Coimbra and Porto. When Eusébio Tamagnini retired in 1948, the work in the chair of anthropology was continued by José Antunes Serra and Xavier da Cunha. Only in 1992 was the degree in anthropology created at FCTUC, where I was a

64  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

student from October 1992 to February 1997. A couple of years after this, the former IAUC achieved department status. This anthropology degree, which included training in biological anthropology and social and cultural anthropology (both mandatory, although it was possible to specialize in one of them), was mainly due to the efforts of anthropologist Manuel Laranjeira Rodrigues de Areia.37 Nowadays, the degree has been incorporated into the Department of Life Sciences of the FCTUC, together with the degrees in biology and biochemistry.

Background of the Porto School of Anthropology Some of the first incursions in anthropological studies also emerged in Porto. Mendes Correia (1941a) mentioned some dissertations at the Porto Medical and Surgical School with the subject ‘pure or applied anthropology’. The topics that stand out are as follows: a) heredity and marriage, particularly consanguineous marriages; b) crime and prisons;38 and c) problems of acclimatization in the colonies, of social regeneration and of ‘race’.39 In another paragraph (perhaps because the subject is different from the previous ones) he mentioned the medical dissertation by José Leite de Vasconcelos, ‘A evolução da linguagem: Ensaio antropológico’ (1886), which he considered to be the inauguration of ‘his noteworthy bibliography as a philologist, ethnographer and archaeologist’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 7). We can also refer to the creation of the Carlos Ribeiro Society in 1888 and, in the following year, of his journal Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais (1889‒98), followed by the journal Portugália (1899‒1908), and some works of the Polytechnic Academy (Mendes Correia 1937a). The Carlos Ribeiro Society (1888‒98), named after the geologist Carlos Ribeiro,40 was established41 in July 1887 by a number of young men, the eldest of whom was around twenty years old. Its founders were Júlio de Matos (1856‒1922) (chairman), Basílio Teles (1856‒1923) (vice-chairman), António Augusto da Rocha Peixoto (1866‒1909) (secretary general), Artur Augusto da Fonseca Cardoso (1865‒1912) (treasurer), Alfredo Xavier Pinheiro (1863‒89), João Baptista Barreira (1866‒1938) and Ricardo Severo (1869‒1940). Its greatest supporters were Rocha Peixoto, Fonseca Cardoso and Ricardo Severo, who had met in secondary school. Rocha Peixoto enrolled in 1886 at the Polytechnic Academy and had only concluded some disciplines without finishing the complete course (mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoology, botany, mineralogy and drawing). Fonseca Cardoso attended the infantry course, with further studies in Lisbon.42 Severo completed the public works engineering course at the Polytechnic Academy in 1890 and the mine engineering course in 1891. João Barreira graduated

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  65

from the Medical and Surgical School in 1892 with a dissertation on ‘The Delirium of Denial’, but preferred to work as a historian and an art critic. Alfredo Xavier was a painter and performed studies on pillories and ethnography. Both the psychiatrist Júlio de Matos, who completed his medicine degree in 1880, and Basílio Teles, one of the leaders of the uprising of 31 January 1891,43 were asked by their younger companions to support them with their experience and achieved status (Mendes Correia 1941a: 9‒10). According to the Society’s Statute, which was approved on 2 August 1888, its goal was ‘the study of natural sciences’, ‘to promote public conferences, make periodic and stand-alone publications, organize museums and exhibitions’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 9). The Society was divided into four sections (geology and palaeontology, zoology and botany, anthropology, and ethnography), showing an interest in the study of both natural and social facts. From its inception, its members revealed an interest in topics connected to anthropology. In 1888, in one of the Society’s editions, Rocha Peixoto published a study on the Municipal Museum of Porto, calling out to the ‘creation of special laboratories and of an anthropology section appended to the Museum’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 11); Peixoto eventually became director of that museum from 1900 to 1909, succeeding Eduardo Augusto Allen. The founders of this society were also driven by topics related to prehistory. In 1888, in one of the Society’s editions, Ricardo Severo published a 113-page study on the volume Les âges préhistoriques de l’Espagne et du Portugal by Émile Cartailhac. According to Mendes Correia (1941a: 11), Ricardo Severo sought to ‘amplify the solid information’ given by Cartailhac with personal contributions, in a procedure where we can already ‘outline the ethnic nationalism’ of which he would become a distinguished champion. The diversity of interests expressed by the members is also revealed in the four volumes of the Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais journal from 1889 to 1898, which, from the first instalments, involved the most prestigious Portuguese researchers of the time,44 such as Teófilo Braga, António dos Santos Rocha (1853‒1910), Basílio Teles, Adolfo Coelho, Francisco Martins Sarmento (1833‒99), Leite de Vasconcelos and Júlio de Matos, as well as the above-mentioned Rocha Peixoto, Fonseca Cardoso45 and Ricardo Severo. The main topics were the study of the Portuguese people and the ethnic origins of the nation. There were also publications on geology, palaeontology, zoology, botany and criminology. These studies aimed at a rigorous precision similar to that of the mathematical and physical sciences, so its contents were descriptive, comparative and classifying, and they resembled the evolutionist explanatory models proposed in geology and biology by Charles Lyell (1797‒1875) and Charles Darwin, respectively.46 In volume I of this Revista, Ricardo Severo, who analysed the study of Rocha Peixoto,

66  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

published the first scientific news piece on the prehistory of the Portuguese colonies (‘First Evidence of the Neolithic Period in the Province of Angola’) and Rocha Peixoto published articles on the beginning of his ethnographic studies (popular malacology, tattoos, etc.). In volume II of the Revista, Leite de Vasconcelos published ‘Popular Language of Porto’; Ricardo Severo wrote on the Museum of Mineralogy, Geology and Palaeontology of the Polytechnic Academy,47 and Júlio de Matos analysed Crime et Criminel by Ferraz de Macedo. In volume III (1895), a news piece by Fonseca Cardoso was published on the Chellean station of Vale de Alcântara (Campolide),48 whose lithic estate, preserved by the author, eventually came to be owned by the Museum of Anthropology of FCUP. And volume IV (1898) included the following works, among others: ‘The Indigenous of Satary’ (Portuguese India) by Fonseca Cardoso, and ‘The Army’s Anthropometry’ by Rocha Peixoto, regarding the work by anthropologist, doctor and military man Ridolfo Livi (1856‒1920), on anthropometry in Italy, in which Peixoto seized the opportunity to begin anthropological studies in Portugal. Rocha Peixoto is not always associated with physical anthropology, anthropometry and ‘military anthropology’, which he also helped to develop. However, his work on the tattoo is sometimes referred to, which was influenced by Lombroso and ‘criminal anthropology’. As mentioned by Ricardo Roque, there seems to have been an ‘erasure’ of the ‘anthropometric component in the history of Portuguese anthropology in the eighteen hundreds’, as this was a consequence of a history focused on the conventions of social and cultural anthropology (2001b: 277). At that time, anthropology was also seen as anthropometry49 (preferably in vivo) and gradually replaced craniometry. In these studies, like others performed in Europe, it was possible to find nationalist discourses, concerns around the popular culture and the analysis of archaeological data. In France’s case, anthropology, inspired by Paul Broca, gathered together several specialities, such as archaeology, linguistics or anatomy, all seeking to achieve a full description of a people and study the natural history of human beings. It was also in this sense that the main figures related to the Carlos Ribeiro Society used the term ‘anthropology’. On the other hand, the elements of this society sought to establish their work in an international context. Between the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, the Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais journal, its successor Portugália and the SGL were the only Portuguese organizations that belonged to the network of scientific institutions that corresponded to the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. In 1889, Ricardo Severo travelled to Paris to represent the society in the tenth session of the Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques, establishing contacts with several people who inspired his interest in developing anthropological studies in Portugal. In his turn,

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  67

Fonseca Cardoso was one of the sixteen Portuguese to receive subscriber status to the Congrès and received the minutes of the sessions at home, even when he had not been present (Roque 2001b: 250). In order to perform the anthropological study of the ‘Man from Minho’ and write the charter of the Portuguese stature (as in France and Germany), using elements taken from the military recruiting and examination records, Fonseca Cardoso contacted the Collin establishment in Paris and, in September 1894, he received the Topinard anthropometric box in order to take the measurements. During his breaks from military service, he collected records of heights and measurements from his skull collection, but this project ended in 1895 when he was sent to Goa. His departure to India was accompanied by Ricardo Severo’s departure to Brazil in 1892, and the trio were eventually separated; the Society’s and the journal’s work continued to be guaranteed almost single-handedly by Rocha Peixoto until 1898. As he remained in India as an officer in the Ranes campaign, Fonseca Cardoso found the opportunity to make several in vivo observations, which he published in 1897 in the aforementioned ‘The Indigenous of Satary’. In India, he obtained six Hindu skulls from Sanquelim and Cudnem, which were donated to the FCUP’s Anthropological Museum and subsequently analysed by Mendes Correia (1916‒17). The Carlos Ribeiro Society’s scant resources did not allow for a large institutional project or an anthropological survey on the Portuguese people like those outlined by Topinard. However, Society was able to amass a specialized library, mainly following a series of exchanges, and a collection of bones and skulls. As mentioned above, the Revista de Ciências journal was succeeded by Portugália (1899‒1908). Its founder and director was Ricardo Severo, who was assisted by Rocha Peixoto (editor-in-chief), Fonseca Cardoso (secretary) and, later, José Fortes. It became known for its extensive knowledge in the fields of archaeology, history, anthropology and ethnography. Like the Revista, it focused on the study of the Portuguese people and its ethnic origins. Fonseca Cardoso also published three monographs: O Minhoto de Entre Cávado-e-Âncora, O Poveiro and Castro Laboreiro on the population from this mountainous area, and, with Ricardo Severo, O ossuário da freguesia de Ferreiró. With eight instalments published in two volumes, Portugália ended in 1908, following Ricardo Severo’s departure to Brazil and Rocha Peixoto’s and Fonseca Cardoso’s deaths. Reinach, Cartailhac and other renowned authorities considered it a journal ‘worthy of the most prestigious centres of culture in the world, Paris, Rome, London or Berlin’; the Portugália group outlined the main directives of the activity that was later maintained in the Porto School of Anthropology: ‘Physical anthropology, Ethnography, Prehistory’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 13‒14).

68  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Even before the FCUP, an interest in anthropology had been expressed at the Polytechnic Academy, which can be illustrated, for example, in Rocha Peixoto’s interest in the archaeological exploration of the ‘castro’ (a pre-Roman fortified settlement in Guifões in the north of Portugal), having received a grant to undertake this study. By that time, the Anais Científicos da Academia Politécnica do Porto were published, founded by the mathematician and the UP’s first rector, Francisco Gomes Teixeira. In this journal Rocha Peixoto published ‘Survivances du régime communautaire en Portugal’ (1908) and Aurélio da Costa Ferreira published ‘Négroïdes préhistoriques en Portugal’50 (1907) and ‘Sur une particularité de la courbe médiane de quelques crânes portugais’ (1910). However, the Polytechnic Academy had some limitations and the Carlos Ribeiro Society, through Rocha Peixoto (1898), had in the late nineteenth century already criticized the smallness of its collections and the disorderly layout of its objects. The working and research conditions were improved only with educational reform and the creation of the FCUP.

The SPAE (1918) The SPAE51 was founded in Porto on 26 December 1918 on Mendes Correia’s initiative, with the support of distinguished elders such as Luís Bastos de Freitas Viegas52 (1869‒1928), Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda53 (1863‒1921) and Bento Carqueja54 (1860‒1935). The Society’s name shows the above-mentioned division between anthropology (the study of the human being in its physical and biological dimension) and ethnology (the study of the human being in its social and cultural dimension). Operating at the IAUP, it organized scientific meetings and regularly published the Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia (TAE), which also contained a section with bibliographic references with the latest news. The creation of the SPAE was also Porto’s answer to the failed attempt to create an anthropology society in Coimbra. Like its counterparts in Europe and the United States, the SPAE joined a small group of experts with interests shared by people of their academic and social milieu. However, considering the creation dates of anthropological societies in Europe – Paris (1858), Berlin (1869), Vienna (1870), Italy (1871) and Sweden (1872) – the SPAE (1918) emerged rather late. Nevertheless, like other societies, it revealed a considerable scientific dynamism, generating space for debate and the exchange of ideas. According to Santos Júnior, the SPAE was born as a result of Mendes Correia’s ‘determined will’ – a man who ‘knew how to gather around him a group of superior men’: Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (senior), Luís de Freitas Viegas and Bento Carqueja, who, along with him, ‘made up the initial core’ (1969: 38).

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  69

In order to know more about the SPAE’s activities, I consulted its Statute and the minutes record. The Statute, approved in its first general meeting on 26 December 1918, despite small changes introduced in 1924, remained in force until the mid-1980s.55 The SPAE’s purpose was given as follows: to stimulate and promote, in Portugal, the study of anthropological methods, of zoological anthropology, ethnic anthropology, prehistoric anthropology and archaeology, experimental psychology, ethnography, and of its derived or applied scientific branches, such as military, pedagogical, clinical, judiciary, etc. anthropologies. (Estatutos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia [SPAE] 1918: 3)

According to Article 1 of the Statute, in order to achieve its purpose, the SPAE: a) Organizes periodic and extraordinary scientific sessions; b) Publishes original works and studies on anthropology and anthropological sciences; c) Organizes and maintains a library with a reading cabinet; d) Establishes contacts with national and foreign counterpart societies; e)  Seeks to organize anthropological, archaeological and ethnographical collections and to make public the anthropological methods, mainly among doctors, professors, travellers and colonists; f )  Publicizes, as far as possible, the advantages of anthropology in the school environment and of the services of anthropological identification, particularly as an element of scientific police work; g)  Organizes surveys and scientific missions, according to the resources available, mainly in the country and the colonies; h)  Sponsors the intensification and the extension of the teaching of anthropology and anthropological sciences in Portugal. (Estatutos da SPAE 1918: 3‒4)

When reading the Statute, we understand what anthropology was meant to include and how it could intervene in daily life, by revealing knowledge and issuing opinions on clinical, criminal and judiciary aspects. The SPAE published the Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia (this name was used from Volume I in 1918 to Volume X in 1945, when it was named Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia (TAE)), and this was the main means of diffusion of its activities. As a periodical, the TAE revealed the crucial role a journal can play in the institutionalization of a discipline; it also allowed the development of the ancient natural history tradition of the anthropological studies published in Revista de Ciências Naturais e

70  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Sociais and Portugália. The SPAE had its headquarters in Porto, but the 1918 Statute considered the possibility of centres being organized in Lisbon and Coimbra. It could have honorary members, full members or correspondent members, but ‘only the authors of noteworthy anthropological publications or individuals that, in any way, have borne service to anthropology and anthropological sciences’ could be correspondent members; only honorary and full members could vote and be part of the governing bodies (Estatutos da SPAE 1918: 6‒7). When comparing this Statute to that of the Coimbra Society of Anthropology, we see that the SPAE’s is longer, more detailed and more ambitious. Furthermore, according to the SPAE’s Statute, its members did not necessarily have to reside in Porto, as opposed to Coimbra. The SPAE’s 1924 Statute is similar in structure to the 1918 Statute and was altered at the general meeting dated 11 January 1924; a relevant change was introduced in Article 1, line g), where ‘metropolis’ replaced ‘country’ and ‘overseas’ replaced ‘colonies’56 (Estatutos da SPAE 1924: 4). The diversity of interests reflected by the SPAE’s purposes is also expressed in the variety of regions of origin of its members. Below I will highlight some aspects that stood out when reading the SPAE’s minutes and annual reports. The SPAE’s Foundation and Its Founding Members The SPAE’s foundation meeting on 26 December 1918 took place at the office of the Director of FCUP’s Geology Museum with Luís Bastos de Freitas Viegas, Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda, José da Rocha Ferreira (engineer and palaeontology assistant at the FCUP) and Mendes Correia, summoned by the latter to an inaugural general meeting. Following the approval of the Statute at the general meeting, Mendes Correia presented the society’s newest members: José Leite de Vasconcelos (professor at the FLUL and director of the Portuguese Museum of Ethnology); Virgílio Correia (curator of the National Museum of Ancient Art and director of the Terra Portuguesa journal); Eusébio Tamagnini (professor of anthropology at the FCTUC); Baltasar Osório (professor of anthropology at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon (FCUL)); Henrique de Vilhena57 (professor of anatomy at the FMUL); Manuel Valadares (director of the Lisbon Central Archive for Identification and Criminal Statistics); Cláudio Basto (director of Lusa); Aurélio da Costa Ferreira (director of Casa Pia de Lisboa); Father António de Oliveira (superintendent of Lisbon’s Reformatory Schools); Joaquim Fontes; José Tomás Ribeiro Fortes (editor of the Portugália journal); Abel de Lima Salazar (professor of histology at the FMUP); Alfredo Mendonça da Costa Athayde (bachelor in historical and natural sciences in Porto); José de Sousa Machado Fontes (bachelor in law and secretary of the Porto Portuguese

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  71

Society of Social Sciences); Eduardo de Sousa Soares (businessman); José Álvares de Sousa Soares (doctor); Filinto Elísio Vieira da Costa (open course teacher); António Ferreira Loureiro (bachelor in mathematics and philosophy, and secondary school teacher); Diogo Portocarrero (secondary school teacher); João Grave (director of the Municipal Museum of Porto); Joaquim Costa (bachelor in law and subdirector of the former museum); Francisco dos Santos Pereira de Vasconcelos (lawyer and former magistrate); António Correia da Costa e Almeida (lawyer); Father Claudino Nazareth Brites (missionary in Lubango, Angola); António Mesquita de Figueiredo (lawyer and archaeologist); the Viscount of Guilhomil (lawyer); and António Leite de Magalhães (captain-major in Dembos, Angola).58 All these people, along with the SPAE’s founders, were considered full members from the beginning, thus accounting for the thirty founding members. The list includes two priests (António de Oliveira and Claudino Nazareth Brites), to which others were added, such as: Manuel Alves da Cunha (vicar capitular of Angola’s episcopate); António de Miranda Magalhães (former superior of the mission in Dembos, Angola); Don Florentino López Cuevillas; José Augusto Tavares; Eugénio Jalhay; Manuel de Sousa Maia; and Avelino de Jesus Costa. Proposed by Mendes Correia, José Leite de Vasconcelos was elected honorary chairman.59 The SPAE’s board in 1919 included: Freitas Viegas (chairman), Bento Carqueja (vice-chairman), Mendes Correia (secretary), engineer José da Rocha Ferreira (treasurer) and Abel de Lima Salazar (member). Alfredo Athayde was the first secretary-general and Rui Correia de Serpa Pinto60 was the second librarian member and the organizer of the SPAE’s library. Already in the first meeting, Mendes Correia proposed the creation of the prehistoric archaeology and ethnography sections. The managing bodies of the first section included: José Fortes (chairman); Joaquim Fontes (vice-chairman); and Virgílio Correia and António Mesquita de Figueiredo (members). The board of the second section included: Virgílio Correia (chairman); Cláudio Basto (vice-chairman); Father Claudino Nazareth Brites; and Captain António Leite de Magalhães and António Costa e Almeida (members). The SPAE was created by people connected to Porto (Mendes Correia, Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (senior), Freitas Viegas, Bento Carqueja and Abel Salazar). The founding members included individuals from the north of Portugal (Virgílio Correia and Leite de Vasconcelos), but also from other areas in the country (Sebastião Pessanha and Orlando Ribeiro, who were both from Lisbon). One can infer from this the SPAE’s nonregional and rather national character, as well as the presence of experts from other areas other than anthropology, although the latter played a predominant role. The list of founders also includes at least one engineer and people working in Portuguese overseas territories. Among them, we are also able

72  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

to recognize the names of people invited by Mendes Correia who later participated in important events in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s: scientific congresses; the Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies (1937); exhibitions, etc. As mentioned by Santos Júnior, the SPAE’s creation was fundamentally due to Mendes Correia ‘with a double purpose: to create it “ab initio” and to create it and support it, offering it living conditions’ (1969: 41). Most of the SPAE’s members worked in ‘sciences’, but also in medicine.61 Despite their studies, some of them targeted their careers towards other areas. At the inaugural meeting, thirty-two members were elected and during the year the board approved another twenty-three full members, amounting to fifty-five members in total, of which only two turned down their elections, ‘a flattering number for a society that, in Portugal, devotes itself to a specialized scientific branch’.62

The SPAE’s New Members (National and Foreign) Other figures connected to science and other areas were added to the founding members.63 I discovered that from its inception, the SPAE counted women among its members, although they were not a majority (as in everything else). But this presence is noteworthy, since this did not always happen in similar societies. For example, in the Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte – which dealt with archaeological findings, ethnographic objects or physiology and physical aspects – the somatic characters were used as arguments to prevent women from becoming members (Schouten 2001: 159). From its inception, the SPAE welcomed women, but the acceptance of Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo as a full member in 1935 is a fact worthy of note, since she was Mendes Correia’s assistant professor in the chair of anthropology and was the first woman to receive a doctoral degree from the UP in 1944.64 The SPAE maintained external relationships by inviting foreigners to be correspondent and honorary members, and exchanging proposals with journals. The correspondent members included: Eduardo Hernández Pacheco (University of Madrid); Telesforo d’Aranzadi65 (University of Barcelona); Arthur Keith (Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland); Vicenzo Giuffrida-Ruggeri66 (University of Naples); Henri de Breuil (Paris Institute for Human Palaeontology); Alěs Hrdlička (National Museum, Washington DC); René Verneau and Marcellin Boule (Natural History Museum, Paris); Eugenio Francours (a Polish ethnographer in Madrid); Eugenius Frankowski (assistant professor at the University of Krakow); Yves Guyot (director of the Paris School of Anthropology); Georges Hervé (professor at the Paris School of Anthropology); Herman ten Kate

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  73

(a Dutch anthropologist and doctor from Kobe); Manuel Antón y Ferrándiz (director of the National Anthropology Museum in Madrid); Sergio Sergi (University of Rome); Fabio Frassetto (Bologna); Francisco de las Barras de Aragón (Madrid); Hugo Obermaier (Madrid); Mario Carrara (Turin), Nello Puccioni (Florence); Quintiliano Saldaña (Madrid); Alfredo Niceforo (Paris); Otto Schlaginhaufen (Zurich); the Count of Bégouen (a French archaeologist and professor of prehistory at the University of Toulouse); Rudolf Martin (a Swiss anthropologist who worked in Germany); J.P. Kleiweg de Zwaan (a Dutch physical anthropologist); Renato Kehl (a Brazilian doctor); Francisco José de Oliveira Viana (a Brazilian lawyer and historian); Hernan Lundborg (director of the Uppsala Institute for Racial Biology); Pedro Calmon67 (professor of law and member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, over which he presided in 1945); Angyone Costa (professor of archaeology at the Historical Museum of Rio de Janeiro); and Alvaro de Las Casas (a Galician author of ethnographic works). Among the SPAE’s honorary members, we also find Giuseppe Sergi (an Italian anthropologist), Émile Cartailhac68 and Salomon Reinach (both French archaeologists), and Adolf Schulten (a German archaeologist). The cooperation of foreign specialists at the TAE is another noteworthy fact. For example, Vincenzo Giuffrida-Ruggeri (an Italian physical anthropologist) collaborated with the TAE on an unpublished work in 1920, and Pedro Bosch-Gimpera (a Catalan archaeologist and also a member of the SPAE) published an article in one of the two parts of the TAE published in 1928. At the SPAE’s meetings, some people were also honoured upon their deaths.69 One of the SPAE’s Concerns: The Recognition of Anthropology at the University In 1919 at the SPAE, Mendes Correia presented the proposal of ‘introduction of the chair of Anthropology in the curriculum of the medical preparatory courses’, which was to be sent to the country’s faculties of medicine. According to the answer sent to the SPAE, the FMUP, despite its ‘overburdened staff’, praised ‘the introduction of Anthropology’ or the ‘creation of a special course where doctors could improve their knowledge on this science’ (minutes dated 12 May 1919). The SPAE’s board also signed a ‘motion for the development of the Anthropology and Prehistory teaching in universities’.70 On the other hand, the SPAE’s board requested from the government the separation of anthropology in the framework of the disciplines in science faculties, as a section or autonomous group, considering its close relationships with several scientific branches, and not only botany and zoology, with which it was associated in the group of biological sciences. This request also advocated ‘the need to create Anthropology Institutes, to develop the

74  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

teaching of connected sciences and applications and to include general anthropology in medical studies’ (minutes dated 27 December 1920). The request was partly fulfilled, since a decree dated February 1920 divided the Biology Sciences group of the science faculties in three subgroups – Botany, Zoology and Anthropology. The latter included the general anthropology discipline, but six-monthly or three-monthly courses could be created in criminal anthropology, ethnography and prehistoric archaeology. However, anthropology was not, included in medical studies, but the effort was noteworthy, according to foreign journals that reported and praised the Portuguese decree, as this provided official recognition of the importance and individuality of the discipline as a science. This reward manifested itself in the Portuguese-Spanish Congress, where the Natural Sciences section was subdivided into two subsections, one featuring Botany and Zoology and the other featuring Geology and Anthropology, the latter positioning itself on ‘equal terms with other scientific branches’. Furthermore, this congress emphasized the role played by geologists ‘in the development and progress of anthropology, mainly in the domain of human palaeontology and prehistory’ 71 (minutes dated 27 December 1920). National and International Partnerships and the Exchange of Journals and Works Mendes Correia invited the SPAE to cooperate in the organization of an Institut International d’Anthropologie, planned by the Paris School of Anthropology, which had sent him and António Aurélio da Costa Ferreira a letter. The SPAE joined the initiative, since it might bring interesting anthropological research opportunities in the context of the First World War (1914‒18) (minutes dated 21 January 1919). The Paris School of Anthropology thanked the SPAE for joining the initiative and proposed organizing a preparatory congress for that purpose in 1920 (minutes dated 2 June 1919). According to the 1919 report, the SPAE’s board organized its representation at the preparatory meeting, which took place in Paris in September 1920. Baltasar Osório, Aurélio da Costa Ferreira and Mendes Correia were meant to be present, but only the latter was able to travel and testify to ‘the praises’ that the SPAE had ‘received in the anthropological milieu and the cordiality and unanimity in points of view that prevailed in the meeting’. When the Institut International d’Anthropologie was founded, Portugal and SPAE were represented on its board by Eusébio Tamagnini, Barros e Cunha, Aurélio da Costa Ferreira and Mendes Correia, who formed its first Portuguese delegation. The Paris meeting also counted on the participation of Salomon Reinach (the SPAE’s honorary member) and Henri de Breuil, R. Verneau and G. Hervé (all SPAE correspondent members). On this occasion, Mendes Correia drew Hervé’s attention to the fact that

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  75

Spain was not represented at the congress or in the new institute. However, in response, Hervé informed Mendes Correia that the Institut had delegated to Mendes Correia the ‘task of organizing the Spanish committee’. Therefore, later, Mendes Correia invited the Spanish members Francisco de las Barras de Aragón, Telesforo d’Aranzadi72 and Eduardo Hernández Pacheco to participate. In the meeting that created the Portuguese section of the Institut International d’Anthropologie in 1922, the SPAE was represented by Mendes Correia, by then its vice-chairman, and was elected the section’s secretary. He also represented the SPAE at the Institut’s meeting in 1927, in which SPAE members Barros e Cunha and Henrique Miranda were also present. The 1929 report mentions the International Congress of Anthropology,73 which was due to take place in 1930, and the fact that the SPAE’s chairman (Mendes Correia) and vice-chairman (Hernâni Monteiro) travelled to Coimbra, looking for it to be held in both cities. However, subsequently in Coimbra, ‘an organizing committee [was created] and Porto’s elements were not consulted’. This fact raised protests ‘against such an atrabilious and impolite act, as per letter sent’ to the members. The situation was solved by naming two independent, absolutely impartial committees, one for Porto and another for Coimbra, and Alberto Rocha, from Coimbra was the mediator in this process. Once again, we can see that the relations between Coimbra and Porto were not exactly friendly in the promotion of scientific work. In 1930, several individuals connected to the SPAE participated in the Portugal Section of the XV Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques74 held in France, with presentations mainly on physical anthropology. Some of the subjects debated were the heredity nature of blood groups (Mendes Correia 1931b), the craniology of Angola (Mendes Correia and Athayde 1930), an anthropological study of Portuguese Guinea (Lima and Mascarenhas 1930; Mendes Correia and Athayde 1931), angles at the base of the skull in native inhabitants of Portuguese colonies (Pina 1931) and ‘race’ differentiation through blood (Ferreira 1932). On the SPAE’s initiative, in 1934, in Porto, the 1st National Congress of Colonial Anthropology was organized, with around eighty presentations on colonial matters. Perhaps due to the success of this congress, the organization of the Congresses of the Portuguese World (in which Mendes Correia participated), as well as of the Exhibition of the Portuguese World that was held in parallel in Lisbon in 1940, sought to surpass the events in Porto in 1934 (Matos 2013). Several SPAE members were in Porto and presented papers in these 1940 congresses (the First National Congress and the CNCP), which took place in July and September, respectively. Some SPAE members also presented papers at the 4th Congress of the Portuguese Society for the Advancement of Science and at the 17th Congress of the Spanish Society for the Advancement of Science held in Porto in 1942.

76  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Another way for the SPAE to spread the work of its members, launch debates and get to know the work of counterpart associations was by exchanging scientific periodicals. According to the 1919 report, the board received friendly answers and promises for the exchange of works from scientific entities such as: the ACL, the SGL, the Paris School of Anthropology, the Smithsonian Institution (Washington DC), RAI (London), the Società Romana di Antropologie (Rome) and the Società Italiana de Antropologia e Etnologia (Florence); it also received ‘motivational words’ from journals such as Revue Anthropologique, Lusa and Terra Portuguesa. Even though it was still incipient in 1919, the library began to grow with national publications, such as Arquivo de Anatomia e Antropologia (FMUL) and the journal Contribuições para o Estudo da Antropologia Portuguesa by IAUC. From 1919, there were exchanges with: Revue Anthropologique (by the Paris School of Anthropology and the Institut International d’Anthropologie); Rivista di Antropologia (Roman Society for Anthropology); the journal of the Smithsonian Institution; the journal of the Società Italiana de Antropologia e Etnologia; and publications by the Bureau of American Ethnology (Washington DC). From 1921, the SPAE received publications from the Société Royale de Archéologie de Bruxelles and the Institut Archéologique Liégeois (Belgium) and the Ethnos journal (Mexico). In 1922, the SPAE began to receive the journals Man (London) and Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft (Vienna). From 1925, the SPAE also exchanged the following publications: Société Archeólogique, historique e geographique de Constantin (Algeria); Bulletin de Institut des Recherches Biologiques de l’Université de Perm (Russia); L’Universo (by the Military Geographic Institute of Florence); Lud (by the Polish Ethnological Society in Warsaw); Investigación y Progresso (Madrid); Anthropos: Revue Internationale d’Ethnologie et de Linguistique (Austria); Journal Russe d’Anthropologie; La Tradizione (Palermo, Italy); Boletim do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil); and Acta Archaeologica (Copenhagen). According to the 1920 report, several other scientific journals maintained ‘friendly’ contacts with the SPAE, such as the Italian journals Archivio di Antropologia Criminale (Turin) and Archivio per l’Antropologia e l’Etnologia (Florence). Besides these, from 1919 the SPAE was offered original publications from: Telesforo d’Aranzadi (Barcelona); Sergio Sergi (Rome); Giuffrida-Ruggeri; Joseph de Barandiaran (a specialist in prehistory and ethnological studies in the Basque country); Enrique de Eguren (from the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Oviedo, Spain); and some permanent members.75 In 1929, the number of exchanges almost doubled and in 1930 the 100 exchanges in 1929 grew to 125. The library was considered by its members to be one of the most important in terms of anthropological sciences.

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  77

Publication in the TAE and Subjects Presented at the SPAE’s Lectures Some of the works presented at the SPAE’s lectures were later published in the TAE, while others were published that had not previously been presented. The TAE started with Fonseca Cardoso’s (1919) posthumous notes, under the title ‘In Moxico Territory: Notes on Angolan Ethnography’,76 which include the ‘portrait of the deceased anthropologist’, ‘biographical and tribute words’ and numerous pictures. This publication was followed by others, such as ‘Contributions for the Ethnological Study of Timor’, by Major António Leite de Magalhães (1919). On average, one to two volumes were published every year. The SPAE’s 1926 report records that this publication was ‘unique in its genre’ in the country, but perhaps because it was published far from Lisbon, it was ‘ignored or not found worthy of an indulgent attention from the highest government’. However, João Camoesas, Minister of Public Education (1923‒25), granted a sum to finance the TAE’s publishing expenses. And Artur Ricardo Jorge, when reviewing the 1926 budget as Minister of Public Education, ‘doubled the sum that was granted’, which would allow ‘printing an instalment every four months’. The SPAE’s situation was better off in 1927 thanks to the government grant it then received regularly. In 1929, the National Education Committee (of which Mendes Correia later became a member) started giving a 1,500escudo grant, allowing the publication of two instalments every year. In 1935, three were published and in the following years it was possible to publish one to two every year. Annually, the SPAE organized on average three scientific sessions and each could include more than one conference. For example, it organized five in 1923, four in 1924, seven in 1935 and five in 1936. Mendes Correia presented at least one conference every year. These presentations, which were covered in local newspapers, included people who did not belong to the society and were ‘very well-attended’, according to SPAE reports. Anthropology was the central subject in several conferences. For example, on 2 June 1919, Freitas Viegas spoke about the goals and the progress of anthropology. But also more specific subjects were presented. The diversity of topics was also due to Mendes Correia’s broad vision of anthropology and to the way in which his collaborators were motivated to approach a range of subjects. From 1918 to 1944, in a total of 165 conferences, 23% dealt with physical anthropology and 27% with ethnology and ethnography.77 Among the most common topics, we find palaeontology, prehistoric archaeology and human evolution. On 22 January 1920, Mendes Correia presented the lecture ‘Palaeontology and the Origin of Man’, with light projections and a specimen exhibition. According to the minutes, after referring the ‘morphologic, physiologic, embryologic, etc, arguments in

78  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

favour of the animal origin of Man’, he ‘exposed the discoveries of fossil Primates’ made until then and focused ‘especially on the Maptomorphus, Propliopithecus, Pliopitecus, Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus, Pithecanthropus and the quaternary man’. The lecture included the presentation of ‘genealogical trees of primates and of Man’ by Dutch paleoanthropologist Eugène Dubois (1858–1940), German paleoanthropologist Gustav Schwalbe (1844–1916), German zoologist and palaeontologist Max Schlosser (1854–1932), English geologist and palaeontologist Guy Ellock Pilgrim (1875–1943), and Scottish anthropologist and anatomist Arthur Keith (1866–1955), which he assessed as ‘very conjectural and premature’. Finally, he mentioned the ‘neopoligeny (in particular the pananthropoid thesis by Kloatich) and the neomonogeny (Giuffrida-Ruggeri), preferring the latter’. He concluded by saying that: Palaeontology was not yet able to provide the human genealogical tree, but it has faith in it, first because it has provided many extinct primate species; second because it has provided some generalized forms of primates … third because it has revealed the existence, in geological times, of simians that were more anthropomorphized than the current ones and of men more simian than today.

Following this lecture, Mendes Correia presented others on archaeological topics. Despite being the mentor of an anthropology school, at the beginning of his career he wrote several texts on archaeology and, for a long time, this was the area on which he focused on, rarely on the others. The topics of his conferences at the SPAE until the 1940s illustrate this presence: in around twenty-seven conferences, from 1919 to 1940, nineteen were related to palaeontology, prehistoric archaeology and human evolution,78 and the remaining right covered criminal anthropology,79 physical anthropology80 and anthropology and history,81 or were biographical tributes.82 Other conferences were devoted to medicine, mainly rare topics such as ‘Congenital Atrial Fistula’ by José Maria de Oliveira on ‘a very curious and scarcely-studied anomaly’ (11 June 1920). This lecture, which was based on ‘personal observations, with photographs and light projections’, was published by the SPAE. Physical anthropology was also covered. For example, at a national level, Joaquim A. Pires de Lima spoke on ‘A Case of Hereditary Brachydactyly’ (13 June 1922) and, in the colonial context, Hernâni Monteiro presented ‘Dental Mutilations in the Region of Humbe’ (13 June 1922). In the field of ethnology and ethnography, at a national level, Joaquim Pires de Lima presented a lecture on ‘The Sacred Tooth of Aboim de Nóbrega and the Legend of St. Frutuoso Abade’ (6 May 1921),

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  79

while Armando Leça,83 who was called a ‘distinguished folklorist’ in the 1936 report, spoke on ‘The Songbook in Portuguese Life’ (1936), ‘Short Notes on the Portuguese Songbook’ (1938) and ‘Singing and Dancing in the Portuguese Songbook’ (1939). The conferences and the TAE illustrate the SPAE’s interest in the colonial context. Although the works in the physical or biology fields were the main trend in Mendes Correia’s and other figure’s contributions to the SPAE, there were also others. For example, Major António Leite de Magalhães presented the lecture ‘Ethnological Study of Timor’ on his ‘linguistics and ethnographical studies in the Portuguese part of the island’ (2 June 1919), and Colonel Alexandre José Sarsfield spoke on ‘African Ethnography’ (14 January 1922). The conferences could be more or less detailed and provoke debate, as is the case for the lecture by David Magno on the region of Dembos (Angola) (25 July 1919), in which he described the ‘history of Congo and its invasions, showing the existing ethnic affinities’ between the populations of Dembos and the ‘peoples of that former Empire’; he also referred to the works performed in that place by colonial employees Major Leite de Magalhães and Reverend António de Miranda Magalhães. In addition, Magno mentioned the ‘Luango or the Mubires, the Mahungo, the Quibaxe and many other populations, mainly from Caculo Cahenda, describing their material and intellectual life, their clothing, diet and arts, as well as their family organization … birth, marriage, death, divinities, cults, sorceries, the “oaths” ceremony, their social organization, their classes and their castes, their political organization, property, and judiciary practices’,84 i.e. subjects that we would integrate in social and cultural anthropology. Following Magno’s presentation, Major Leite de Magalhães discussed some ‘aspects with personally-collected data’ in the region. In that same session (25 July 1919), Mendes Correia introduced a lecture by missionary António de Miranda Magalhães ‘on the Luango of the Dembos region, to which he added his results on some of the skulls of the Dembado of Zambi-Aluquem’, which had been sent to him by Father Miranda Magalhães ‒ i.e. to the rather ethnographical knowledge gathered by the missionary, he added his analysis of the skulls of members of that group. As mentioned previously, this interest in the colonial field dated back to 1919, but it is mainly from the 1930s onwards, and due to the works in anthropological missions driven by Mendes Correia, that more presentations on the colonies emerged at the SPAE within the scope of both physical and sociocultural anthropology. Some of them were later published in the TAE, or other journals, and are indexed in the miscellanies85 of the Porto School of Anthropology. In fact, the SPAE’s production significantly contributed to the IAUP’s and the FCUP’s publications and to the growth of the estate that today is identified with the Porto School of Anthropology.

80  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Alongside the TAE, there was the journal Contribuições para o Estudo da Antropologia Portuguesa 86 by the IAUC (Museum and Laboratory of Anthropology) that emerged in 1914 and the goal of which was to publish original works and the exchange with (national and international) counterpart publications, such as the TAE. From 1914 to 1981, 10 volumes of that journal were published. In 1981, the journal published a volume with the lists of all the articles published, dividing them into three topics: physical anthropology (79), cultural anthropology (7) and archaeology (1). Based on this set (87 works), it be may concluded that the Coimbra School of Anthropology mainly produced physical anthropology works (91%), with much less on cultural anthropology (8%), while archaeology (as opposed to the Porto School of Anthropology) was merely residual (1%). In the works presented at the SPAE the difference was smaller between the proportion of physical anthropology works and ethnological and ethnographical anthropology. However, some articles in Coimbra’s journal could be considered as falling within an archaeological scope, as was the case for those I categorized as archaeological in the SPAE’s conferences (some of which were published in the TAE). From the indexes of Coimbra’s journal, we can highlight not only the inferior number of ethnology and ethnography works compared to physical anthropology, but also the fact that none of them (ethnology or ethnography) was focused on Portugal (as opposed to the SPAE, where thirty-six works were presented from 1918 to 1944), but rather on the colonies and mainly Angola,87 of which the work integrated into the archaeology topic is an example88 (Figueiras 1981). Some of the lectures presented at the National Congress on Colonial Anthropology in 1934 also show that in Coimbra, there was also an interest in the colonial context. Based on the analysis of the SPAE’s activities, it can be concluded that the individuals with a background in medical studies, regardless whether they practised it or not, wrote more on subjects of physical anthropology, while the priests wrote more on ethnology and ethnography subjects (vocabulary and practices). The rather social and cultural research (linguistics, rituals, cultural practices, clothing or nutrition) was performed mainly by employees of the colonial administration or by missionaries, as I was able to confirm in other research (Matos 2013), although these materials reinforce this idea. When the titles refer to ‘anthropological study’, often they mean a physical anthropology study; when they mention ‘ethnological study’, they mean subjects that today we would include in social and cultural anthropology. Furthermore, anyone who wrote on prehistoric archaeology could also write on colonial physical anthropology (such as José Júlio Bethencourt Ferreira or Santos Júnior) ‒ i.e. the case of Mendes Correia, who dealt with several subjects, was not unique.

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  81

The SPAE created opportunities that made it possible both to form structures and to gather ideas and (national and foreign) individualities that were eventually connected to the Porto School of Anthropology. At the SPAE, we find experts in several domains, trained in medicine, science or the humanities, as well as members of the military, priests and businessmen. Some of its members and collaborators were amateurs in anthropology, but had completed their university studies in other areas and worked professionally in other domains. As to the number of practitioners, we need to contextualize the scale – Portugal – a small country where associations gather a small number of people; for that reason, the SPAE had fewer members than its counterparts abroad. However, if we consider the internationalization effort – by including foreign honorary and correspondent members and considering the number of exchanges – this effort should be regarded as noteworthy when compared to scientific societies in Great Britain and the United States, for example. João Leal considered that ‘despite a prevailing choice for physical anthropology and archaeology’, the SPAE never stopped promoting the research in ethnography (2000: 35). However, it is my opinion that, in the end, it did more than that, i.e. it stimulated all areas related to anthropology, based on Mendes Correia’s inclusive vision. The preconceived idea that most of the works concerned physical anthropology and archaeology was probably raised by the fact that it was Mendes Correia, and other people with a background in medicine and the natural sciences, who published and disseminated its work the most. Although the presentations at the SPAE indicate a diversity of interests, not all were published or presented elsewhere. The diversity of studies also illustrates the fact that new and pioneering methods were being experimented, as well as new interests and new paths. Sciences were not self-excluded from the beginning ‒ quite the contrary. Diversity was welcome. The SPAE and the IAUP are different institutions, but they were confounded for a long time, maybe because both were directed by Mendes Correia (the one who most contributed to the SPAE’s internationalization). From the mid-1950s until 1985, the SPAE’s activity depended mainly on Santos Júnior (one of Mendes Correia’s closest collaborators), who performed archaeology and ethnography works in Trás-os-Montes, and archaeology works in Angola and Mozambique, and retired in 1971. When the first chairman of the SPAE, Freitas Viegas, died in 1928, he was replaced by Mendes Correia89 and the vice-chairman was Hernâni Monteiro, an anatomy professor. When Mendes Correia moved to Lisbon, Hernâni Monteiro took the chairman office and Santos Júnior, an anthropology professor, became vice-chairman. Hernâni Monteiro was succeeded by Santos Júnior as chairman and Abel Sampaio Tavares, an anatomy

82  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

professor, took the role of vice-chairman. The chairman office was therefore alternately held by anatomy and anthropology professors, as a result of the close relations between the departments of anthropology (in the FCUP) and anatomy (in the FMUP). When Santos Júnior resigned, a new board was elected in 1985, comprising people mainly connected to archaeology. The SPAE’s estate,90 partly in dozens of boxes, has changed places several times. In 1918, the headquarters were at Mendes Correia’s father’s (António Maria Esteves Mendes Correia) clinic at Rua de Santa Catarina in Porto,91 but a short time after it was set up in the FCUP’s building, at Praça Rodrigues Teixeira (known as Praça dos Leões), where nowadays we find the UP’s rectory. This was probably in 1920, since the SPAE’s report includes a note of thanks to the FCUP for allowing the loan of the facilities. After the revolution on 25 April 1974, the SPAE remained in the FCUP’s building. Subsequently, the estate was transferred to the former CICAP building, and the headquarters remained at the same venue; by order of the UP’s rector, the estate returned to the FCUP’s building. In May 2010, the estate was transferred to a three-room section lent by the UP’s rectory, at the Higher School of Journalism. In 2016, in a public ceremony, an agreement was signed for the donation of the SPAE’s estate (books and journals), which was then integrated in the estate of the UP’s Museum of Natural History. The SPAE’s current board, and mainly its current chairman, Vítor Oliveira Jorge, have safeguarded the materials’ preservation, have kept up with change and have continued the SPAE’s work with dignity, through its activities and by publishing the TAE. The aforementioned changes are also related to the SPAE’s new phase, which started in 1985, with a new board, the reform of the former Statute and the admission of new members. Since 1987, it is an Entity of Public Interest (D.R. no. 89, 2nd series, dated 16 April 1987). The following year, it organized a colloquium on social anthropology and, together with the Group of Archaeological Studies of Porto, it organized the Colloquium of Archaeology of the Peninsular Northwest. The reflections it produced were published in the TAE. Under the same seal, in volumes 30, 31 and 32 (1990, 1991 and 1992), articles were published in a posthumous tribute to Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira. In 1992, the SPAE organized a roundtable with the title ‘Is There a Portuguese Culture?’ and in 1993 it organized the 1st Congress on Peninsular Archaeology. Besides promoting activities and conferences, it continues to publish the TAE, since 1919, with works within the scope of social sciences (anthropology, archaeology, the cognitive sciences, the education sciences, the information and communication sciences, law, economy, philosophy, history, linguistics, heritage, psychology or sociology), revealing its openness to essays on issues that are interesting to understand the contemporaneous world. The SPAE’s estate is precious, due

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  83

to its archive with letter correspondence, its books and journals exchanged with counterparts all over the world. It includes, for example, the journals by the Smithsonian Institution (Washington DC) from its first edition, and is therefore the only institution in Portugal with this set. Furthermore, the TAE gather an important source of information on the history of the science produced in the country.

Conclusion The histories of anthropology can be told based on the narratives of individuals and on the stories about institutions, ideas and traditions. However, they often focus on some individuals with less regard for ideas, thus omitting significant phenomena. In this chapter I wanted to set the individuals, the authors, particularly Mendes Correia, in a wider context, considering the period that precedes his intellectual production. The Porto School of Anthropology is partly a result of the work developed by the SPAE and of the follow-up on the work by the Carlos Ribeiro Society and the Polytechnic Academy. Mendes Correia and his collaborators continued, in a way, the work of this generation. This is illustrated by the fact that, for instance, the first study published in the TAE is a posthumous memoir of Fonseca Cardoso. When, in 1912, Mendes Correia began his anthropology classes, Rocha Peixoto and Fonseca Cardoso had already passed away and Ricardo Severo had gone to Brazil, but José Fortes sometimes still went to the FCUP’s anthropology department, offering motivation and advice. What later became the Porto School of Anthropology, in parallel to the creation of the SPAE, shows a similar process to other circles or scientific societies. These examples reveal that a small network of intellectuals or people interested in the so-called emergent sciences, led by charismatic figures, gave rise to an institutionalized debate of ideas, topics, methods and forms of research, as proven by the studies on other schools, which include the choice of topics or areas to be examined.92 The stories connected to the institutionalization of anthropology as a science were also important – the introduction of the discipline in the universities’ curriculums – as well as the discipline’s professionalization. As such, Mendes Correia is a central figure for us to understand the strategies in the path of anthropology in Portugal and the way in which some types of knowledge were intertwined. The Porto School of Anthropology underwent several influences; its collaborators had different training and interests in a time when anthropology was little institutionalized. Besides, although the boundaries of the discipline were permeable, some of the school’s works revealed an interdisciplinary dialogue and the exchange of information.

84  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

In Porto, we found an anthropology with a naturalist and physical character that prevailed in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and that also existed in Great Britain and the United States, combined with an anthropology that stimulated sociocultural studies, in the country and in the colonies. However, it was characterized by a certain theoretical and methodological anachronism that lasted for a large part of the twentieth century in Portugal. Furthermore, anthropology in Portugal was marginal in the international context. The French, British and North American contexts were dominant. However, German anthropology, for instance, which greatly influenced its North American counterpart and the study of cultures inspired by Romanticism, has motivated some of the works that made their way through the SPAE and the Porto School of Anthropology. Besides, there are quite different national traditions, even among neighbouring countries. In the Iberian case, for example, there are many differences between Portugal and Spain. Further, when we compare the Portuguese scientific societies, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to other international societies, we realize its smaller number of participants and works; we must therefore consider the scale of comparison and the fact that at this time the science produced was rather peripheral. Only after 1974, when the anthropology degree was incorporated in universities and when it was definitively institutionalized and professionalized, the discourse within the anthropologist community turned more endogenous.

Notes   1. These terms arose as non-Greek synonyms of Völkerkunde (1771) in the works by German historians who worked mainly at the University of Göttingen (Vermeulen 2006).   2. On Boas’ work and ideas, see Stocking Jr. (1974, 1996).   3. On Romanticism in Portugal, see Saraiva and Lopes (1996: 664‒73).   4. Some journals in this period were fundamental in the dissemination of new ideas, such as Revista Literária do Porto (1877) and O Positivismo (1878‒82), created by psychiatrist Júlio de Matos (1856‒1922), and essayist and politician (graduated in Law) Teófilo Braga (1843‒1924).   5. For a history of psychiatry in Portugal, see Quintais (2012).   6. ‘Systematização da Moral’, 1880, In O Positivismo, no. 3: 213 (quoted in Catroga 1977b).   7. He was influenced more by the uniformitarian theories of Charles Lyell and less by Charles Darwin. He developed the study of the evolution of society and its institutions; he sought to show, by means of a comparative method, the evolution

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  85

of religion in time. He was one of the first authors to question the validity of anthropology when the data was collected by third parties (Stocking Jr. 1983).   8. In 1890, representing the section of ethnic sciences of the SGL, he published the ‘Draft of a program for the anthropological, pathological and demographical study of the Portuguese people’. The programme included: anthropometric characters (stature, cephalic index and manual pressure forces); chromatic characters (hair, eyes and skin colour); morphological characters (form of the nose, face and hair); visual and auditive acuity.   9. Eleven volumes of this work were published. 10. Vasconcelos 1915. 11. According to George L. Mosse, one of the first factors in the emergence of the racist thought was the visions of history defended by the Romantics. The search for the national origins in a distant and mythical past supplied a cohesive element for the development of racial ideals; the search for the past was racially oriented (1963: 74). In the case of the Portuguese Romantics, only a more detailed analysis will allow to draw more precise conclusions. See, for example, Sobral (2004). 12. He managed the Revista Lusitana journal, a prestigious publication that was greatly respected. 13. He reformulated the problem of the origins of nationality. He studied some of its socioeconomic aspects in As Vilas do Norte de Portugal – a work that was a precursor of the ‘modern rural historiography’, included in the two posthumous volumes with the title Estudos Históricos e Económicos (1923) (Saraiva and Lopes 1996: 850). He defended a North/South division in Portugal. 14. On the transition to modern British social anthropology from 1888 to 1951, see Stocking Jr. (1996). 15. According to the authors, ‘the term “semi-periphery” is used to characterize Portugal’s or the Portuguese science’s position in a world system organized into central, peripheral and semi-peripheral zones’; on the other hand, ‘the term “periphery” is used to designate Portugal’s position in relation to the other European centres of science production’ (Nunes and Gonçalves 2001: 14). 16. He was replaced by Manuel Heleno (curator since 1921 and director from 1929 to 1964). 17. An ambitious project that gathers aspects connected to the (entire) Portuguese people: occupation of the territory, material life, superstitions and religiousness. 18. In a footnote, Leite de Vasconcelos refers to having consulted his ‘friend and colleague’ Mendes Correia regarding this division and the latter agreed with it (Vasconcelos 1928: 19). 19. Successor of the Geological Committee created in 1848 by the Royal Academy of Sciences. It was dissolved in 1868 due to disagreements between Carlos Ribeiro and Pereira da Costa; the collections were incorporated into the Polytechnic School of Lisbon, where Pereira da Costa taught. Only in 1918 was the Geological Services of Portugal created, the estate of which was incorporated in 1993 into the current Geological and Mining Institute. 20. In this congress around 300 European scientists took part, among which were more than 80 Portuguese. 21. He was born in Águeda, but graduated in medicine in Rio de Janeiro, where he led his clinical practice for some years. He attended the Paris School of Anthropology and eventually settled in Lisbon. 22. L. de Vasconcelos expressed some reservations regarding Ferraz de Macedo’s reference to the Lusitanians.

86  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

23. Costa Ferreira graduated from the Faculties of Philosophy (1899) and Medicine (1905) of the UC. Following several periods in Paris, he settled in Lisbon in 1907. He was Minister of Internal Development (1912‒13) and in 1914 he created the MedicalPedagogical Institute for the teaching of the mentally disabled. He was a founder of the SPAE and a local correspondent of the RAI from 1910. 24. Study on the ethnic origins of the settlers of the island of São Miguel and alleged mechanisms of ‘race’ formation. The author adopted the ideas of Gustave Le Bon (1841‒1931) in his work on a ‘race’ in formation at the Tatras Mountains (a mountain range between Poland and Slovakia). 25. The change of the name to ethnological museum was probably to avoid any confusion with the SGL’s Museum of Colonial Ethnography. Today it is called the National Museum of Archaeology and it is set up at the Jerónimos Monastery. 26. See http://www.mnarqueologia-ipmuseus.pt/?a=1&x=3&cc_tipo=28 (retrieved 13 September 2022). 27. The Anatomy Institute of the FMUP, directed by J.A. Pires de Lima, provided a remarkable contribution to anthropological studies. Anatomic research works were published from 1911 to 1925 in a commemorative edition of O Instituto de Anatomia. After 1925, the works continued, some with the IAUP’s support. According to Mendes Correia, the IAUP was focused on the ‘most recent [aspects] of anthropological studies, Genetics, Biotypology, Study of the Human Build, Endocrinology, Ethnic Haematology’ (1941a: 36), while the Anatomy Institute focused on anthropology of the soft parts (non-bone). Both institutes organized, together with the SPAE, the 15th International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology and the 4th session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie, with sessions in 1930 in Porto, and the 1st National Congress of Colonial Anthropology (in 1934 in Porto). They also participated in congresses abroad. 28. Chair created to replace the chair of Agriculture, Zootechnics and Rural Economy, existing in the Faculty of Philosophy (Cem Anos de Antropologia em Coimbra, 1985: 14). 29. Francisco Augusto Corrêa Barata wrote, among others, As raças históricas da Península Ibérica (1872) and Origens Antropológicas da Europa (1873), both published by Imprensa da UC. 30. Project voted in the founders’ meeting, which took place at the IAUC on 4 April 1896, presided over by B. Machado, full professor of anthropology at the UC (Estatutos da Sociedade de Antropologia de Coimbra…). 31. B. Machado was a freemason; he was forced into exile, on the occasion of the Revolution of 28 May 1926, taking his children with him; he was not connected to the Estado Novo. Teófilo Braga, Bernardino Machado and Manuel de Arriaga were the first three presidents of the Portuguese Republic that contributed to the new democratic vision after the monarchy. 32. Topinard took Broca’s place at the Société d’Anthropologie (1881‒86). He was a professor at the École d’Anthropologie from 1876 to 1890 and was director of the Revue Anthropologique e de L’Anthropologie. 33. Anuário da Universidade de Coimbra 1887‒88: 173. 34. This university had proposed the creation of a Colonial Course at the Faculty of Law, in December 1901, coordinated by Rui Ulrich and Marnoco e Sousa, both law professors, from 1905 to 1910. 35. On the Goa Medical School, see Bastos (2002). 36. To Tamagnini, science should serve the national interests and politics must be founded based on the biological knowledge of the national aggregate (1940a: 56).

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  87

37. In 1989, João Pereira Neto, who was then the director of Antropos – Sociedade de Estudos de Antropologia e Sociologia, Ltda., wrote an opinion on the creation of this degree (Neto 1988). 38. O crime: Apontamentos para a sua sistematização, by Roberto Frias (1880); As prisões, by João António Pereira (1881); O crime: Considerações gerais, by Sérgio Moreira da Fonseca (1902); A tatuagem nos criminosos, by Álvaro Teixeira Bastos (1903); O problema de Lombroso: Estudo crítico de bio-sociologia sobre a teoria atávica do crime, by Manuel José de Oliveira (1904). 39. Breves considerações a respeito das principais causas de degenerescência física, moral e intelectual do povo português, by Manuel Tibúrcio Ferraz (1893); O homem e a teoria de Darwin: Esboço histórico, by António Maria de Carvalho (1906). 40. Carlos Ribeiro, geologist and prehistorian, was interested in the origins of the human being in the Mesolithic period, and for that purpose he studied the shell midden. 41. The choice of the name Carlos Ribeiro for this society was praised by Armand de Quatrefages (of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris), who expressed his willingness to help the society establish contacts with similar groups in France (Peixoto 1890: 190). It was probably due to Carlos Ribeiro’s scientific prestige, following his discoveries of human remains in Muge that, in 1880, Lisbon received the 7th session of the Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques. 42. According to Ricardo Roque, the fact that Rocha Peixoto, Fonseca Cardoso and Ricardo Severo did not attend the anthropology course, created in 1885 by B. Machado, was deliberate, since the Coimbra school was considered more as a competitor and less as an ally stated in Porto’s project (2001b: 264). 43. A revolutionary movement that started in Porto, which aimed the implantation of the republican regime. 44. In 1895 Wenceslau de Lima, director of the Medical and Surgical School of Porto and professor of mineralogy and geology at the Polytechnic School, joined the editing team of the journal. 45. Mendes Correia was the one who elevated Fonseca Cardoso to the category of founder of the ‘Portuguese colonial anthropology’ by posthumously publishing some of his works. However, Fonseca Cardoso was a renowned anthropologist before that, since in 1908 he coordinated the chapter on ‘Portuguese Anthropology’ in Notas sobre Portugal I (Vasconcelos 1928: 16). This text, which includes a map on Portugal’s skeletons – brachycephalic and dolichocephalic – was probably his last anthropological work. Fonseca Cardoso was influenced by authors such as Rudolf Virchow (1821‒1902) and Paul Topinard. He died in 1912 in Timor. 46. On Darwin’s influence on the authors of the 1870 generation, see Pereira (2001). 47. At this time, Rocha Peixoto was assistant naturalist in this museum. 48. A work criticized by León Paul Choffat (1849‒1919), to whom Cardoso subsequently replied. 49. On physical anthropology and anthropometry at the dawn of the twentieth century, see Madureira (2003). 50. This article seeks to answer a question that G. Hervé (Paris School of Anthropology) sent by letter on the influence of Negroid characters, informing that, ‘among the skulls in the prehistoric shell midden in Muge [he had found] a specimen with some Negroid characters’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 15). According to Mendes Correia, ‘the discovery, some years before, of the skeletons of an old woman and an adolescent girl, with Negroid characters, in Aurignacian levels of the Grimaldi caves (Baoussé-Roussé, Menton)’, based on which Verneau ‘considered he should define the “Grimaldi Negroid race”’, has promoted a ‘more intense research on

88  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Negroids in European prehistory’ (1941a: 15). Around twenty-three years later, at the Anthropological Congress in 1930 (Lisbon and Porto), Hervé wrote to Mendes Correia, and this letter was published in the Revue Anthropologique. 51. For further details on the history of the SPAE and its international relations, see Matos (2016, 2018). 52. Doctor and anthropologist, director of the Porto Anthropometric Post and anatomy professor at the FMUP. 53. Zoology professor at the FCUP. 54. He completed the free course in physical and natural sciences; agriculture and physical and natural sciences professor at the Polytechnic Academy, director of the Comércio do Porto newspaper and a political economy professor at the UP; director of Portugália. The SPAE’s general meeting on 28 December 1927 decided that the estate belonging to the Carlos Ribeiro Society would be transferred to the IAUP. 55. The SPAE’s current statute is published in Diário da República, no. 89, 2nd Series, dated 16 April 1987. 56. This change in terminology at this date is surprising, since this only happened in the 1951 Constitution. 57. At the SPAE’s meeting on 14 March 1919, a letter by Henrique de Vilhena was read, where he thanked his election as member, but did not accept the membership (Livro de Actas da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia [SPAE] I 1918‒24). 58. Livro de Actas da SPAE I 1918‒24. 59. He was Mendes Correia’s first choice for SPAE chairman. As he did not live in Porto, he would have been replaced by Freitas Viegas (as vice-chairman) whenever necessary, but he turned down the invitation (Correspondence from Mendes Correia to José Leite de Vasconcelos, references 5502, 5503, 5504, National Museum of Archaeology, Lisbon). I thank Ricardo Roque for drawing my attention to this aspect. 60. Serpa Pinto (1907‒33), with studies in engineering, was geology assistant professor at the FCUP and one of the most promising archaeologists of his time; he is known as Mendes Correia’s ‘heir’. 61. Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (studies in zoology and medicine); José da Rocha Ferreira (palaeontology professor); Bento Carqueja (studies in physical and natural sciences); Freitas Viegas and Abel Salazar (both doctors). 62. Annual report (minutes dated 22 January 1920). 63. For example: Sebastião Pessanha; Joaquim Alberto Pires de Lima; Francisco Nunes Guimarães Coimbra; Mário de Moraes Afonso; António Simões Pina; Jaime Alberto de Castro Moraes (physician captain-lieutenant); Armando de Almeida Prisco (mineralogy assistant professor at the FCUP); José Marques de Ansiães Proença (doctor); Tomaz Lobo (bachelor in philosophy); Alberto Brochado (doctor); Mário de Vasconcelos e Sá (professor at the Higher Institute of Commerce of Porto); Manuel B. Barbosa Soeiro (assistant professor at the FMUL); João Diogo (director of the AngloLatin School in Porto); Francisco de Oliveira Santos (governor of Lunda, Angola); Ricardo Severo; Augusto de Oliveira (General Inspector of the Youth Services of the Ministry of Justice, involved in the organization of the International Congress on Child Protection in Lisbon); Carlos Teixeira; Maria Irene Leite da Costa; Amílcar de Magalhães Mateus (a close collaborator of Mendes Correia, who accompanied him to Guinea from 1945 to 1946); Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo; and Orlando Ribeiro. 64. Only with the creation of the UP in 1911 did women gain access to teaching positions in higher education, but always at lower levels, such as assistant professor, and with

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  89

temporary nominations, not reaching any doctoral dissertation. By comparison, note the case of the UC, which in 1911 invited Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos to teach, but also the absence of women in the first FLUP. Perhaps for that reason, when Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo scheduled her doctoral exams (for 23 November 1944, with the dissertation ‘Alguns caracteres morfológicos da mão dos portugueses’), it made the front pages of some morning papers in Porto: ‘At the University of Porto, a woman is going to obtain her doctoral degree in science, something unheard-of in our city’s academic life’ ( Jornal de Notícias, 21 November 1944); ‘For the first time in the history of the University of Porto, a woman is subjected to doctoral exams in the Faculty of Sciences’ (O Comércio do Porto, 23 November 1944). More recently, the UPortoAlumni, Revista dos Antigos Alunos da Universidade do Porto journal, dated June 2007, published in its inside cover a photo of Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo, dated November 1944, with her insignias. 65. When he suggests the filiation of dark-haired (morenos) dolichoids in Cro-Magnon, Mendes Correia (1919b: 128‒9) quotes the work by Aranzadi, De Antropologia de España (1915), since this author considered this idea to be debatable. 66. Professor at the University of Naples who cooperated in the second instalment of the TAE with an unprecedented work. 67. In the former Library of the Zoology and Anthropology Department of the FCUP, I found several books offered by Pedro Calmon to the library, or to Mendes Correia, with a dedication signed by him. 68. Émile Cartailhac was director of the Musée Saint-Raymond and professor at the University of Toulouse; he put his museum, as well as himself, at the disposal of the SPAE’s members who wished to visit the archaeologic stations in the south of France. According to the 1921 report, he knew Portugal very well, where he had worked for his book Les âges préhistoriques de l’Espagne et du Portugal (1886, Paris, Reinwald). 69. For example: Joseph Deniker (anthropologist); Ferreira Deusdado and Felismino Ribeiro Gomes (who had devoted to anthropological works in Portugal); Léon Paul Choffat (geologist); José Fortes (archaeologist); Aarão Ferreira de Lacerda (permanent member and the SPAE’s vice-chairman); Émile Cartailhac (the SPAE’s honorary member); Giuffrida-Ruggeri (the SPAE’s correspondent member); Freitas Viegas (the SPAE’s chairman since its foundation); Salomon Reinach and Georges Hervé (the SPAE’s honorary and correspondent member, respectively); Rui Correia de Serpa Pinto (the SPAE’s librarian), to whom the society also paid tribute in 1934; Bento Carqueja; Ricardo Severo (honorary member living in São Paulo); and Aleš Hrdlička. 70. Activity Report 1920. 71. On the prehistoric studies at the Porto School of Anthropology, see Guimarães (1995). 72. Telesforo d’Aranzadi turned down this invitation. 73. International Congress on Prehistoric Anthropology, which took place in Coimbra and Porto and in which several Portuguese participated. 74. 4th Session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie, 21‒30 September 1930, Portugal Session – 3rd section. 75. Livro de Actas da SPAE I, 1918‒24. 76. The publication’s interest was expressed by Mendes Correia on 19 April 1919. After the publication, the SPAE received comments by people who knew the field (the 1920 report). António Maria de Freitas listed corrections to the Bailundo vocabulary and F. de Oliveira Santos (governor of Lunda) presented corrections to Quioco words, admitting that the differences might be due to the fact that words had been collected in different regions.

90  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

77. Livro de Actas da SPAE I, 1918‒24; Livro de Actas da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia II, 1925‒44); Mendes Correia 1941a. 78. ‘Palaeontology and the Origin of Man’ (1920); ‘Einstein and Organic Evolution’ (1922); ‘The Iron Age in Portugal’ (1924); ‘The Alleged Tertiary Man in Vale das Lages’ and ‘The Findings of Alvão’ (1926); ‘Prehistoric Art in Trás-os-Montes’ (1928); ‘Skulls from the Pre-Roman Necropolis in Alcácer do Sal’ (1931); ‘The Origins of the City of Porto’ (1932); ‘Impressions and Engravings of Prehistoric Human Feet’, ‘The Problem of Moron in Strabo’, ‘The Belitans of Artemidorus’, ‘The Ligurian Problem in Portugal’ and ‘Prehistoric Tombs in Alpiarça’ (1934); ‘Anthropomorphic stele in Monte do Rebolido, Entre-os-Rios’ (1935); ‘Two New Portuguese Prehistoric Stations (Gandra and Paúl de Magos)’ and ‘New Elements on the Man of Sambaqui in Brazil’ (1936); ‘The Eneolithic Station of Vila Nova de S. Pedro (Cartaxo)’ (1937); ‘New Lithic Stations in Muge’ and ‘New Paintings in the Baltar Dolmen’ (1938). 79. ‘Integral Criminal Anthropology’ (1925); ‘Formulas and Individual Profiles in Criminal Anthropology’ (1933); ‘New Directives in Criminal Anthropology’ (1936). 80. ‘Identification in Brazil and the Collegno Amnesiac’ (1934); ‘Genetic Notions on Physical Build and Race’ (1940); ‘Brazilian Ethnogeny’ (1935c). 81. ‘Montaigne and Anthropology’ (1933). Michel de Montaigne (1533‒72) was a pioneer regarding the notion of cultural relativism and stated that each person considers as barbarian what is not practised in one’s own land. 82. ‘Tribute to the memory of Rui de Serpa Pinto’ (1934) – written with J. Vitorino da Costa and Óscar Saturnino. 83. Pseudonym of the composer, folklorist and ethnomusicologist Armando Lopes (1883‒1977); he studied at the Lisbon National Conservatory and taught piano and composition; known as the father of Portuguese ethnomusicology, he was responsible for the abundant collection and editing of the first popular-musician songbook. 84. Livro de Actas da SPAE I 1918‒24. 85. A sixty-six-volume set, mainly with articles by people connected to the school and with which works were exchanged, although there are articles dated since the midnineteenth century until 1975 (the most recent date). 86. Despite receiving grants from the National Education Committee and from the IAC, some works, due to a lack of financing, were published as offprints in Revista da Universidade de Coimbra and Revista da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Coimbra. The last time this happened was in the 8th instalment of the 6th volume (1959). 87. The majority of these works, published in the 1970s, is by Manuel Laranjeira Rodrigues de Areia, retired full professor of anthropology at the University of Coimbra. 88. Work by Rui de Sousa Martins with the title ‘Archaeological Station of Old Banza Quibaxe. Dembos. Angola’, 1976, Contribuições para o Estudo da Antropologia Portuguesa IX, no. 4: 243‒306. 89. Mendes Correia was no longer secretary and took on the role of vice-chairman of the SPAE on 14 January 1922, and Luís de Freitas Viegas remained as chairman and Alfredo Athayde was secretary. 90. Its inventory was made by two grant holders financed by the UP in 2015, although the archive component was not inventoried. The estate is composed of around 36,000 records – 28,000 periodicals, 8,000 monographs and 12 multimedia units. Further, there are 12,000 instalments of the SPAE’s publications, accounting for 902 boxes. The fact that I am a member of the SPAE and after repeatedly requesting the board to study the archive, which is not accessible to the public, from 2013 onwards,

The Institutionalization of Anthropology in Portugal  •  91

and the upcoming centennial celebrations, in 2018, as part of which I organized a commemorative exhibition, in cooperation with the SPAE’s chairman, will have surely contributed to accelerating the inventory process. The exhibition was entitled ‘The Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology (1918‒2018): 100 Years at the Service of Science’ and took place at the FLUP from November 2018 to January 2019. 91. Livro de Actas da SPAE I 1918‒24. 92. One school that was contemporaneous to Porto’s school was the Nina Rodrigues School in Brazil. This school allows us to understand the concerns of its members (doctors and social scientists), their theoretical lines and the relations with society and the Brazilian state (Corrêa 1982).

Chapter 3

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity

In this chapter I will address the diversity of the topics Mendes Correia dealt with. I will systematize the contents of his works and seek to understand the plans he strived to implement at the Porto School of Anthropology. This author’s path is not linear. He completed his medical degree, but he only practised for a short period, turning his attention to anthropology, geography, history and archaeology. The fact that he taught geography,1 whose teaching he introduced at the FCUP, probably allowed him to obtain a deeper knowledge that might be of use in anthropology. Anthropology was central to his various interests, but the science he developed was also integrated into the scope of anthropogeography – a domain that had been incrementally developed since the late nineteenth century. Both in geography and prehistoric geography (Mendes Correia 1929d), he sought for natural phenomena that might explain human evolution. The first arena of thought he sought to tackle was medicine, having written his dissertation degree O Génio e o Talento na Patologia (1911). Subsequently, he wrote on individuals with deviant behaviour, the ‘delinquent’, and ‘delinquent children’, eventually holding an office at the Central Youth Centre of Porto where he issued medical opinions. He wrote specifically on criminal anthropology and it was in this area that he passed his public exams to be named full assistant professor of anthropology at the FCUP. These two areas – medicine (and psychiatry) and criminal anthropology – garnered his interest in anthropology, and he saw criminal anthropology as one of the possible practical uses of anthropology. For Mendes Correia, anthropology was both ‘a natural science and a science of the spirit’ that sought ‘a full understanding of Man in its structuring and expression

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  93

of an inorganic, biologic, psychological and spiritual order, in the individual and, mainly, in human groupings’ (1944d: 34). From this perspective, he integrated physical anthropology, prehistory and ethnography. However, this diversity is not unique in his work, since anthropology, within the British evolutionist and technologist traditions, included prehistoric archaeology, material culture, physical anthropology and maintained close relationships to folklore and classical studies; yet, current studies usually place an emphasis not on the unity of anthropology, as in the past, but rather on the process according to which research gradually narrowed its field (Stocking Jr. 1995b: xv‒xvi). Correia published 387 works (Júnior 1969: 42), among which several books, and coordinated numerous studies. In a previous research (Matos 2013) I came into contact with his work. However, it is much more extensive than I then revealed, since at that time I only considered the texts regarding ‘race’ and the Portuguese colonial context. His first work (A nossa Instrução Primária Oficial [Breves notas sobre alguns dos seus mais graves defeitos] 1909) was a lecture he presented at the 2nd Pedagogical Congress in Lisbon, as a third-year medical student. His last work (Da Antropologia Ultramarina 1962) was the subject of one of his improvement courses on ethnology in the Portuguese overseas in February 1959, at the Centre for Overseas Ethnological Studies (CEEU) (Júnior 1969). Next I will analyse the contents of his anthropology classes, which he taught at the FCUP from 1912 onwards, and I will analyse some of the addressed topics and his main theoretical arguments.

The Chair of Anthropology at the FCUP: Definitions, Purposes and Contents The 132-page summary of Mendes Correia’s anthropology classes (1915b) allows us to understand his content selection for the discipline.2 He would later take these summarized topics and study them in depth. He admitted that the definitions of anthropology and the limits of the discipline vary according to each author. He defended the idea that anthropology should not be too far-reaching, at the risk of losing its unity; nor should it be too specific, for example, by studying somatic characters and excluding psychological and sociological ones. Therefore, he criticized those authors who only considered somatic characters: the monogenist Armand de Quatrefages, to whom anthropology was the natural history of the human being; Paul Broca, who considered it as the study of the human being in its relations with nature; and Paul Topinard, who defined it as the branch of natural history dedicated to the human being and the human ‘races’.3 According to

94  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Mendes Correia, these three definitions are imprecise and allow both the overlimiting and overamplifying of the scope of anthropology; he therefore proposed the following definition: ‘the study of human characters, which are of interest under any of the following perspectives: 1. Comparison of Man with other animals and determination of its place in the zoological scale; 2. Determination of Man’s genealogy and knowledge on the first hominids;4 3. Description and classification of peoples, races and human types’ (1915b: 6). Mendes Correia sets the limits of anthropology, considering anatomy, embryology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, history, archaeology,5 physiology and pathology, among other sciences, as its subsidiaries, despite their autonomous existence. He also divides anthropology into branches: anthropozoology or zoological anthropology (which studies the ‘systematic position of Man within the animal series, by comparing human characters to the characters of other animals’); palaeoanthropology (which studies the ‘former representatives of hominids and the remnants they left behind’); systematic and special anthropology (which classifies and describes the ‘different human races and types’); and ethnography (which studies the ‘various peoples’). He did not oppose anthropology to ethnography6 (although he warned that some authors considered it as an autonomous science) and included ethnography in anthropology (in a more encompassing understanding of it). He also argued that anthropology uses special research and examination methods, mainly based on observation (Mendes Correia 1915b: 7). The analysis of his works throughout time allowed me to realize that Correia used varied methods and techniques: statistical, anthropometric, descriptive, biochemical, psychotechnical and archaeological excavations, among others. As to the history of anthropology, Correia noted that only in the second half of the eighteenth century did it acquire the profile of an individual science. Although during its first incursions in antiquity (with Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Pliny and, in general, physicians, historians, naturalists and travellers of that period) there had been works ‘in the field of anthropology’, this expression was not used (Mendes Correia 1915b: 8). Despite recognizing some contributions by authors in antiquity for the study of human ‘races’, such as the proximity between human beings and monkeys, Correia criticized the errors and the acceptance of fables, as in Pliny, and the adoption of those errors by Renaissance naturalists, while also inventing other imprecisions. From the sixteenth century, with the great travels, he highlighted Mundino and Vésale (who, in the sixteenth century, were pioneers in anatomy and corrected Galen’s errors) and Bellon (who presented studies in zoological anthropology in the eighteenth century). It was, in fact, in the eighteenth century that he pointed to the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  95

greatest changes, with Carl Linnaeus (pioneer of a classification of ‘human races’ and of the insertion of the human being in a zoological scale);7 Comte de Buffon (author of a natural history of human variability); Johann Blumenbach (who proposed a classification of ‘human races’ and contributed to the constitution of anthropology as an independent science); Louis Daubenton (observer of the foramen magnum in humans and animals); Petrus Camper8 (who assessed facial differences in several human groups); and Samuel Thomas Soemmerring (author of a work on ‘black people’) (Mendes Correia 1915b: 9). He also mentioned the debates, from the late eighteenth century to the nineteenth century, between monogenists, such as Georges Cuvier and his disciples, and the polygenism defended by JulienJoseph Virey, Bory de Saint-Vincent, and also pro-slavery individuals. These debates would later be replaced, he reminds us, by the opposition between the advocates of the invariability of species, such as Cuvier, and the transformists, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Lamarck and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Correia recalls the foundation of ethnography and anthropology societies, highlighting the Société des Observateurs de l’Homme (1799) and the Société Ethnologique de Paris (1839). The latter had been founded by William Edwards, a French physiologist, author of studies on the physiological characters of ‘races’ in their relationships to history, with the purpose of studying the ‘organization of human races, their intellectual and moral character, their languages and their historical traditions’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 9). Correia emphasizes the contributions by Julius Klaproth, Frederic Muller, among others, in linguistics, and by Samuel George Morton,9 Karl Ernst von Baer, Carl Gustav Carus, William Turner, Joseph Barnard Davis, Andrés Retzius10 and Henri Jacquart, in craniology. For Mendes Correia, the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris (1859), founded by Broca, was the one that inaugurated contemporaneous anthropology. Besides referring to laboratories and the promotion of anthropological and archaeological field studies, he emphasized the I Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques in Spezia (1865) and the XIV in Geneva (1912), presided by Pittard (Mendes Correia 1915b: 10). At a national level, Mendes Correia (1915b: 10‒12) highlights the following: the Committee for Geologic Works (1857), to which Carlos Ribeiro belonged (who considered the archaeological remains found in Ota (Alenquer – Lisbon district) as part of the Tertiary Period), Pereira da Costa and Nery Delgado (who discovered the skulls in the Cesaredo cave), and all of them contributed to palaeontological research works in Portugal, and the continuation of prehistorical studies with Santos Rocha, Ricardo Severo, Fonseca Cardoso, Rocha Peixoto, José Fortes, Leite de Vasconcelos, Natividade, Estácio da Veiga, Martins Sarmento,11 Joaquim Fontes and

96  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Virgílio Correia. In the late nineteenth century, Mendes Correia highlighted the foundation of the Portuguese Ethnologic Museum (1894) and the works by Ferraz de Macedo (on skulls from a Lisbon cemetery), Silva Basto (on cephalic indices of the Portuguese in 1898), Mascarenhas de Melo (nasal indices), Sousa Pinto (characters of mandibulae) and Costa Ferreira (capacity, sutures and pterion), all based on the skull collection of the Coimbra Anthropology Museum, Felismino Gomes (on prognathism), Barros e Cunha (superior facial index, skulls in the Timor Island, skulls in Alentejo and Algarve, among others). Regarding the study in living beings, Mendes Correia referenced: Arruda Furtado (a monograph on the Azorean people (1894)); Sant’Ana Marques (a final degree paper on Portuguese anthropometry); Gonçalves Lopes (on the population of Beira Baixa); Fonseca Cardoso (on the Man of Minho, the inhabitants of Castro Laboreiro and the inhabitants of Póvoa de Varzim); and his work on the population of Beira Alta (Mendes Correia 1915c). In ‘general anthropology’, Mendes Correia highlighted the works by: Eduardo Burnay (Da craniologia como base da classificação antropológica), Luiz dos Santos Viegas (Do método em antropologia), João Salema (Modificação do goniómetro mandibular de Broca), Oliveira Martins (Elementos de Antropologia and As Raças Humanas e a Civilização Primitiva), and Costa Ferreira (Sobre alguns caracteres da norma anterior do esqueleto da cabeça). In ‘pedagogical, pathological and criminal anthropology’, Mendes Correia made reference to: Bethencourt Ferreira (Medidas antropológicas nas escolas); Oliveira Feijão (Sur un cas de microcephalie en Portugal); Ferraz de Macedo (Anomalias dos crânios portugueses and Crime et criminel); Alfredo Luiz Lopes (Estudos de antropologia criminal); Basílio Freire (Os degenerados and Os criminosos); Álvaro Teixeira Bastos (A tatuagem nos criminosos: estudo feito no posto anthropométrico da Cadeia da Relação); Costa Ferreira (Sur deux crânes metopiques, Idiotie et taches pigmentaires chez un enfant de 17 mois; Sobre o fémur e a tíbia duma microcéfala; and Antropometria escolar); and his own works (Mendes Correia 1913a, 1913b, 1915a). Correia’s anthropology classes sought to define expressions and terms often then used, such as character, type, race, people and nationality. Character meant ‘any singularity found in one or more beings and not in others’ and that may be used in classifying one being or a group of beings. The most important characters were the anatomical, physiological, psychological, sociological and ethnic ones (Mendes Correia 1915b: 13). ‘Type’ had a ‘very vague’ meaning, according to Mendes Correia, considering the definitions by several authors: ‘set of physical characters’12 (Cuvier); ‘synthetic impression’ (Gratiolet); ‘set of distinctive characters’ (Dupiney de Vorepierre); ‘distinctive characters’ and a created image (Topinard); and an abstract concept (Broca). According to Mendes Correia, the ‘type’ is

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  97

formed by the ‘most marked and frequent characters in the individuals of a certain group’; when ‘these characters are divergent, the type is defined by its average’ and, as such, among individuals of a same nationality there can be very diversified builds, that is, the average of this build will correspond to the national ‘type’. According to him, ‘people and race do not mean the same’ and it was a mistake to say the ‘Portuguese race’ instead of the ‘Portuguese people’: A human race is comprised of individuals connected in terms of ancestry and whose characters are very similar and are maintained by heredity.13 As in biology the physical characters are the most fixed and most easily and precisely observed, the notion of race is based on them. One can call it ‘a hereditary type’. (1915b: 13‒14)

For Mendes Correia, ‘it is hard to find pure races nowadays’ and ‘the peoples are mostly comprised of mixed people’; furthermore, ‘the social relationships … have caused repeated crossovers, which created a confusing race mix that sometimes we can hardly break down … into its ancestral components’ and ‘civilization, by multiplying those relations, has powerfully contributed to this fusion’ (1915b: 14). As opposed to this, while ‘race is a somatologic entity’, the ‘people is an ethnic grouping’, i.e. ‘a set of individuals from the same region, connected by an identity of customs, traditions, language, social institutions’. On the other hand, the nation or nationality is the ‘political association comprised of individuals belonging to one or more peoples, under the same government and with common interests’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 14).

Anthropological Methods Based on Statistics In the context of the science practised by Mendes Correia, speaking of progress and knowledge accumulation means speaking of a past that performs research without ordering nor systematizing and of a present and a future that analyses after classifying and systematizing, often by using quantitative methods or otherwise numbers or quantifiable orders of magnitude. This science was considered as a way of controlling a disorderly nature, while at the same time building nature as something that was supposed to be appropriated (Escobar 1994: 213). Anthropology, seen by Mendes Correia as close to natural sciences, had ‘observation as a starting point and subsequently established – by comparison, analogy and classification – the type of the beings under study’; however, it used, ‘besides observation and experience, also hypothesis and induction’ (1915b: 14). These observations could focus

98  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

on descriptive characters (sentences or qualifying expressions) or meristic characters (numbers obtained in measurements and that formed the object of anthropometry (in vivo) or osteometry (in the skeleton)). Meristic characters were favoured among many anthropologists in this period, as they considered them to be more appropriate for more objective conclusions. Among the statistical methods used in anthropology, Mendes Correia mentioned: variation; seriation, averages and groupings; variability index; graphical representation of series; cartograms14 and diagrams;15 and correlation.16 As to variation, he explained that ‘living beings and biological phenomena are not expressed through fixed norms and absolute mathematical precision’; from ‘a morphological point of view, there is no full identity between two beings of the same biological group’, and from ‘a functional point of view, it is impossible to define them with equal numerical expressions’; there were only ‘similarities’, ‘common traits’, ‘partial analogies’ and ‘approximations’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 16). If only small approximations were possible, why were the conclusions presented as reliable, seeking to prove the existence of easily identifiable ‘types’? However, both to Mendes Correia and several contemporaneous authors, the fact that it was possible to define as an approximation was already seen as a positive conclusion. Besides being able to define biological facts approximately, ‘the variations of any order that the beings in a same natural group make around an average type are not distributed at random, but are rather dominated by approximate rules, which may be expressed in numbers’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 16). Due to this realization, mathematical statistics began to be applied to biology, at first with Adolphe Quételet and then with Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, among others.17 Statistics allowed the recording of the variants of a certain character and the frequency of each of these variants in a certain number of individuals of the same ‘morphological unit’, but ‘their analysis would be of little worth if they were that and only that’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 16). We may here conclude that the statistical methods (where he stresses the average and the median) applicable to meristic characters only were useful mainly for the conclusions they allowed to reach (Mendes Correia 1915b: 16‒20). The importance of meristic methods was mainly found in the practical component of the chair of anthropology, taught at FCUP and in the studies he classified as ‘applied anthropology’ – such as pedagogical, criminal and colonial anthropology. Later, Mendes Correia wrote that ‘the scientific interpretation of a large quantity of statistics is difficult’, since some ‘have no meaning’ and its illegitimate use must have led to a lack of confidence in their results; however, in his opinion, the statistical processes based on the calculation of probability had ‘undeniable scientific value’ (1933a: 9‒10).

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  99

Practical Component of Mendes Correia’s Chair of Anthropology The curriculum of the ‘Practical Works in Anthropology’ in the academic year 1915‒16 at the FCUP, taught by Correia, was divided into several items: 1) knowledge of laboratory instruments and devices; 2) anthropological observation in vivo (descriptive characters, anthropometry, front and profile pictures); 3) elaboration and classification of an anthropometric identification card (the Bertillon method); 4) elaboration and classification of a dactyloscopic identification chart (the Vucetich method); 5) determination of the physical robustness coefficients, at least in five individuals, and interpretation of the results; 6) study of the eye and hair colour in at least a hundred individuals;18 7) study of a skull (description, craniometry, projections and photographs); 8‒20) determination of the cephalic index, the vertical-longitudinal index, the vertical-transversal index, the minimum frontal index, the Stephano-zygomatic index, the superior facial index, the nasal index, the orbital index, the prognathism index, Flower’s nasal-dental index, the foramen magnum index, facial angle and cranial capacity; 21) anthropometric or craniometric study, in more than twenty cases, and applying statistical and graphical methods; 22) study of the correlation between two anthropological characters in more than twenty cases (the correlation table and the Bravais correlation coefficient); 23) study of school anthropology (measurement of visual acuity, hearing acuity, vital capacity or another character) in at least five cases; 24) zoological anthropology study (compared study of the teeth in primates); 25) study of experimental psychology (measurement of intelligence, memory or trust in testimony) in at least five cases; 26) outline of a sphygmogram; 27) determination of Weber circles in at least five individuals; 28) study of instruments of prehistoric industry; prehistoric drawings and descriptions; 29) report on the ethnic characters of a population that, for Mendes Correia, could guide political, social, religious or economic actions (1915b). The curriculum of the practical component of the chair allows us to conclude that meristic elements played a predominant role. Observations could be made in vivo or on skeletons. In vivo observations allowed for the description of characters, the measurement of body parts, front and profile photographs, the filling-out of charts (anthropometric and dactyloscopic), the determination of the physical robustness coefficients, and the study of eye and hair colour. Observations on skeletons were mainly focused on the skull and included its description, measurement (craniometry/index determination) and photography. In earlier works, Mendes Correia had shown an interest in calculating facial and cranial indices and statistical averages, reflecting an obsessive attitude, not with the aim of finding the origins of the Portuguese, but

100  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

rather their original characteristics and the way in which these were passed down hereditarily from generation to generation and remained perceptible. Several of his texts often reveal an underlying logic that guides the sequence of his argument: he would invent the differences in order to ‒ in the end, after considering several possibilities ‒ be able to conclude that the results did not provide much clarity, but that averages remain constant. He considered that the results of Franz Boas had to be considered with some reservations because despite recognizing that certain influences can change individual cephalic indices (growth diseases, anomalies and obstetric conditions), the cases exemplified by the American author were exceptional and could not cause changes so quickly and powerfully, and did not clearly affect the final statistical results (Mendes Correia 1944b: 91‒92).

Different Explanations for the Origin of Human Beings: A Necessary Beginning The origin of human beings was one of the main subjects of Mendes Correia’s chair of anthropology. Two formulations – monogenism and polygenism ‒ first arose in order to explain it. Later, in the mid-nineteenth century, transformism revolutionized biology and the issue was then seen from a more encompassing perspective, including the contributions of emergent scientific domains. The monogenist explanation was inspired by the biblical act of creation, as described in the book of Genesis, according to which all of humankind descends from one couple – Adam and Eve. However, according to Mendes Correia’s anthropology classes, ‘almost all modern anthropologists exclude the biblical version and consider that Man was derived from successive transformations that occurred in a series of ancestral animals and that his appearance on Earth dates back to much more remote times’ (1915b: 55). As opposed to monogenists, polygenists asserted that several human nuclei emerged, descending from different forefathers, scattered throughout and across the several regions of the globe. Although in pagan antiquity the plurality of the origin of human beings was accepted, since some presented distinguishing aspects among themselves, among the Semitic peoples, monogenist theories were common and Christianity also eventually spread these theories. The idea that God had created the chosen peoples and the origins of the remaining peoples – gentile or cursed – was not a subject of reflection. Monogenism was accepted in the Roman world and in Christianity, while polygenist ideas were advanced on rarer occasions and the individuals who defended them suffered sometimes unexpected fates. Only in the nineteenth century did a greater number of polygenists emerge who defended their ideas with fiercer determination.19 In the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  101

mid-nineteenth century, Quatrefages (monogenist) and Louis Agassiz (polygenist) defended the belief in the ‘creation of Man by a supernatural will’, while Quatrefages ‘asserted that mankind descended from one sole primitive couple and that the differences between human races are due to the influence of the different environments’ and Agassiz stated that ‘several races were born independently in 8 places of the earth, but by divine will, obeying a previously-defined plan’20 (Mendes Correia 1915b: 56‒57). Transformism The transformist idea did not so much deal with whether human beings emerged from a primitive branch or several branches simultaneously, but rather whether they were created by a divine being or descended from other animal species that had emerged on earth beforehand and that had undergone transformations over time. This latter possibility questioned the origin of these transformations and the antiquity of Genesis. The idea of transformation could be problematic. On the one hand, because naturalists had long defended the notion of biological species, based on the idea of an unyielding fixism, according to which species were invariable and existed in a defined number. For example, for Linnaeus, there were as many different species as those that have been ‘created in the beginning by the Infinite Being’; for Cuvier, advocate of fixist doctrines, compared anatomy made it possible to establish the ‘principle of unity in the organizational plan of the animal series and to create the natural method for classifying living beings’, which led to the idea that ‘God had followed a systematic plan for the creation of the species’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 57‒58) and due to violent catastrophes, some species were extinguished and were replaced by others from distant places. On the other hand, for example, geologist Charles Lyell defended in 1830 the idea that the disappearance and the transformations that occurred were due not to violent revolutions, but rather to natural and gradual processes. While some biologists continued defending the immutability of the species, transformism gradually took on a scientific character. The first draft of this theory was originated by Buffon,21 Linnaeus’ contemporary, who attributed the existing variations to climatic and geographical factors. Examples seeking to prove the variability of species came from: Germany, with Goethe and Oken (both presented a vertebral theory of the skull), and Reinhold and Trevirano; the United Kingdom, with Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s grandfather), who defended transformist ideas in 1794 in the Zoonomy treaty, and mainly Lamarck, author of Philosophie Zoologique (1809), who argued that animal and plant species were transformed and influenced by the environment, the way of life, climate and temperature.22

102  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Lamarck’s work did not raise much interest at the time. However, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, for example, despite being reluctant in relation to some of Lamarck’s generalizations, contradicted the fixist doctrine and defended the influence of the environment in the variation of species.23 For around thirty years, until the publication of On the Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin, transformism was scarcely adhered to, despite the confirmations through the discoveries by geologists and palaeontologists. In a time when two theories were still being debated (the conception of ‘race’ as ‘lineage’ (connected to an ethnological approach, defending change attributed to the environment)24 and the concept of ‘race’ as ‘type’ (connected to an anthropological approach, defending the idea that racial differences had emerged a long time ago and the idea of ‘continuity’ based on heredity)), Darwin grouped them by creating a synthesis that explained both change and continuity (Banton 1998: 81). Although Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire attributed the variation of the species to the influence of the environment and adaptation, for Charles Darwin, this variation was due to natural selection. According to this theory, in the struggle for life, only the fittest would triumph,25 or those presenting a quality that made them superior to others, while the weakest or less fit would be annihilated. Darwin, who was knowledgeable about the population studies by Malthus, observed the ‘results obtained by artificial selection in the betterment of races of domestic animals’ and considered that there should be something similar in the evolution of other animals and plants. He sought evidence for this in compared anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, teratology and biological geography, among other fields. The discoveries of the geological strata, for example, made it possible to conclude that biological species emerged gradually, from the simplest to the most complex, and some fossils of extinct species made it possible to determine continuity in a scale of living beings. According to Mendes Correia, although there was no full uniformity regarding some details, biologists generally accepted organic evolution. For its study, the knowledge in geology was essential (an area in which Mendes Correia also taught at the FCUP), including in the eras that were subdivided into periods corresponding to certain fields and fossil species, namely: Primary (the largest), which encompasses the Archaic, Cambric, Silurian, Devonian, Carbonipherous and Permian periods; Secondary, encompassing the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods; Tertiary, encompassing the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods, when mammals emerged; and Quaternary, the shortest of all and the one that includes the development of human beings. Therefore, it was largely accepted in the scientific world that ‘from the appearance of life on earth until today there is a much larger time lapse than the one Genesis allowed to presume’ and

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  103

only rare individuals still raised the ‘old fixist banner’; ‘the principle of the variability of the species and the doctrine of descent’ also seemed settled (Mendes Correia 1915b: 65). According to Mendes Correia, transformism was subdivided into different doctrines, such as Neo-Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, segregation and mutation. For Neo-Darwinists, the appearance of new species was exclusively due to natural selection; this perspective, which denied the value of the environment’s influence in the variation of species and defended the idea that some characters were not hereditary, was pursued by Wallace (Darwin’s contemporary) and developed by Weissmann. NeoLamarckists, on the other hand, attributed this role to environmental influences and sought to prove that many individual variations, attributed to mesological factors, were transmitted from generation to generation and became specific characters. The theory of natural selection was severely criticized since, according to Mendes Correia, it did not explain the origin of variations; its advocates themselves admitted that the selection factor only intervened ‘after the occurrence of variations in some individuals’; it did not bear an effective value on small variations; and it did not explain the regression of useless organs. For Mendes Correia, although natural selection might play an ‘important role’, Neo-Darwinism still allowed criticism and the existing facts showed that the Neo-Lamarckist doctrines presented the ‘better portion of truth’ and that natural selection itself could be ‘interpreted according to a Neo-Lamarckist criterion’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 67). Another considered factor was segregation, which could be geographical – the isolation of some members of a species – or physiological – appearance of variations that prevent the crossover with individuals of the same species. However, segregation was not an autonomous agent of evolution, but rather a secondary one. Lastly, there was the mutation factor, inspired by David Jordan, Sergei Iwanowitsch Korschinski and Hugo de Vries, among others, who defended the idea that species have stability and mutability phases and that evolution is not slow and continuous, occurring rather through abrupt transformations, with no intermediate forms (i.e. through mutations) (Mendes Correia 1915b: 67). Mendes Correia recognized that each of the modern transformist theories contained ‘a fraction of the truth’. However, he considered that Neo-Lamarckism was the theory that most ‘widely and clearly encompassed the problem of evolution and that the natural selection mechanism can be translated into a Lamarckist language – the strongest beings survive because they adapt (1915b: 68). Also, the determination of abrupt variations or mutations did not fundamentally contradict this; substances with a similar chemical composition could arise in different systems; and a small chemical modification resulting from an adaptive process could lead to

104  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

a big morphological change. For Mendes Correia, Neo-Lamarckism gave anthropology ‘a first-order criterion’ for the study of the issues related to the origin of the human being, heredity, education and eugenics; therefore, the Lamarckist vocabulary – adaptation, heredity of acquired characters and environmental influence – should be part of the interests of whoever was interested in the evolution of the human being, the study of ‘races’ and its ‘perfectioning’ (1915b: 69). The Creation/Transformism Dialectic in Mendes Correia’s Work As a general rule, Mendes Correia was opposed to strict creationism and defended a moderate path that sought to create a compatibility between the Church’s doctrine and evolutionist ideas by defending the idea of a moderate and monogenist transformism. The first edition of Homo is transformist, as Mendes Correia categorized it (1921a). Correia questions the motives for the appearance of the human being: ‘adaptive radiation (by American scientists), with an internal evolutional potential and exploration of external possibilities?’ or ‘climate change with the destruction of forests and the transformation of the arboricultural ancestor into a terrestrial and bipedal Man?’ (1946b: 67). In his words, the human being’s ancestor: Would be different from any of the current Simians, although he would be a collateral relative of some of them, maybe of the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the gibbon or the Tarsius spectrum, a lemuroid of the Sonda islands. I did not believe … in the polygenist hypotheses that attribute each current human group to a different simian species as its ancestor … My monogeny was then, however, a transformist, mechanistic one, not the monogenism of creationist religions. (Mendes Correia 1946b: 68)

In 1926, in Homo’s second edition, he maintained the transformist argument and defended the idea that moderate transformism can be compatible with the Church’s doctrines. In that book he quoted St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and Zahm (Mendes Correia 1926a: 61‒62). His spiritualist statements were present in several texts: Not abandoning the transformism, which is only moderated26 and, to my knowledge, also adapted, under a mitigated or special form, by priests and wise men such as fathers Teilhard de Chardin and H. Breuil, I defend vitalism and finalism in biology,27 I proclaim in penology that the human will is, or seems to be, free28 and, in my activity as professor, publicist and manager, I declare in all moments my belief in spiritual, perennial and ecumenic values, my inclination towards the Catholicism’s moral discipline, my appreciation of the beauty and the excellence of the Christian doctrine, and of the high social role of the Roman Church. (Mendes Correia 1946b: 74)

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  105

According to Mendes Correia, in addition, father Eugénio Jalhay and other priests, such as fathers Pigué, Monchanin and Périer, admitted ‘a conciliation platform between transformism and the biblical text’; in 1943, Bergougnioux and Glory had published a prehistoric anthropology textbook with ‘all ecclesiastical permissions (from the dean of the Catholic Institute, the Archbishop of Toulouse, etc.) that differs little … from Boule’s book 29 or any other human palaeontology textbook’ (1946b: 76‒77). Correia also recalls father Carbonelle, a Jesuit, who in 1889 accepted in the Revue des Questions Scientifiques de Bruxelles journal articles that were favourable to the evolutionist theory, such as by Jean de Estienne, who did not consider this doctrine, ‘even regarding Man, as contrary to the Sacred Scripture’ (1946b: 79‒80). In the preface of Da Raça e do Espírito he recalls: Recognizing Man’s animal nature, race, blood, heredity, instincts as factors that weigh in the moral and social life does not imply that these are exclusive agents nor that we should stupidly and passively resign ourselves to its authority and influence. (1940f: II)

In his text ‘Theology and the Origin of Man’ (1935a), Mendes Correia recognized organic, animal roots in a large part of psychism, stating that the human specificity resided in its creational originality, in the power of reflection and in invention. After writing the previously mentioned contents, his ‘friend’, the Count of Bégouen, sent him the brochure Quelques souvenirs sur le mouvement des idées transformistes dans les milieux catholiques. According to Mendes Correia, ‘Bégouen does not hesitate, like father Breuil, in considering transformism as admissible by Catholics’ and reports ‘that enormous pressure had occurred in Rome in the contrary direction, but that these efforts had been fruitless’ (1946b: 80). During one of his travels to Brazil in 1937, Mendes Correia accepted the invitation of Tristão de Ataíde (a pseudonym for the Brazilian literary critic, professor, writer and Catholic leader Alceu Amoroso Lima) to organize a conference on transformism at the D. Vital Catholic Centre. In that occasion, he sought to show that ‘while Haeckelian and Darwinist ideas on the origin of the species and, in particular, of Man did not have a sufficient scientific foundation nor were compatible with the doctrine of the Church, a moderate transformism that did not exclude creational facts – as to Man, in a psychic domain’ was ‘perfectly plausible, in light of Science and of the Catholic orthodoxy’ (Mendes Correia 1946b: 144‒45). He also stated that Brazilian zoologist Melo Leitão had an identical opinion. Correia was therefore defending himself against those who criticized him regarding his transformism ‘as condemnable before the Catholic religion’, seeking to reconcile both understandings:

106  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

As we have seen, palaeontological and prehistorical findings, the acquisitions of anthropology, compared anatomy, biochemistry, embryology and Primate psychology did not lack the greatest attention and goodhearted interest from the most unquestionable Catholics. And I … do not defend a doctrine that is excluded from the way many of these Catholics think. (1946b: 80‒81)

Recognition of the Animality of the Human Being and an Impulse to Primatology The closest mammals to the human species are the great primates or great apes (the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orangutan) and the gibbon. Also monkeys (catarrhini cercopithecoidea monkeys in the Old World and platyrrhine monkeys in the Americas), as well as prosimians, join to the previous referred to form the order of primates. Biological anthropology has focused on the biology of the human species and other primate species from an evolutive and comparative perspective, and on the ways it adapts to the environment. Biological anthropology includes five subdisciplines: human evolution, primatology, human genetics, the study of human physical growth and human ecology. The first two subdisciplines were sometimes referred to as ‘physical anthropology’, in contrast to the other three designated as ‘human biology’; ‘biological anthropology’ encompasses both. Despite the attempts to integrate the subdisciplines with archaeology, social anthropology and other connected disciplines, since Franz Boas, this goal was not often achieved in practice. The evolutionary studies within the scope of biological anthropology were focused on establishing taxonomic (classifying) and phylogenetic (evolutive) relations between fossil and living primates. The studies were influenced by compared anatomy, which flourished in the eighteenth century, and its development was influenced by the research performed during the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin and T.H. Huxley, who sought to study the human being away from theology and bring him/her into the domain of natural history. In Mendes Correia’s anthropology discipline (1915b), the human being is classified among animals and, specifically, primates. The human was a vertebrate from the mammal class; despite being an animal, it was considered as the most cerebral of all. Mendes Correia recalls that the classification of primates varied according to the author in question, but one of the most current classifications was that by William Henry Flower and Richard Lydekker, which divided the order Primates in two suborders – Lemuroidea and Anthropoidea. In this classification, adopted by Correia, the suborder Anthropoidea included the Hominidae family, in which the human being was included. However, while some authors considered the human being

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  107

as one sole species, others considered the human as a genus comprising two species, and others of more than two species or even more than one genus (Mendes Correia 1915b: 36). Mendes Correia drew a parallel between the human being and simians at the level of differential characters, such as external morphology, skeleton, soft tissues, embryology, physiology and psychology. Mendes Correia considered that the ‘so-called simian physiognomy appears in Man as an exception’ (1915b: 37) and he subsequently returns to this topic, for example, in the text ‘Human Physiognomy and Animals’30 (1932i). For a correct comparison of the bony head in the human being and in anthropoids, they had to be correctly oriented by adopting the ‘alveolar-condylar orientation plane’, which was defined based on the most projecting points of the articular surfaces of the occipital condyles and by the alveolar point; when these three points are on the same horizontal plane, one obtains the necessary orientation – norma lateralis (cranial profile examination) – that makes it possible to better see the positioning differences and the prominence of the face (prognathism) to and perform the measurements of angles, projections and prognathism indices (Mendes Correia 1915b: 39‒40). The cranial examination also used the norma verticalis (upper observation of the skull), the norma facialis or anterior, the norma occipitalis (posterior observation of the skull) and the norma inferior (inferior observation of the skull). Other differences between the human being and anthropoids and pithecoids were found in the spine, sacrum, pelvis, thoracic cage, shoulder blade and limbs. As to the soft tissues, Mendes Correia compared ligaments, some muscles and organs; he also approached the embryonal process in human beings and simians (1915b: 44‒47). In terms of physiology and psychology, Mendes Correia highlighted some aspects: the omnivorous character of the human being as opposed to anthropoids’ frugivorous character, although some did not reject foods of animal origin; the fact that the human being is able to acclimatize in almost all regions of the globe, which is not the case with anthropoids, which lived preferably in hot, circumscribed areas and had difficulty in acclimatizing to other regions; and the ability to express themselves, which, although it was not exclusive to human beings, was particularly apparent, due to their ability to articulate words (1915b: 50‒51). Mendes Correia argued that sociability was not a unique feature of the human being. The cases highlighted were the chimpanzee, which gathered in multifamily groups, and the gibbon, which gathered in herds of over a hundred individuals. On the other hand, he highlighted the efficacy of anthropoids, regarding their maternal tenderness, the conjugal devotion and the deep gratitude shown towards their carers (1915b: 52). The affection component was not,

108  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

however, equivalent to the ability for abstraction or the artistic sentiment: ‘the canvas and the symphony that delight a Man of cultivated taste will have no sensitive effect on a chimpanzee or a dog, and neither will they produce the slightest emotion in a Kaffir or a Papuan’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 53). Anthropoids were inferior to the human being, but among the latter, Mendes Correia distinguished the ‘civilized’ from the ‘savage human tribes’, which exemplify a ‘state of profound stultification that places them on a plane little above the anthropoid’; however, he warned that ‘any anthropoid, if domesticated, never reaches the level of mental perfectioning that a well-oriented education can offer a savage’ (1915b: 54). Charles Darwin probably excluded the issue about the origin of the human being from his inaugural work (1859), safeguarding it for future reflections, with the purpose of gaining a better reception for his transformist theory. However, this issue received considerable interest from its very inception. Areas such as compared anatomy, embryology and palaeontology, as well as the development of anthropology, began supplying elements suggesting a kinship between the human being and superior simians. Mendes Correia recalls that in 1886, Hartmann, inspired by Vogt’s and Quenstedt’s studies, already stated that the human being could not have descended from any of the fossil monkeys discovered up to that point in time, nor from any of the current monkeys, but that both they and the anthropoids would have had a common ancestor. Additionally, he criticized Gaudry, Dubois, Haeckel, Schaaffhausen and others, who vainly tried to find the human being’s ancestor, simultaneously praising Rivet for recalling that the origin of the human being does not entail simplistic solutions (1915b: 70). Mendes Correia’s arguments are not simply an attempt to prove the connection between the human being and the animal kingdom; they eventually try to explain that, within that human being in general, there are various civilizational stages, suggesting that some of the current human groups, which he calls ‘savage peoples and races’, possessed characteristics that brought them closer to ‘primitive Men’ and to anthropoids (1915b: 73). Mendes Correia considered that one of the greatest objections to the transformist theory on the origin of the human being was the fact that he distanced himself, psychically, from the remaining animals. However, in his understanding, not all ‘human types’ presented the same level of intellectual development’ and there was an ‘enormous distance between the spirit of the most civilized peoples and of the savage ones’ that were testified by ethnography (1915b: 73). Despite these discriminatory formulations, this anthropologist would eventually play a fundamental role in the promotion of primatology in Portugal. Mendes Correia thought that the study of primates could contribute to a better understanding of the human being and his behaviour. The stimulus

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  109

he offered to primatology studies, by promoting a research campaign in Maiombe (Cabinda enclave, Angola) and other African areas, led the primatologist Catarina Casanova to consider him as a ‘reference in biological anthropology in Portugal’ (2011). On an international level, the interest in primatology, understood as being complementary to the evolutive study of the human species, arose only after the Second World War. However, António José de Liz Ferreira,31 Correia’s disciple, travelled to the forest of Maiombe from 1934 to 1937, and the publication of the data in Gorilas do Maoimbe Português (Ferreira, Athayde and Magalhães 1945) occurred at a moment when the interest in primatology started to emerge in other places. Mendes Correia and his disciples would later be quoted by the most important figures of physical anthropology and primatology in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom32 and France. Mendes Correia defended the use of the same method for studying primates (including humans), since the method used for the study of the human species was more suitable for the study of nonhuman, such as the gorilla, than the method used to study other animals. Already in the preface, he considered that the gorilla would be closest to the human being, closer than the chimpanzee. However, our current knowledge allows us to state the contrary, i.e. that the human being is closer to the chimpanzee (Casanova 2011: 97) and, more specifically, to the bonobo or pygmy chimp. Another interesting aspect is that although French authors had a greater influence in Portugal and Darwinism had entered the country through them, Mendes Correia positioned himself in favour of this scientific current, although in Portugal, the field for evolutionism and Darwinism was not exactly very fertile. The ideas defended by Correia that the study of the nonhuman primates could contribute to the study of human beings, of their evolutionary process and of the first hominids are also sustained by the founders of primatology, such as Irven DeVore or Sherwood Washburn, advocates of a ‘shared evolutionary path that is reflected on the similarities on a phenotype and genotype level’ (Casanova 2011: 98). The work by Ferreira, Athayde and Magalhães (1945) is therefore the result of the first Portuguese scientific expedition, with the duration of three years, with the purpose of studying gorillas. It considered geographical aspects and related to the flora, studies on gorillas in captivity and in a natural habitat, and a systematization of the analysed samples was made – external morphology, craniometry, deforming polyarticular lesions and characterization of the postcranial skeleton, with the opportunity to draw attention to the threat to which the species was exposed by growing deforestation and economic exploitation by colonial countries. Biological anthropology and primatology were developed later in other locations and, more specifically, at the ISCSP – a school that had its origin in the ESC, of which Mendes Correia was director.

110  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

The Study of the Prehistorical Human Being Some people oppose tradition to progress, dusty archaeology to the improvements of modern technology, the past to the future. These are the same people that do not understand either. (Mendes Correia 1940a)

The interest in anthropology led Correia to the study of the prehistoric human being and the need to understand the conditions in which he must have lived. Within his scope of action, and following his understanding, anthropology and archaeology are complementary, both contributing to the study of humankind. However, it is interesting to realize that the prehistoric subjects have been incorporated by Mendes Correia in the chair of anthropology, taught at the FCUP, and not in the chairs of prehistory at the FLUP, where he taught ethnology, archaeology, ethnography and general anthropogeography. In this case, as opposed to the German tradition, he seemed to have adopted the French model, according to which there was a greater proximity between prehistory and natural sciences. This was the UP’s paradigm, according to which archaeology was closer to natural sciences, while at the UC and the UL, it was integrated into the humanities faculties. The relationship between archaeology and anthropology was analysed in classical works, such as in the conference that took place in Cambridge on 6 March 1976 (Rowlands and Gledhill 1976). According to Rowlands and Gledhill, the notion of the existence of an interdisciplinary connection between archaeology and anthropology may raise issues related to different perceptions of the objects of knowledge in the two areas, and of their methods. The connection between archaeology and anthropology is complex and varies according to regional and national disciplinary traditions. In American universities, archaeology is usually considered one of the four integrated fields or disciplines (together with sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology and linguistics) that are combined to form an anthropology department. For several years, American archaeologists invoked analogue models for several types of comparative research taken from the ethnographic literature as a basis for inferring on past societies. On the other hand, in European nations (and their former colonies, influenced by European disciplinary concepts), the archaeology of recent periods tended to be more close to history, especially national history; here, the models of comparative ethnography and anthropological theory have been often avoided in favour of a direct historical analogy, in cases where history most frequently offered an interpretative inspirational source. Archaeology seeks to analyse the existence conditions of human groups in the past. But it was also connected to European expansion and

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  111

appropriation, and the removal (collection) of the natives’ material cultures – original or replicas – and other resources became a legitimate activity, both for its preservation and as for cultural gain of the metropolitan populations (Hinsley 2008: 125). The comparative method of the former evolutionism was articulated with the presumption that archaeological remains confirm the hypothetical stages in the development of human society by incorporating them into stratigraphy and sequence empirical facts; the ethnographic record, on the other hand, could be used to clarify the archaeological remains (Rowlands and Gledhill 1976: 23). Therefore, typological sequences of material culture organized in their natural order, from the simplest to the most complex, were the keys to draw a comparison between past and present societies. In the analogy of the Australian archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe33 (1852‒1957), the archaeologist was to the anthropologist as the palaeontologist was to the zoologist, by establishing historical sequences of culture in particular regions and, through an inductive generalization, establishing stages in the cultural evolution (Rowlands and Gledhill 1976: 23). Both anthropology and archaeology are often concerned with the study of the ethnic background of a national population, although their methods and goals may be distinct. However, as Rowlands and Gledhill emphasized, the rupture between archaeology and anthropology is a relatively recent phenomenon, mainly due to the developments observed outside of archaeology itself. Prehistoric archaeology was approached in the chair of anthropology taught by Mendes Correia; in 1915, he considered this to be a ‘recent science’. He recalled that Greek and Latin writers were the precursors of the study of the primitive human being, and highlighted Lucretius, author of the division of the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. According to Mendes Correia’s lessons, the allusions to the primitive human being resurfaced with some notoriety only in the seventeenth century, when the origin of polished axes, from the Neolithic, was discussed as well as their effective use (1915b: 75). In the following century, studies were published on the succession of the Stone and Metal Ages, primitive human bones and fossils of pre-diluvian animals. Mendes Correia considered that the first scientific research was carried out by Philippe-Charles Schmerling, who found human bones and extinct species in the province of Liège between 1829 and 1833. However, some sceptics, such as the monogenist Cuvier, refuted the existence of a fossil human being. Yet, the discoveries that were being made offered ever more evidence, although not always with immediate effect. In 1844, French archaeologist Jacques Boucher de Perthes, for example, considered as one of archaeology’s precursors, offered his stone instrument collection to the Paris Museum of Natural History, but received no answer. Already in 1838 Perthes inductively formulated the problem of humankind’s evolution and

112  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

in around 1840 he used the expression ‘prehistoric man’, defending the idea that, based on the analysis of archaeological findings, it might be possible to investigate his past. Darwin’s book in 1859 and authors like Lyell in 1860 contributed to the consolidation of Perthes’ doctrines,34 and were joined by Prestwich, Evans and others in the study the stratigraphy of the fields where the discoveries were made; however, when Perthes died, his heirs destroyed the whole edition of his work (Mendes Correia 1915b: 76). For Mendes Correia, physical anthropology was fundamental to the study of the Portuguese people. However, archaeology was the one that could convey a cultural status to that reality. In the IAUP’s logo (see Figure 1.2), for example, we see anthropology, prehistoric archaeology and geology joined in the same image; if we observe the young man’s figure, we realize that he is not only seeking the past, like an archaeologist; he represents the past itself. By denial of his coevalness and placing him on a premodern level, as Fabian (1983) would say, he is recognizable, i.e. someone distinguished from the agent in a position of power and who studies, analyses, homogenizes and essentializes. In the case of Mendes Correia’s archaeological research, we should consider both the aspects that entail empirical facts, which are not hard to prove, and also the most polemical that raised the debate to the national and international levels. Dating Prehistoric Periods One of the fundamental aspects of prehistoric archaeology is dating, which at this time resulted from the knowledge of geological strata, fossils and the industries of the primitive human being. According to Mendes Correia, assuming that the human being emerged during the Tertiary period, the geological time periods can be classified into Tertiary (Upper Pliocene) and Quaternary (encompassing the former Quaternary or Pleistocene period and the current or Holocene period). Mendes Correia presented several classifications for prehistory, based on authors from the nineteenth century, such as Édouard Lartet, Edouard Dupont and Paul Gervais. According to Mendes Correia, the paleoethnological or industrial classifications (which, based on the division of prehistoric periods into the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, have further divided these into periods and epochs) were the most disseminated ones; among these, Mendes Correia highlighted the classification by Gabriel de Mortillet, who considered the Stone Age as part of the prehistoric era and placed the Bronze Age and part of the Iron Age in the protohistoric era, and the remaining Iron Age already in historic times (1915b: 77). For Mortillet, the Stone Age encompassed the Eolithic, Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. Among these, the first corresponds to the Tertiary era, the second to the former Quaternary and the third to the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  113

current Quaternary. One of the important differences lay in the fact that, in the Palaeolithic, the instruments were made of knapped stone, while in the Neolithic these were made of ground stone. For Mendes Correia, when studying the primitive human being, the anthropologist needed elements of geology,35 palaeontology, geography36 and ethnography, and the fundamental data were obtained from: stratigraphy of ancient human stations; animal and plant fossils by determining their relative age; industrial remains, certain parietal paintings and engravings; and bones of the ‘primitive Man’ (1915b: 83). Archaeology used two fundamental methods, which were applied universally – the stratigraphic and the typological methods – and the knowledge on history and anthropology supplied it with comparison elements (Bahn 1996). In fact, the archaeological work assumed a knowledge in geology – namely the stratigraphic excavation method – and physical geography. Archaeology also required the mastery of excavation techniques and utensil-, artefact- and skeleton-conservation techniques, as well as techniques used in dating the artefacts thus discovered. The Emergence of the Human Being in the Tertiary Period In 1915, Mendes Correia stated that, despite the lack of factual evidence, almost all anthropologists admitted the existence of the human being in the Tertiary period, since the supposed favourable climatic conditions and the knowledge of the existence of fossil tertiary primates made it possible to conclude that ‘the precursor of mankind must have emerged then and may have led to the emergence of Man during the late periods of this epoch’. He gave examples of assumptions by some foreigners and also by Carlos Ribeiro, who, even before these foreigners, had found in the Upper Miocene and in the Pliocene of the Tagus valley, mainly in Ota, many siliceous rocks and quartzites with similar remains. Mendes Correia concluded that there is nothing to prove ‘that the first hominids were contemporary to the Tertiary period’, but nothing contradicts that assumption, and more valuable documents than eolytes are also needed (1915b: 83‒86). The works by Carlos Ribeiro, Pereira da Costa, Nery Delgado and Mendes Correia in archaeology were not much different from other contemporary works undertaken in other places. Subjects such as the Tertiary human being, which Mendes Correia subsequently dealt with (1926c), or the shell midden, were being studied worldwide. This became clear on the IX Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques37 (1880) in Lisbon, in which the scientific community debated the possible existence of the Tertiary human being38 in Portugal (at Ota, Alenquer).39 Martins Sarmento and Adolfo Coelho took part in this event, the minutes

114  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

of which were written by Carlos Ribeiro; Estácio da Veiga, considered to be the first Portuguese archaeologist and contracted by the state, was present in the audience, but did not present any paper (Fabião 1999: 114). In Homo (1926a), in which Mendes Correia outlined a general history of the Earth from its formation up to the most recent geological period, he stated the Quaternary as the period in which, in his opinion, the human being emerged. However, he presented the possibility of the human species still having emerged during the Tertiary period. This issue led him to perform excavations in the Lages valley in Ota, but he eventually concluded that the bones were from the Neolithic (Mendes Correia 1926c). The presence of abbot Henri de Breuil (1877‒1961), who attributed a nonhuman origin to the eolytes previously collected by Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, contributed to Mendes Correia reaching that conclusion. Although the investment in the Tertiary human being did not match Correia’s expectations (1925c, 1926c, 1928c),40 this did not happen with the excavations in Muge. According to Mendes Correia, there were Negroid and Australoid affinities among the ancient peoples of the shell midden. In 1918, he defended a point of view that diverged from the current doctrines in Portugal: while it was certain that the contemporaneous Portuguese did not identify with the Homo afer taganus (with a ‘relatively wide nose, facial prognathism, more or less oblique forehead and low cranial capacity’), it was undeniable that it had an influence on Portuguese ethnogeny (Mendes Correia 1918c: 4). For Mendes Correia, this influence was perceptible in the Neolithic dolichocephalic findings in Cezareda and Montejunto, which proved the ‘transition to the contemporaneous Portuguese, perhaps under the influence of superior elements’ (1918c: 4). He was also opposed to the ‘Neanderthaloidism’ of the Muge skulls, as well as to the alleged ‘Neanderthaloid’ survivals in the northern Portuguese provinces, since the Muge skulls were ‘clearly H. sapiens’ and the Homo neanderthalensis was an ‘archaic and extinct species … a semi-bestial hominid, with reduced and stagnated cerebration’ (Mendes Correia 1918c: 4). In this 1918 text, he considered that Europe was an extension of Asia, in which brachycephaly41 had a considerable relevance, and therefore it was not ‘a sheer fantasy to search there for the origin of the populations that, having probably not emerged in Africa, also only find their origin in Europe in the Epipaleolithic, nor has it been demonstrated their emergence from transformations in the European Upper Palaeolithic dolichoids’. However, he was not overwhelmed by the ‘famous oriental mirage’42 and he considered that the brachyoid remains found in Ofnet (Bavaria) and Muge were not a ‘valuable cultural apport’, but rather a ‘deep cultural backwardness’ (Mendes Correia 1918c: 6). For Mendes Correia, since ancient times the Iberian Peninsula had received from Gaul, through the Pyrenees, and from Africa, across the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  115

Strait of Gibraltar, successive migrations of peoples and civilizational currents; during the Neolithic period, the Iberian Peninsula would have suffered the collision, and sometimes the fusion, of ethnic elements coming from the Mediterranean basin and from Africa, with surviving elements of the Spanish Palaeolithic and, in a larger number, the elements ‘recently arrived from Gaul and maybe representatives of the Baumes-Chaudes type’, which was the ‘racial pattern of the contemporary Portuguese’ (1918c: 7). Despite these formulations, he considered ‘naive, achronic and unfounded’ the enthusiastic attempts to identify the primitive peoples that inhabited the territory with the first peoples in history, when faced with the precise conclusions reached by paleoanthropology, and this is because these peoples had surely been preceded by others who were very diversified among themselves. According to Mendes Correia, ‘Muge’s savages were probably peaceful, sedentary, miserable populations that survived based on hunting and fishing, with a great cultural backwardness’ and were ‘classified by Breuil as belonging to the Tardenois epoch, during the late Quaternary, in the Palaeolithic component of the transition period from the knapped stone to the ground stone’. There was not a homogeneous physical type in the skeletons found in Muge: ‘brachycephaly emerges in a much inferior proportion to dolichocephaly, although credibly in a much higher proportion than the country’s current population’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 44‒45). The dolichocephalic individuals43 from those stations were encompassed in a ‘type’ characterized by their low height, ‘high, low-capacity skull’ and strong prognathism. This type, which Mendes Correia designated as Homo afer var. taganus, was identified with the ‘Neolithic race of Baumes-Chaudes and with the average contemporary Portuguese’ (1919b: 45); however, he demonstrated that this identification was not precise (1917b, 1917c, 1918c) and that Homo taganus should rather be included ‘in a group of inferior races, Australoid or proto-Ethiopian, with a probable Equatorian origin, which matches the itinerary of the Tardenois civilization’ (1919b: 46). Besides ‘the low cranial capacity, the mesorrhine nose, the prognathism, the frequent oblique forehead, the lower height’ were characteristics ‘that distance H. taganus from the Man of Baumes-Chaudes, the racial pattern of the Mediterranean type and of the current Portuguese, with a more voluminous skull, leptorrhine nose, orthognathism, vertical forehead, greater height, although not yet tall’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 46). The expression Homo afer taganus seems to imply, in a way, an allusion to African peoples or an inclusion of African people in his study. However, this is not the case, since he concludes that there is no significant African influence in Portugal. At best, a genetic part of those beings may have reached the modern Portuguese human being, but this was unlikely. He published other works

116  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

on the Muge Man, including in the Revue Anthropologique (Mendes Correia 1923a), where he referred to the dominant type (the dolichocephalic that he named Homo afer taganus) as follows: He is neither Neanderthal, nor Cro-Magnon, nor from the race of Chancelade, nor from the type of Baumes-Chaudes, nor identical to the Mediterranean type or the current Portuguese average type. It is a type with Negroid characters (in the meso-platyrrhine nose, in the prognathism, in the tibial-femoral index, etc.) and some Australoid characters (low cranial capacity, high antebrachial index, in some specimens the oblique forehead, etc.). Among the European quaternary types, the proto-Ethiopian Homo aurignacensis would be the one with the most similarities – although they did not mutually identify. (1924b: 30)

The thesis of the Mongoloid origin of all European brachycephalic was dismantled. Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1918) also defended this argument, quoting Mendes Correia (1918b) and stating that he said ‘the final word’ on the dolichocephalic (Giuffrida-Ruggeri 1916‒17, 1921). Bosch-Gimpera44 (1891‒1974) considered that Mendes Correia was the first to justly value ‘the importance of the remains of the Portuguese kioekkenmoeddings’ (BoschGimpera 1922: 19). And Marcellin Boule incorporated Correia’s conclusion on the Muge dolichocephalic into the second edition of his work (Boule 1923). In fact, Mendes Correia had admitted the possibility of ‘H. afer taganus’s evolution up to the H. mediterraneus or that he may have entered the latter’s anthropological composition’ (1924b: 32). But he recognized that these were simply hypotheses. However, something that he did not consider as hypothetical was his distinction ‘between several characteristics among these two forms or of congeneric forms of both’; these traits (cranial capacity, nasal index and prognathism) were considered so important that it was eventually stated that if ‘both forms are mutually identified – it is legitimate to conclude that there are no methods of anthropological classification’ (1924b: 32). In 1929, an attempt was made to reconstitute Homo afer taganus (prehistoric human beings from Muge considered to be 10,000 years old) by sculptor Agostinho Rodrigues (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). However, disagreeing with the existence of Negroid and Australoid affinities among the ancient peoples of the Muge shell midden, archaeologist Manuel Heleno (1894‒1970) invited the French anthropologist Henri Vallois (who was opposed to Mendes Correia’s theory) to study the collected material. Vallois had published in 1930 a study on the Muge skulls at the Museum of the Committee for Geologic Works, in which he refuted Mendes Correia’s claims. The reference to Vallois was therefore provocative. Despite this announcement, the new excavations in Muge were never performed and Heleno turned his attention to the Sado shell midden (Setúbal district).

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  117

One of the aspects that empowered Manuel Heleno was the publication of Decree-Law no. 21117, dated 18 April 1932, regulating archaeological excavations in Portugal and allocating to the director of the Ethnology Museum (who at the time was Heleno himself) the competence to authorize, inspect or suspend all excavations and to establish scientific priorities that favoured the museum. This decision caused some figures more connected to archaeology to send a complaint to the then Minister of Public Education. Mendes Correia probably sponsored this initiative, which was also signed by Joaquim Fontes, Afonso do Paço and Eugénio Jalhay45 on behalf of the Portuguese Archaeologist Association (which action was also criticized by Heleno). Later, in the pages of the Diário de Notícias dated 22 January 1933, Heleno continued criticizing Mendes Correia, saying that he was expecting that the comparison with the Muge skulls studied by Vallois would bring forth more elements to the study of the ‘ethnic origin of the Portuguese people’; for Heleno, it was convenient that the excavations were made by researchers that had no preconceived ideas or theses to be defended (Fabião 1999: 122). Mendes Correia retorted to this news on 26 January 1933 in the same paper, stating that he had already been working at the Muge excavations with Rui de Serpa Pinto since 1930, and that this study should not

Figure 3.1. Homo afer taganus bust from the front. Reconstitution attempt by sculptor Agostinho Rodrigues. FCUP Natural History Museum

Figure 3.2. Homo afer taganus bust in profile. Reconstitution attempt by sculptor Agostinho Rodrigues. FCUP Natural History Museum

118  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

be handed over to a foreign anthropologist. Mendes Correia therefore once again revealed his nationalist motivations by suggesting that Portuguese anthropologists should study the human beings of their country and by considering that national archaeologists could be harmed by a person who had gained a lot of power and whose reliability and scientific career were debatable. Mendes Correia, who had trained in the Porto Medical and Surgical School (i.e. in one of the strongholds of Portuguese positivism), also expressed his astonishment with the ‘spiritualist’ contents of some of Heleno’s formulations. Responding on 31 January 1933’s edition, Heleno chose the way of the personal conflict with Correia; on his own behalf, Heleno mentioned that in the Museum, he had a lot of unpublished documentation. On 3 February 1933, Mendes Correia’s letter was published in which he closed the debate, despite cautioning in relation to the risks of the power given to Heleno, a person who, according to him, had neither the adequate profile nor the experience to bring to the office he held. A note by the newspaper’s board was also attached and published saying that it would not publish any further comments on this controversy. In the Muge region, Mendes Correia also wrote an article on the Palaeolithic station of Cabeço de Mina, where he directed archaeological excavations – the first in Portugal in an open-air Palaeolithic station (Mendes Correia 1940e). These efforts eventually preceded the works by Henri de Breuil and Georges Zbyszewski46 (1909‒99) in that same area, which were only ‘superficial collections’ (Cardoso 1999: 148). In the field of archaeology and prehistory, some of the most quoted authors by Mendes Correia are Bosch-Gimpera, Hugo Obermaier (1877‒1942),47 Henri de Breuil, Émile Cartailhac, Vincenzo Giuffrida-Ruggeri, Georges Hervé, Armand de Quatrefages and Joseph Déchelette (1862‒1914),48 while among the Portuguese we find Francisco de Paula e Oliveira, Fonseca Cardoso and Costa Ferreira. The Pleistocene and the Neolithic Human Being In 1915, although there was no consensus around the existence of human remains in the Tertiary period, the case was different as to the existence of human beings in the Pleistocene (former Quaternary). To Mendes Correia, the most ancient traces of this existence were of an industrial nature (1915b: 90) and the most remote human bones with an archaeological value dated from the Middle Pleistocene. According to Mendes Correia’s division, the Pleistocene was divided into epochs, in which we could find different types of utensils: 1) Chellean,49 with ‘soft and uniform climate, though damp’ and possibly for hunting (wooden instruments and weapons and rudimentary stone instruments); 2) Acheulean,50 which had a colder and damper climate

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  119

and harsher conditions, resulting in much improved instruments compared to the previous ones; 3) Mousterian,51 when human beings lived in caves and caverns (kitchen waste, carbons, ash, various instruments, among which the needle and the scraper, were found); 4) Aurignacian,52 with the first artistic expressions in caves (objects made of bone and stone, cases or tubes, in reindeer points, scrapers, blades and piercers); 5) Solutrean,53 corresponding to the middle phase of the Reindeer Epoch (silex point, points with lateral and basilar chamfer, stone and bone instruments, colouring substances for body painting or tattoos, sculptures of four-legged animals); 6) Magdalenian, which featured harsh conditions, but perfected hunting and fishing materials (toothed harpoons, assagais, chief ’s clubs and bone thrusting spears, bone, horn and silex instruments, stone and possibly in clay containers, acoustic instruments, ornaments, such as shells and pierced teeth, engravings with plant and animal motifs, some of which might represent the ‘tutelary animals [totem]54 of the tribe’, although this totemism was yet to be confirmed) (1915b: 90‒95). He also referred to the instruments of the Chellean, Acheulean, Mousterian, Solutrean and Magdalean types found in Portuguese Palaeolithic stations. Virgílio Correia had even recorded the number of those Palaeolithic sites: thirty-eight in the Lisbon district, five in Leiria, one in Porto and one in Vila Real. However, in reality, in 1915, not many human remains were known that could be considered part of the Pleistocene. This was only the case for the Neanderthal type55 (Homo neanderthalensis), the Grimaldi Negroid type and the Cro-Magnon type. For some anthropologists, the Neanderthal Man was a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, while according to others he belonged to an alreadyextinct collateral branch. On the other hand, the Grimaldi type was known only based on two skeletons in a Grimaldi cave, near Menton, which were studied by Verneau. And the Cro-Magnon type,56 also designated as a Langerie-Chancelade type, corresponds to the Reindeer Epoch and differed greatly from the Neanderthal type. Despite some technical advancements, Mendes Correia recognized that no means were yet available that made it possible to correctly assess the age of the known human types. Ground stone utensils emerged during the Neolithic (after the Pleistocene), though knapped stone utensils have also been found that were related to this phase. According to Mendes Correia, the Neolithic human being lived in a mild climate, free from wide glacial areas, together with the current fauna, and the reindeer moved upper north; the human being, who had been a hunter, turned into a shepherd and farmer, and, instead of living in caves, now lived in huts that were grouped together to form villages, some of them fortified; his or her social life was more intense, where rites and religions became more complex and the worship of the dead was developed, megalithic monuments were built, and there was commercial and industrial

120  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

activity, with a reduction in artistic production, but an increase in utilitarian industry57 (1915b: 99‒101). Among the megalithic monuments, we could find dolmens, menhirs, line-ups and cromlechs. Instead, Neolithic human skeletons presented very varied forms that did not allow for a simple systematization; in Portugal, both dolichocephalic and brachycephalic specimens were found. For Mendes Correia, until 1915, although several hominid classifications had already been presented, there still was not even a relative uniformity. But he was based on the classifications of Blumenbach, Topinard, Deniker, Sergi58 and Anton, and also on data collected by the then main anthropologists regarding the physical study of populations; he considered that the species Homo sapiens, that was assumed to be the only one for the current hominids, included at least three subspecies (H. afer, H. asiaticus and H. europaeus), which could present more or less defined and homogeneous variants (1915b: 120‒23). Other Initiatives in Archaeology Mendes Correia’s initiatives resulted in the performance of other excavations,59 which he coordinated, namely in Cabeço da Amoreira (Santarém district), from August to October 1930, allowing the participants in the XV Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques (where he played a fundamental role) to visit them.60 Further excavations later took place, from July to August 1931, in August 1933 and from August to September 1937 (the latter at the shell midden of Cabeço da Arruda – Santarém district). These excavations included the participation of his collaborators Rui de Serpa Pinto (he died in 1933) and J.R. dos Santos Júnior (Cardoso 1999: 147). Other archaeological studies were performed at the late Bronze Age necropoles of Tanchoal and Meijão (Alpiarça).61 Correia presented a hypothesis that formulated the Western origins of the alphabet and the existence of a megalithic culture in the West. He was interested in the Glozel issue and was part of the committee appointed by the French government to analyse it. Glozel (France) was related to Alvão (Portugal), where objects were found with alphabetical symbols that could be examples of an ancient writing in the Western part of the Iberian Peninsula (before the 2nd Iron Age), but the authenticity of which was being questioned. He discussed the Western origins of this alphabet, reviving Estácio da Veiga’s ideas and the controversial objects of Carrazedo do Alvão in Vila Pouca de Aguiar, seeking in Glozel’s forgeries (the authenticity of which he defended)62 a reinforcement of his hypotheses. According to Mendes Correia, ‘ante-historical cultural anthropology recognizes the existence of an Atlantic Portuguese or Galician-Portuguese cultural centre, in

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  121

prehistorical times … independent of the Mediterranean world, original … recognizable, for example, in the Portuguese megalithic civilization, and to which the appearance of the most remote specimens of one of the oldest writings is probably connected’, which he called ‘Proto-Iberian’; ‘this writing is composed of characters with a not yet established signification, but that can be considered with no hesitation, against a deep-rooted erudite prejudice, as an invention that precedes the Phoenician alphabet, to which one has been stubbornly wanting to attribute the ancestry of all ancient and modern alphabets’ (1933a: 41‒42). He was against the advocacy of this Eastern origin of the alphabet, which he mentioned elsewhere (1944b: 74), arguing in favour of the existence of a great Western civilization and a probable Western origin of the alphabet, a problem that was also related to his nationalist views. In that sense, he defended the existence of a Portuguese megalithic culture that: although related with the megalithic culture of other regions, it possessed, in its density, in the primitivity … of its dolmens, in the special typology of some objects … in certain characters of its own, a sharp anteriority and an originality that led it to stand out, with a distinguished physiognomy and great expansive power, in the Peninsula and the Western world. (Mendes Correia 1944b: 72‒73)

At a conference in Nice, Mendes Correia stated: The prehistorians, especially, Wilke, Aoberg, Bosch Gimpera, Breuil, Obermaier, etc., have been able to speak of a Portuguese megalithic culture, whose antiquity and power of expansion are recognized by several authors today. An Atlantic centre of civilization has been formed and is expanding, although not all cultural ties with the eastern Mediterranean are null and void. The peninsulas and islands of northwestern Europe are gradually incorporated into this cultural domain, certainly through a process of local political and economic diffusion, more peaceful than bellicose, the origin of a Western thalassocracy, the foundation of a veritable prehistoric Atlantic empire. (Quoted in Ribeiro 1963: 6)63

As to the Phoenician origins of the alphabet and its relation to the archaic inscriptions in Portugal (Alvão, Alentejo and Algarve), Mendes Correia considered that the Iberian writing could not have been derived from the Phoenician alphabet and that most of the Iberian characters were not represented in the Phoenician writing. He also raised the possibility that an Eastern archaeometallic civilization might have been contemporaneous to a Western lithic civilization during which the invention of the alphabet might have occurred. Mendes Correia believed in the prehistoricity of

122  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Alvão and defended the idea that the dating of the objects should be established shortly after the region’s megalithic epoch (Ribeiro 1963). At the II Porto Colloquium on Archaeology (1962), archaeologist Leonel Ribeiro (1963) stated that Mendes Correia was right to say that the alphabet was not of Phoenician origin, but rather European and, probably, from Western Europe, long before the thirteenth century BCE. Therefore, the twentytwo-letter Phoenician alphabet was not original, but rather a version of an older numerical alphabet. According to Ribeiro, ‘in the dawn of History, at the end of the Iron Age, the creations and reforms of the European alphabets were influencing the Phoenician-Hebraic alphabets, and not the other way around!’ (1963: 13). The thesis that the alphabet was older than the arrival of the Phoenicians to the Iberian Peninsula was defended by Mendes Correia and also by Estácio da Veiga, and, scientifically, there was nothing to contradict the prehistoric characters of the Alvão, Alentejo and Algarve engravings. Therefore, if an alphabet existed in the first half of the second millennium BCE, this could only belong to Europe (Ribeiro 1963: 14). Mendes Correia published on the Glozel issue (1926e, 1927b, 1928d) and, after visiting the site of the discoveries (on 10 and 11 September 1927), on his way to the Congress in Amsterdam,64 in which he took part along with Francisco de Almeida Moreira (see Figure 3.3), he defended the authenticity of the signs. This issue led him to correspond with Salomon Reinach (1858‒1932), the French historian and archaeologist, who specialized Figure 3.3. Mendes Correia and Francisco de Almeida Moreira at the Congress of the Institut International d’Anthropologie in Amsterdam (1927). Private collection

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  123

in Ancient Greece and disapproved of the ex oriente lux idea (from the East comes the light) in Western thought. In 1927 he visited Reinach in Boulogne-sur-Seine.65 Reinach criticized Mendes Correia for the fact that, in 1930, he did not reanimate the discussion at the Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques in Coimbra and Porto, and, amidst some praise, wrote to him as follows: ‘La Lusitanie s’incline devant le comte Bégouen (comte du Pape, ce n’est pas cher …) comme jadis devant le soudard Junot’ [Lusitania bows to Count Bégouen (Count of the Pope, it’s not expensive …) as before in front of the soldier Junot’] (Mendes Correia 1946b: 14). According to Mendes Correia, Reinach attributed to Bégouen the influence that led Mendes Correia to divert Glozel from the debate. Mendes Correia explains his position, stating that he had done so for two reasons: ‘the fact that I did not possess new elements on the matter and that I did not wish to create motives for annoyance and nuisance for the foreign scientists that were then our … guests’; according to him, Reinach mocked the papal title of Bégouen and simultaneously hurt his ‘patriotic sentiment’66 (1946b: 14‒15). Although Mendes Correia refuted the Eastern influence on the alphabet, he admitted that there might be ancient connections between the Iberian West and the Eastern Mediterranean. It would be from this perspective that his view should be seen ‒ for example, his idea regarding the myth of Atlantis and the origins of the city of Lisbon. In an article published in the Investigacion y Progreso journal, Mendes Correia states, regarding Plato’s narration of Atlantis (the most ancient literary reference to Lisbon), that, besides being an improbable fiction, this may have been based on true facts from the Eastern world and also from Western regions of which the Greeks had knowledge; he thus sought archaeological and philological arguments that might justify a possible relation between Lisbon and Atlantis, but the outcomes he reached are not conclusive (1934d).67 As to the origins of Lisbon, Mendes Correia considered several theories and defended the idea that the name Olisipo could be derived from the Greek anthroponym Elasippos, which means ‘the one that releases the horses in the race’ or ‘the one that guides the horses’ (1934d); he must have been the first to admit the existence of the name Olisipo in sources before the second or first century BCE, positioning it in the fourth century BCE (Cardoso 1999: 151). From an archaeological point of view, Mendes Correia considered that the primitive Lisbon may have been where we nowadays find the São Jorge Castle.68 Mendes Correia’s interest in the origins was also expressed in works on the beginnings of Porto, which, according to him, were situated in the ‘morro da cividade’,69 one of the town’s hills, the old Cale (1935b), and the foundation of the city preceded the Romans and the Swabians. In fact, some archaeological remnants of Roman times, subsequently found in the

124  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

historical centre of the town, do not contradict Mendes Correia’s findings (Cardoso 1999: 150). Another hypothesis defended by Mendes Correia was that Antarctica may have been used as a bridge for the human settling of South America, from Australia and the southern archipelagos (1925b). He therefore proposed a scientific mission to that continent during the International Geophysical Year70 (1957‒58) in search of elements that might point to that passage (Mendes Correia 1958b). According to Mendes Correia, these humans must have travelled in rafts or small vessels towards Tasmania, through the Auckland Islands and eventually reaching Antarctica (at a time when the climate was less harsh) and South America. He found several similarities between the populations in Argentina (Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego) and the Australian populations (Aboriginal) that, according to him, were beyond simple biological similarities (such as blood group or cranial structure) and included ethnographic similarities, such as the linguistic character and the material culture ‒ for example, constructions and the use of the boomerang. Moron’s positioning also attracted Mendes Correia’s attention. Unlike the German archaeologist Adolf Schulten (1870‒1960), who defended the idea that this urban centre was located on the Almourol island (Santarém district), Mendes Correia suggested the hypothesis that it was situated in the Portas do Sol area (Santarém), when the Roman city was formed by the old centre of the current city (1934f). In this case, and despite he was based only on Strabo’s Geographica (63 BCE or 64 BCE), the archaeological research has proved the existence of a pre-Roman settlement at the gardens of the Porta do Sol (Cardoso 1999: 151). In the archaeological domain, despite the fact that Muge’s population had North African affinities was not confirmed, Mendes Correia’s other conclusions, namely regarding the pre-Celtic origins of the Lusitanians71 (which he thought were the ancestors of the Portuguese) and the roots of these in the Neolithic populations that inhabited the territory that would later become Portugal, seem to have been confirmed (Cardoso 1999). Manuel Heleno also defended the idea that the Portuguese nationality has been defined since the ground stone era (Fabião 1999: 121); Heleno refuted the theses of Alexandre Herculano (1810‒77) and Oliveira Martins, arguing that they ‘have mistaken State with Nationality’; while the former was born in the twelfth century, the latter has been defined long before, since the aggregate that descended from the Muge Man came from the Bronze Age and was maintained in the Iron Age72 (Fabião 1999: 121). Heleno added that the geographical environment ‒ mainly the ocean ‒ must have led to a ‘race’ with its own characters being driven away from the neighbouring populations after 2500 BCE. He therefore sought to use

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  125

prehistory and archaeological research to legitimize a national discourse. In that sense, Mendes Correia’s theses do not greatly differ from those of Heleno. Mendes Correia highlights the Muge’s Man singularity and the relevance of the Megalithic Empire73 that spread across the world (1928b). On the other hand, he criticized Herculano’s and Oliveira Martins’ theses, and defended the idea of the existence of an ethnic continuity from prehistory up to the present day by reviving the ideas of his master Leite de Vasconcelos. However, while Heleno claimed the existence of a ‘race with its own characters’ in the Portuguese territory, Mendes Correia stated that he had not found any anthropometric evidence that confirmed such a claim. Still in the domain of archaeology, Mendes Correia presided over the Congress on Pre- and Proto-History, integrated in the Congresses of the Portuguese World (1940), and was Vice-President of the Portuguese Association for the Progress of Science, collaborating at the PortugueseSpanish Congresses – where archaeological lectures were presented, in the Historical Sciences and Archaeology Section – which preceded the First National Congress of Archaeology in 1958. At the inaugural session of this congress on 15 December 1958, Mendes Correia paid tribute to Leite de Vasconcelos, to whose memory the congress was devoted. Mendes Correia’s archaeological interest included the then overseas spaces, as seen in the studies on the lithic industries in Timor within the scope of the scientific mission that he led during the 1950s. The archaeological findings continued to allow a comparison between the so-called primitive cultures of the time (in the beginning of the twentieth century) and that, correctly or not, according to Mendes Correia, were called ‘current primitives’ (1933a: 8). This reasoning was related to cultural evolutionism. The evolutionist theory introduced the exotic knowledge into the category of primitive thought and created the distinction between ‘primitive’ thought – considered as irrational and specific to the so-called primitive societies, which were seen as frozen in time – and civilized thought – resulting from a single-linear progress. Mendes Correia admitted the development based on a centre, from which the first groups were spread, by means of a perfectioning process that was translated in distinguishable groups. However, he diverged from single-linear evolution and defended the idea that the studies should not be limited to the typological method and should instead consider other disciplines, namely archaeology. Archaeological studies were the strategy that allowed Mendes Correia to find a remote and recognizable past for Portugal – by picking figures such as Viriato (a military leader in the so-called Lusitanian wars) or the Lusitanians – and he also gathered efforts towards the recognition of archaeological sciences in the country. His works show that he possessed, at both a national and an international level, the main information about what was

126  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

being done in the field of archaeology. These elements were used with the purpose of better knowing the past and the ancestors of the Portuguese, but also of claiming a national autonomy that would be recognized as ancient and perfectly situated. Archaeology was therefore at the service of a nationalist agenda, since antiquity was a prestigious feature. For Mendes Correia, archaeology would produce ‘stimuli for a healthy nationalism grounded on a clear ethnic conscience and on an intelligent and sure understanding of the past’ (1926c: 16); according to him, this science aroused the pride of being Portuguese and refusing to receive what was foreign (1924a). Viriato and his ‘warrior genius’ embodied an example of that willpower (Mendes Correia 1919b: 156). To speak of the importance of Viriato was to pay tribute to an ancestor, a task that formed the idea of a nation, as stated by Renan in the late nineteenth century (1992 [1882]). The peak of the nationalist feat emerged with the foundation’s and restoration’s Centennial Celebrations (1940), giving rise to new reflections on the origins of the Portuguese nationality. Therefore, the first congress of the Congresses of the Portuguese World, presided by Mendes Correia, was dedicated to prehistory, protohistory and history, i.e. to the periods that preceded the formation of the Condado Portucalense (county of Portugal). Eight centuries of national history was a considerable number, but Mendes Correia believed that one could celebrate a more remote national antiquity. However, this effort to know the origins of the nation was not isolated from the surrounding context, nor was it different from the efforts in other European countries; a large part of these ideas was similar, if not an incorporation, of other ideas that spread in other countries.

Some of Mendes Correia’s Main Arguments Some of Mendes Correia’s thoughts were put forward and successively taken as argumentative obsessions, and were sometimes controversial. Among them we find the following: 1) the defence of the idea that the Lusitanians were the ancestors of the Portuguese and that Portugal received influences from the peoples of North Africa, although this did not change the ethnogenealogical profile of its population, considering hereditary and mesological factors; 2) the need to study the human types or ‘races’, in the sense of a large-scale inventory and classification, ensuring that such a process did not imply racism; 3) the defence of anthroposociology as a science, distinguishing ‘race’ from culture and defending the idea that the latter cannot replace the former; 4) the claim that culture and, specifically, the Portuguese culture, which he designated as ‘Portuguese-Christian culture’ and was characterized by affectivity, was mainly a psychological attitude; 5)

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  127

the formulation that although various peoples had made their way through the territory corresponding to Portugal over the centuries, there was an essential core that retained its main features and, thus, miscegenation did not dilute. The Lusitanians Were the Ancestors of the Portuguese: Contributions to the Study of the Origins of the Portuguese The study of the origins of the Portuguese people, centred on the subject of the nation, attracted the attention of several authors from the late nineteenth century (Sobral 2004). However, probably since the implementation of the liberal regime (1820s) and even before then, there was in Portugal a concern with its beginnings. Such motivation was also seen in other European countries at the time. In the late nineteenth century, ideologist Ernest Renan considered that the nations do not derive from: ‘races’ (in the zoological sense used by anthropologists or in the sense of the language study given by philologists); languages (countries that speak the same language do not form a nation); religious affinities; shared interests; or geography or natural conditionings. For Renan, a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle, and it is formed by two elements: the past (common legacy) and the present (the desire to live together and continue a received legacy) (1992 [1882]: 54). In this sense, the cult of the ancestors is the most legitimate, according to Renan, since they are the ones who made us who we are. According to Anthony Smith, ‘nationalism is an ideology that places the nation at the centre of its concerns and seeks to promote its well-being’ (2010: 9). This wellbeing is promoted by national autonomy, unity and identity. Nationalism is therefore ‘an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential “nation”’ (Smith 2010: 9). In Portugal’s case, autonomy was not the issue, but rather the diagnosis of the decadence and the identity, considering the country’s context of the time, in which other socially and economically stronger European powers were constraining the country and its colonies. According to Smith, ‘definitions of the concept of the nation range from those that stress “objective” factors, such as language, religion and customs, territory and institutions, to those that emphasize purely “subjective” factors, such as attitudes, perceptions and sentiments’ (2010: 11). For him, the definition by Benedict Anderson that the nation ‘is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign’ (1991: 6) is subjective. Smith proposed the definition of the concept of nation as a ‘human community residing in a perceived homeland, and having common myths and a shared history, a distinct public culture, and common laws and customs for all members’74

128  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

(2010: 13). These elements referred to by Smith were some of the ones used by the Portuguese authors to support their theses. The national identity is also built based on a postulate of difference. The Portuguese, for example, may define themselves as opposed to the invading peoples, such as the Spaniards, the Romans, the Moors or the French during the Napoleonic invasions. According to José Manuel Sobral, throughout history, and despite the different readings regarding Portugal and the origins of its population, there has been a sentiment of ‘national identity’ and, despite some rivalries, the growth of regional identities strong enough to compete with the identity of the nation has not been observed (2004: 280); besides, ‘the perpetuation of national identities is not based solely on sharing a certain type of representations on the contents of its history’, but also the ‘routine, the daily life, the conversation’ (2006: 44). In the case of anthropology, João Leal considers that this discipline established itself as an ‘anthropology of nation-building’, from 1870 to 1970, and was committed to a discourse with ethnogenealogical characteristics: Portuguese anthropology actually had as its recurrent goal the explanation of the nation as an ‘ethnic community of descent’, based on an ethnic background issued with the arguments of antiquity and originality, that is, supported on a peculiar and remote ‘ethnogeny’ that popular culture would precisely testify. (2000: 64)

It was through the study of popular culture, extracted from its own time (Fabian 1983) by the perspective of the ethnologist, that, according to João Leal, it was possible to root the nation’s existence in the long duration of tradition and ethnicity (2000: 64). However, all over Europe during the second half of the nineteenth century, both the studies in physical anthropology and those in folklore and ethnology were often associated with a search for a better knowledge of the nations’ origins, history and specific traits (Sobral 2004: 277). For example, for Alexandre Herculano, Portugal did not have remote origins and was a nation made up of a mix of invading peoples who grouped in the Iberian Peninsula, and the Lusitanians75 were merely a small group with which the current Portuguese would have no genealogical relationship. Herculano recognized the Arabic influence (Herculano 1916 [1846]) and this would be the starting point of the thesis defended by Oliveira Martins, Manuel Pinheiro Chagas and Adolfo Coelho, who opposed the reinforcement of the Mozarabs as a defined, distinct ethnic group and as a social group; according to both Antero de Quental and Oliveira Martins, the Portuguese nation, destitute of an individualized ethnic basis, was the result of the ‘political will and of the institutions, and not of a race understood as a national type’ (Matos 1998: 329). Teófilo Braga, who was also inspired by Herculano, understood literature as

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  129

an ‘expression or a product of the social environment’ and of the ‘national genius’, and, based on this, one could derive the characters of a Portuguese ‘founding race’; when making reference to the ethnic element, he sought to question the traditional basis from which the national literature might have been created (Matos 1998: 324). The element that stands out in Braga is his ethnogenealogical eclecticism, since his thesis starts under the influence of the Celticist (1867) and Mozarab (1871) theses and, from 1883 onwards, he found a stable position based on a model that considered the contribution of three successive ethnic layers in the formation of Portugal. However, the occupants of these layers vary and the author shows his indifference to the Lusitanianist theses. Braga (1985‒86 [1885]) concluded that the Portuguese were the result of a mix of several groups, but possessed a perceptible racial specificity, for example, as compared to Spain. One of the first authors to come closer to the Lusitanianist theses was Martins Sarmento, who used the reading of ancient sources on the Iberian Peninsula and, based on the interpretation of a certain number of archaeological findings ‒ in particular the ‘castros’ (pre-Roman fortified settlements) and the dolmens in northern and central Portugal ‒ he performed ‘a work of true exhumation of the Lusitanians as Portugal’s ethnic ancestors’ (Leal 2000: 65). Based on the works by Martins Sarmento from 1876 to 1891, João Leal states that this ‘exhumation of the Lusitanians’ was made initially from 1876 to 1879, following the Celticizing theses, which were by then quite popular in Europe, and from 1880 the Lusitanians were seen (perhaps due to the impact of the Indo-Europeanist theses of compared mythology) ‘as the representatives of a first wave of migrations of the IndoEuropean peoples towards the West, among which the Ligures, of which the Lusitanians would be … the most Western representatives’ (Leal 2000: 65‒66). Another author who moved closer to the Lusitanianist theses and who criticized Alexandre Herculano’s theory that the Lusitanians were not among the ancestors of the Portuguese nation was Leite de Vasconcelos, although he did not put forward convincing alternatives (Fabião 1999: 116). Vasconcelos was probably closer to these theses because he was an archaeologist and due to his friendship to Martins Sarmento, with whom he corresponded on archaeological and ethnographic matters. Vasconcelos, who until 1885 had mainly researched in the field of ethnography, from then on devoted his attention to archaeology; he published Portugal Pré-Histórico (1885), where he makes reference to Alexandre Herculano’s theses to defend the idea that, preceding the Portuguese nationality, there was Lusitania and, even before that, prehistoric Portugal. He defended the idea that factors like territory, history, race, traditions, language and religion, because they are ancient, can be fundamental in the definition of a nationality. However,

130  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

this scientific interest did not exclude his interest in ethnography, which later benefited from his archaeological knowledge. His return to ethnography was marked by the influence of the Lusitanianist theses, as can been seen in the title of the journal Revista Lusitana that he founded in 1897. For Vasconcelos, the Portuguese’s genealogy did necessarily not date back to the Palaeolithic; besides, the Portuguese were the result of the incorporation of several groups, such as Arabs, Jews and Negros (1941), and some regions in the country, such as Alcácer do Sal, had been subject to a clear African influence (1895). According to João Leal, despite Vasconcelos’ death before he was able to finish his work, the material he wrote points to the fact that on both an archaeological and an ethnographic level, it would be difficult to demonstrate a continuity from the Lusitanians to the Portuguese (Leal 2000: 76). In the first decades of the twentieth century, during which Correia presented his vision of the origins of the Portuguese nationality, past formulations were still important, namely by foreigners who sought to establish the superiority of the group to which they belonged, following an ethnocentric approach.76 However, these authors, from Europe or the United States, had more in common than they supposed – all could be more or less identified with the ‘white race’, which was then considered as superior to the black people in Africa, the ‘Yellows’ in Asia, the ‘Browns’ in Malaysia and Oceania, and was recognized as having the duty to conquer and govern all those other peoples (Hayes 1941: 260‒61). One of the aspects Correia tried to characterize was the ‘Portuguese ethnogeny’ 77; for that he sought to find a racial basis for the formation of the nationality.78 In 1915, Mendes Correia recognized the ‘blatant traits’ left by the Germanic peoples, reduced the influence of the Semites and did not highlight the influence of the inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa (1915b). Mendes Correia was later considered to be one of the most relevant authors in the study of the origins of Portugal; he wrote summaries on prehistory in Os Povos Primitivos da Lusitânia (1924a) and ‘A Lusitânia PréRomana’ (1928b), and contributed to the establishment of the nationalist ideology. The former work (Mendes Correia 1924a) included geological, geographical and palaeontological knowledge; in Chapters VII and VIII he included a retrospective essay and outlined the ‘physical anthropology’ of the Portuguese Man. He considered, unlike other historians, that the origins of Portugal did not date back to the twelfth century, as claimed by Damião Peres (1970 [1938]), but rather to a more remote past that included an African element. For Mendes Correia, Count Henrique (father of Afonso Henriques, the first King of Portugal) only had to direct forces that dated back from a long time and it was the political independence that underlined the ethnic aggregate’s differentiation (1919b: 32). In Raízes

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  131

de Portugal,79 he mentions that the country’s gestation went back a long way, but ‘the Nation, with its modern characteristics on several levels, with a broad and conscious national sentiment … only emerged long after 1139’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 144‒45). Nevertheless, for Mendes Correia, since remote times the ‘political trends’, the ‘psychosocial affinity indices’, the ‘ethnic homogeneity’ and the ‘historic personality’ could be considered as manifestations of an ‘embryonic nationality’ (1944b: 145). This thesis was opposed to that of Alexandre Herculano, for whom there was no correspondence between the Lusitanians and the Portuguese, or between Lusitania and Portugal, and the formation of Portugal and of the Portuguese dated back to the late Middle Ages. Mendes Correia dealt with this correspondence in another book (1943a), in which he included a map (see Figure 3.4). For him, there was no perfect identity between Lusitania and Portugal, nor were the Portuguese exclusively

Figure 3.4. Correspondence between Lusitania and Portugal (Mendes Correia 1943a: 151). Lusitania and Portugal: A – Area corresponding to pre-Roman Lusitania, Roman Lusitania and Visigoth province, Arab Lugidania and Portugal; B – Pre-Roman Lusitania, Kingdom of the Suevi, Condado Portucalense (county of Portugal) and Portugal; C – Roman Lusitania and Visigoth province, Arab Lugidania and Portugal; D – Pre-Roman Lusitania, Kingdom of the Suevi, present day Galicia; E – Roman Lusitania, nowadays also Spanish territory; F – Arab domain in the 12th century. The arrows indicate the advances by the Christian Reconquest: 1 ‒ Portuguese; 2 – Leonese; 3 – Castilian. The dates refer to the final conquest by the Muslims

132  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

affiliated to the Lusitanians, since other ethnic elements intervened after protohistory, but there is a correspondence between the core components of the two territories and of the two populations (1943a, 1944b). For Mendes Correia, the Lusitanians, the people he considered as having pre-Celtic origins,80 as well as the less heterogeneous population at a European level (1919f), formed the most important core of the ancestors of the Portuguese. This idea was, in a way, a re-activation of the ethnic myth of the Portuguese ancestry dating back to the fifteenth century (Sobral 2010: 126). Like Martins Sarmento, Mendes Correia used the ‘castros’ as a reference point and reviewed the historical status of the Lusitanians – they would be pre-Celts related to other Iberian peoples who would have later on mixed with the Celts (Mendes Correia 1928b). At the inaugural session of the Congress of the Portuguese World (1940), Mendes Correia mentioned the lack of documents regarding the Muslim and the Reconquest periods, underlining that it was more important to ‘analyse to what extent the invaders of the territory, in the period from the Romanization to the Reconquest, have altered the bio-psychological and ethnic structure of the pre-existing population or even if this latter was replaced, than knowing … if the Lusitanians were Ligures, Iberians or Celts’ (quoted in Mendes Correia 1944b: 112‒13). As mentioned by João Leal, whether Celtic or pre-Celtic, for several authors the Lusitanians were the ultimate ancestors of Portugal (2000: 66), an idea that, as has already been mentioned, was explored in the late 1870s by the authors who reflected on Portugal’s ethnogenealogy. Although initially proposed by Martins Sarmento, the Lusitanianist theses later reached a certain consensus. The ethnogenealogical narrative that used the Lusitanians to justify the existence of an ethnically identifiable prehistory gained momentum with the arguments of ‘originality’ and ‘antiquity’; it therefore seemed that, just as the Germans descended from the Germanic peoples, the French from the Gauls and the Greek from the Hellenes, the Portuguese were descended from the Lusitanians (Leal 2000: 66). According to João Leal, the consensus around Lusitanianist theses was reinforced in three ways: 1) in archaeology by Leite de Vasconcelos and Mendes Correia; 2) in the places where the voluntarist theses by Alexandre Herculano did not match the predominant cultural nationalism; 3) in cultural journals whose titles referred to the Lusitanians – Revista Lusitana by Leite de Vasconcelos, Lusa by Cláudio Basto and Lusitânia by Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos81 (Leal 2000: 66). For Mendes Correia, the Lusitanians were the ancestors of the Portuguese. Although the Iberian Peninsula was in fact invaded by other peoples – Roman legionaries and settlers, hordes of Barbarians from the north and Saracens, adventurers from beyond the Pyrenees – the Lusitanian homogeneous mass

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  133

was not replaced and these migratory waves, which were probably infrequent, did not destroy the already-existing ‘native background’, which guaranteed the future unity. This ethnic individuality was proven by history and archaeology, as seen in the archaeological charts of the Iron Age as drawn by Bosch-Gimpera, which define the ‘Portuguese culture of castros’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 78, 82). For João Leal, ‘the interest in Lusitanianist theses in Portuguese anthropology is … undeniable’; however, ‘this fascination is eventually contradicted by unkept promises, projects of unfinished books … silences, difficulties and turning points that gradually transform it into a hesitating and incomplete plot’ (2000: 64). Despite this general appreciation, Mendes Correia’s work, in particular, by promoting the Lusitanians as the main ancestors of the Portuguese, and by contributing to the formation of an individualized image of the nation and of the motherland, was well accepted during the Estado Novo. The topic of the ‘origins of the nation’ kept attracting interest from other authors. Mendes Correia mentioned that, after the publication of Damião Peres’ book (1970 [1938]) and his own (1944b), other works were published in which this subject arose.82 Later on, Jorge Dias was also interested in the Lusitanianist theses, mainly in the first texts he wrote following his return from Germany in 1946 and up to 1950. Dias’ preference reflects his theoretical education influenced by the German diffusionism, but also the proximity to Mendes Correia when he returned to Portugal. João Leal recognizes that ‘Mendes Correia was a decisive figure in the institutional support to Jorge Dias’ research work’; furthermore, Mendes Correia was then ‘the most important advocate of Lusitanianist theses in Portuguese archaeology, where he had occupied the place in a way left vacant by the return of Vasconcelos to ethnography’ (Leal 2000: 76). Dias (1990 [1953]) shows the influence of American cultural anthropology, which, from the 1940s, developed the so-called ‘national character studies’, and was part of a debate that involved anthropologists and other intellectuals who sought to see the Portuguese national identity as a set of easily identifiable and own spiritual or psychological features. However, for Leal, the arguments supporting the Lusitanianist theses by Leite de Vasconcelos and Jorge Dias were eventually disappointing: For the main actors of the Lusitanianist debate, the Lusitanians might even have existed, but not only it seems scientifically unlikely that their existence has deeply affected the Portuguese nationality, as also, if it existed, this influence is shared with other ethnic influences that are as or more important than the Lusitanians influence. (2000: 81‒82)

However, in this paragraph, João Leal was referring only to Leite Vasconcelos and Jorge Dias, and seems to forget Martins Sarmento and Mendes Correia.

134  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Beyond the inspiration by Lusitanianist theses, and as it was impossible to fully accept such argument, some authors like Jorge Dias sought to find identifiable psychological features among the Portuguese. However, Mendes Correia had made some earlier approaches to ethnic psychology, based on criminal anthropology and physical anthropology (1913a, 1919b). Some authors (Leal 2000; Llobera 2003) have highlighted the significance of ethnic psychology in the nationalist imagination. According to Leal, the debate around the Portuguese national identity as an identity that was sustained in an ethnic psychology of its own, which would turn the nation into a collective individual characterized by specific qualities, dated back to the late nineteenth century. This debate counted on the participation of: Teófilo Braga (A Pátria Portuguesa: O Território e a Raça 1894), who underlined the vocation for maritime activity, the ability to easily adapt to the environment and the assimilation of new ideas; Adolfo Coelho, who wrote the ‘Esboço de um Programa para o Estudo Antropológico Patológico e Demográfico do Povo Português’ [‘Draft of a Program for the Anthropologic Pathologic and Demographic Study of the Portuguese People’] (1890), at the request of the SGL, in which he included elements from demography, social pathology and physical anthropology, and outlined the degeneration factors of the Portuguese people and the factors of nervous depression of the nation; and Rocha Peixoto (‘O Cruel e Triste Fado’ [‘The Cruel and Sad Fate’] 1897), who characterized the national soul negatively. While Teófilo Braga referred to the positive features and underlined the feelings (lyricism, nostalgia or adventurous genius), Adolfo Coelho and Rocha Peixoto highlighted the negative features on an intellectual (laziness and mental poverty) or moral (lack of tenacity and coherence) level (Leal 2000: 86‒90). During the 1910s and 1920s, the subject of ethnic psychology was restructured mainly from the field of literature. In this context, Teixeira de Pascoais – poet, writer, essayist and leader of the artistic and literary movement ‘saudosismo’83 – played a fundamental role; he proposed saudade as a core structuring topic of the Portuguese national character (Leal 2000: 91). Pascoais’ theses were criticized by António Sérgio and Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos, who thought the word saudade could be translated into other languages, but in general they were well received. Mendes Correia’s contributions to ethnic psychology sometimes include a pessimism that was similar to that of Adolfo Coelho. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, these approaches are stimulated mainly by the negative aspects of the Portuguese population and the need, in his opinion, to mitigate them. In other words, ethnic psychology was not a starting point for Mendes Correia and when he criticized anthroposociology, for example, he suggested that it could contain great inaccuracies and be ethnocentric (1919b: 23).

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  135

Only in the 1950s, with Jorge Dias (1953), did ethnic psychology record a new impetus, although the author had already reflected on this topic (Dias 1942). This subject was revived in 1968 (Dias 1971) when Dias highlighted the Portuguese ethnogenealogical pluralism and, at the same time, the particular ability of the Portuguese culture for miscegenation. In this text he mentioned ‘races’ and expressed his idea in contradictory terms (unity and plurality at the same time): the Portuguese ethnic unity that resulted from the melting pot of several subraces of Caucasoid race, in which were later mixed, in variable proportions, elements from other races, such as Negroid and Mongoloid, [would contribute] to give the Portuguese an enormous human plasticity and a rare ecumenic sense. (Dias 1971: 39)

Within the scope of characterizing the Portuguese, Mendes Correia also brought many other elements to the discussion: the influence from North Africa and the Mediterranean, which will be dealt with next. North African and Mediterranean Influences In the early nineteenth century, Portugal and Spain were often seen by other countries as closer to Africa than to Europe. Mendes Correia considered this unfair (1916d: 94) and, seeking to state the European character of the Portuguese, he revived the formulation Homo europaeus mediterraneus, connecting it to Europe and to megalithic culture.84 According to him, the Mediterranean had specific features: A century-long independent life, in special geographic conditions, gave us rights, a special psychology, an ethnicity of our own and … a distinct somatic facies. From an anthropological perspective, the Portuguese people is one of the less heterogeneous in Europe and is the most dolichocephalic of all. (1916d: 95)

Mendes Correia recognized ‘geographic conditions’ as having influenced the features of human groups, showing his appreciation for Lamarck’s theories. As his intention was to state Portugal’s clear belonging to Europe, it is also clear his need to mention to the Portuguese skull’s shape, such as dolichocephaly, i.e. similar to the shape of the skulls of most Nordic peoples, according to the anthropometric precepts then practised. In this context, he admitted that the Iberians and the Berbers had a common origin. Thus might also have been due to the fact that the latter were connected to a culture that was often considered as superior, or more complex, than the culture of other peoples in North Africa. Mendes Correia defended the

136  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

inclusion of the Portuguese population in a bloc that integrated North Africa and admitted, like Teófilo Braga,85 the affinities with the Berbers; similarly, he stressed that Sílvio Romero86 had admitted that the settling of the Iberian Peninsula had also been done by the Berbers, although he considered that Romero’s statement was based on ‘intuition and a hunch, and not on a documental study’ (1919b: 114‒15). He also quoted anthropologist Arnold van Gennep (1873‒1957), according to whom: The same skulls, the same nose indices, the same relations of short bones to long bones, etc., are found in all the Western Mediterranean contour. In France we have characterized Iberian-Berber populations. There is an infinitesimal difference between a Sardinian, a Sicilian, a Portuguese, a Spaniard and a Tunisian, Algerian or Moroccan Berber. (Quoted in Mendes Correia 1919b: 116‒17)

Correia concluded that ‘there is no Arabic race, as there is no Berber race or an Iberian race’, since the variety observed in the Iberian West and in the African Northwest seems to challenge any attempt at systematization (1919b: 125). Therefore, while Mendes Correia admitted the influence of the African element on the Portuguese, Manuel Heleno (1956), for example, considered that ‘European races’ (Cro-Magnon, Combe-Capelle and Chancelade), by eliminating the Neanderthal, had formed the most important stratum of the Portuguese ethnogeny. However, both Heleno and Mendes Correia shared the opinion that the Neanderthal was not an important ancestor of the Portuguese. As mentioned earlier, Mendes Correia was opposed to the idea that there were ‘Neanderthaloid’ elements in the Muge skulls and in the northern Portuguese provinces. For him, the skulls in Muge belonged to Homo sapiens and the Homo neanderthalensis was an archaic and extinct species (Mendes Correia 1918c). However, according to archaeologist Ana Cristina Martins, Manuel Heleno (Leite de Vasconcelos’ successor in leading the FLUL and the Portuguese Ethnologic Museum) established ‘Portuguese ethnogeny in Cro-Magnon, as an European race connected to the French-Cantabrian artistic production’, isolated from the area of presumed African ascent, which was considered as connected to a less elaborate industry, of a Capsian type, that for Mendes Correia was associated with the proto-Ethiopian Combe-Capelle type (Negroid) (Martins 2011: 54). Mendes Correia eventually valued ethnic miscegenation, claiming that this would have contributed towards a civilizational development. After several observations and reflections, he concluded that Portugal’s Neolithic population was illustrative of an ‘anthropological heterogeneity’ and that, in Portugal, although the dolichocephalic ‘short, dark-haired of

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  137

Iberian-Peninsular or Mediterranean type’ had established an indisputable primacy, there was no absolute unity in terms of human types and that ‘this will hardly be found among the civilized peoples’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 53, 93‒95). Nevertheless, in Raízes de Portugal, he mentioned that the country’s general physiognomy was perceptible in its whole, despite successive influences by ‘Romans, Barbarians and Moors’ (1944b: 29). In the same book, Mendes Correia did not deal with the role of ‘Jews and Gypsies, African blacks and other overseas populations, in the metropolitan ethnogeny’, but he stated that the Jews ‘are not all of the same physical type and some can even be easily somatologically mistaken for European races’, being mainly defined by their ‘special psychology’ (1944b: 97). However, although they had been present in Portuguese territory ‘since Barbarian times’, their endogamy, the legal restrictions that were imposed on them, their expulsion by King Manuel I and the actions of the Inquisition worked against their influence on the Portuguese ethnogeny, and the same would have been the case with the Gypsies; as to Africans and other overseas populations, Mendes Correia stated that although the successive importations of these ethnic elements had been proven, whether in distant periods or in the period of the maritime and colonial exploration, the ‘ethnogenic influence of these exotic races in the Portuguese population’ was much less significant than had been stated by several foreigners87 (1944b: 97‒98; see also Mendes Correia 1936a). In another article (1936a), he included the Portuguese in the European bloc, denying the genetic proximity of the Portuguese with black people, and considered that the Portuguese were not directly descended from the Muge populations. He preserved these ideas throughout the years, as we can see in his later publications (1941d). On the Muge Man and his Negroid or Ethiopic affinities, he later recognized, when studying five skulls from Moita do Sebastião obtained from the excavations by Octávio da Veiga Ferreira and Jean Roche,88 that there was a possibility that the Muge Man was integrated into the ‘Mediterranean race’ and therefore the modern Portuguese. However, he suggested that this matter should be analysed further (Mendes Correia 1956a). In fact, he admitted that numerous infiltrations of ‘odd blood’ had occurred over time in Portuguese territory. As such, organic and biological factors, like miscegenation, selective restrictions and degenerations, that also influence the ‘psychology of a people, the historical behaviour of a nation’ should be considered whenever one intended to study ‘the origin, formation and evolution of a state’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 98). He therefore also used psychological and historical elements, since organic and biological factors did not always satisfy his need to prove the Portuguese original character. He even debated which of them must have played the most relevant role in the formation and autonomy of the country, as I will discuss in the next section.

138  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Race Is Not Culture: Connections Inspired by Anthroposociology Until the early twentieth century, several authors, from anthropology to archaeology, sought to find scientific explanations for human progress. According to Spencer and Darwin, the acquired features were inherited, progressive development was the normal condition of human existence, and racial traits were functions of social behaviour. Evolution therefore involved material and moral advancement. The evolutionists’ research programme consisted of the specification of features for each development phase and of the mechanisms by which the transitions from one stage to another occurred. For example, the work of archaeologist and naturalist John Lubbock (1834‒1913) helped the inauguration in the United Kingdom of the development theory of human prehistory. His theory advocated that human societies have their origin everywhere in a period of savagery (perceptible in hunting and gathering activities), before progressing into a state of barbarism (nomadism or pastoralism, and then agriculture) and finally reaching an industrial civilization that Lubbock recognized as his own. While Lubbock’s ideas on human civilization were organized based on materials of archaeological research, Edward Tylor used sources that are more difficult to categorize in terms of materials, supplied by folklore and popular customs researchers, who inspired him to reflect on the continuity of beliefs and cultural practices from one historical era to another. Darwin (1871) favourably mentioned Tylor and other exponents of the culture development theory, largely agreeing with his principle that humanity had a shared general history and that racial differentiation described degree differences, not type differences. Mendes Correia’s work was influenced by evolutionist thinking; he sought explanations for the human progress in biological phenomena, but also in cultural aspects. For him, anthropology could not be merely a natural science limited to the biological and physical study of the human being; in a context where positivism was in crisis, he stressed the need to also consider the social aspects of human life, such as its history and cultural elements. In that sense, he quoted Gustave Le Bon,89 who said that ‘the soul of a people is not a metaphysical concept, but rather a very living reality … formed from an atavistic stratification, traditions, ideas, ways of thinking, and even prejudice’ and ‘the force of a nation depends on its solidity’ (quoted in Mendes Correia 1919b: 21). The simultaneous analysis of such dissimilar aspects was possible, according to Mendes Correia, within the scope of an anthroposociology (1919b, 1933a). It was an ‘authentic scientific branch’, one that was still ‘embryonic’, but the existence of which should not be denied (Mendes Correia 1919b: 9, 23). According to Mendes Correia, the ‘para-scientific doctrine’ that assigns to a ‘race’ the monopoly of the best faculties, which predominance guarantees progress and human

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  139

happiness, was pioneered by Count Arthur de Gobineau (1816‒82) and other figures such as Otto Ammon, H.S. Chamberlain, Ludwig Woltmann and Vacher de Lapouge (1854‒1936)90 (1919b: 10). The pseudo-anthroposociology pursued by these authors was then succeeded by the ‘false eugenics of Madison Grant and Günther’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 6). For Mendes Correia, Madison Grant’s book The Passing of the Great Race 91 was very successful in the United States and triggered the Johnson Act, a law that regulated immigration in that country, in which the Portuguese were described ‘as one of the least desirable ethnic elements’,92 and the German professor Hans Günther (an anthropologist who was favoured by the Nazis) was an ‘encourager … of Hitlerian aspirations’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 6). Within the scope of this doctrine, considered by Mendes Correia as ‘para-scientific’, the ‘dolicho-blond [was praised] as the legitimate ruler of the future, identifying him with the Aryan and transferring to Europe the cradle of Asia’s Aryans’ by assigning ‘particularly to the cephalic index a formidable significance in the political and social life’. In this concept, the ‘dark-haired brachycephalic would also be considered as Aryan, but a slave or a servant of the dolicho-blond, and therefore destitute of this latter’s importance’ (1919b: 10). Thus, based on Aryan psychosocial values, Gobineau93 defended the idea of the inequality of ‘races’, which were considered as innate due to their build and their different abilities for learning and creating knowledge. After Gobineau, these ideas on inequality were eventually substantiated by means of Darwin’s natural selection theory adapted to the human species. Paul Topinard (L’Anthropologie 1876) and A. de Quatrefages (L’Espèce Humaine 1877) took over these ideas and categorized different human groups. In Instructions Craniologiques et Craniométriques de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris (1875), Paul Broca used them to develop the law of social selection, which explained social and intersocial phenomena. On this occasion Mendes Correia did not mention Topinard, Quatrefages or Broca, but was strongly critical of Gobineau and Lapouge. For him, ‘as to the origin and the Aryanism of the dolicho-blond, it was eventually proven the fragility of the Western mirage that succeeded the Eastern mirage; once the significance of linguistics as an element of anthropological analysis was reduced, it has been shown that … the Aryan issue was a mystification and that the alleged primitive Arian race “had been made up at the working office”’.94 Furthermore, he mentioned that ‘in the distinction between races, the cephalic index does not represent the exclusive element or even the main one, and the authors in question were blinded by Germanic dolichocephaly, not perceiving other characters in the race’; therefore, they were not able to explain the presence of dolichocephaly ‘in inferior races, such as black people’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 11‒12). Mendes Correia’s work, written

140  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

after the end of the First World War (1919b), in which the Germans were defeated, seems to suggest some usefulness in the theory of the hierarchization of the peoples since, in light of what happened during the war, some were supposedly superior to others. However, Mendes Correia did not agree with the differentiation model proposed by Lapouge or by Gobineau between Aryans, Brachycephalics and Mediterraneans. According to Mendes Correia, Aryans (Nordic, blue-eyed, dolichocephalic blondes) were not necessarily superior to the brachycephalic (fair-skinned from Central Europe) or to the Mediterranean (darker-skinned) since, as history showed, the latter also had aptitudes and faculties (1919b: 155). In other words, Mendes Correia criticized Gobineau and Lapouge mainly because these authors considered the Aryan, Nordic and dolichocephalic as superior to all others, which meant the Portuguese would be in a disadvantaged position, and not so much the fact that they considered the existence of human races and the submission of them to a hierarchy. Indeed, Mendes Correia himself stated that black people were of ‘inferior races’. Mendes Correia concluded that, despite anthroposociology being an embryonic science, it would persevere; however, its confusion with PanGermanism contributed to the criticism directed towards it. For Mendes Correia, the idea of racial superiority was excessive and elitist, and such ideas would lead to the loss of the German empire; he criticized PanGermanism,95 but admitted the ‘high faculties’ of the ‘Nordic race’ and that one could not ignore ‘a certain mental and social hierarchy among races’ (1919b: 12‒14). In his formulations, we should consider the assumptions on which he based his claims (although he criticized some of them in other authors): there are human races; these are unequal and can be organized hierarchically; and blacks are an inferior ‘race’. Mendes Correia criticized these authors not for their recognition of the existence of ‘human races’ and that these are hierarchically distinguishable, but rather for their lack of a thorough and systematic analysis considering somatic and morphologic characters, and also those related to the environment and the origin’s social conditions. In this sense he proposed: Writers that … wanted to find immediate correlations with psychology and the social action of races have produced an almost as vain work as phrenologists when they wanted to guess individuals’ mentality and morality based on a certain cranial protuberance. (1919b: 15)

He therefore warned of the need to consider several physical characters to establish an ‘anthropological type’, although he opposed the Lombrosian doctrine of the criminal’s anthropological type, according to which it was possible to identify a criminal, since ‘crime is a relative concept … often an accident in the life of an individual’, and there was no connection between

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  141

‘anatomic signs’ and ‘criminal tendencies’ (1913a: 114). For that reason, ‘race’ was the most uniform and persistent criterion throughout the times, as long as one did not claim, within the scope of one’s psychosocial study, that physical anthropological characters, such as stature, skin colour or prognathism, had a direct influence on the ‘expressions of the spirit and of human activity’ (1919b: 16). On several occasions, he considered that there were links between ‘race’ and culture, although they did not exactly overlap (see, for example, Mendes Correia 1944b: 70), and later restated this idea (1954a). But he also discussed the role of the environment in the influence of the ‘race’ factor, as will be shown below. Heredity or Environment? From Hippocrates to Buffon, several authors had tried to explain human differences, mainly skin and hair differences, as being influenced by the physical environment.96 This was the case for James Cowles Prichard97 and William Ridgeway. However, for Mendes Correia, as there were ‘relatively light-coloured-skin races in tropical regions, such as the American Indians, and other darker ones in Polar regions, such as the Laplanders and Eskimos’ (1926a: 258‒59), it was necessary to study the racial role as compared to the environmental role. Mendes Correia criticized Lapouge’s anti-Lamarckism, considering that ‘a physical type of a race is the palpable materialization of a long past of mesological influences’; however, he defended the idea that this influence was produced in a limited scope ‘determined by the internal conditions of the living being’s equilibrium’ (1919b: 17‒18). For him, social phenomena did not ‘occur analogously in all races’; ‘race’ presumes ‘a special past, a distinct previous conditionalism’; ‘if the environment were omnipotent, there would be no stable physical types’; and ‘heredity is the strongest vital principle’ (1919b: 19). He therefore recognized the relevance of the environment, in the sense that it had an influence, but he did not assign it a determining role. He also considered that adaptation was a universal process of evolution, but this did not mean that the submission of living beings to external conditions was absolute, since it ‘also involves the subordination to internal conditions of … inter-organic affinity, made possible only by certain morphological states’ (Mendes Correia 1919d: 30).98 Furthermore, from his point of view, the environmental action was more reduced in the evolution of inferior (less complex) biological beings than in superior beings (1919b: 20; 1926a: 266 et seq.). Mendes Correia quotes Eusébio Tamagnini’s work (1915) on the hair and eye colour of children in Portuguese schools, concluding that there was a strong depigmentation tendency from the south towards the north of Portugal; however, he reminded the reader that Fonseca Cardoso’s statistics,

142  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

and his own, in similar analyses99 were not as conclusive as Tamagnini’s (Mendes Correia 1926a: 261). Mendes Correia did not forget the famous statements by Franz Boas that the ‘physical type of the immigrants in America undergone, in their immediate descent, modifications that could be assigned to an environmental influence, and maybe to selection, with a main focus on the shape of the skull, and due to which the brachycephalic and the dolichocephalic converged into a common intermediate type’;100 he gave examples of the versions of other authors on this issue, but concluded that, despite ‘more or less credible [explanations] for many morphologic details’, ‘the direct causes of an infinity of somatic variations of the human group’ remained ignored (1926a: 263, 254). For him, it was difficult to establish psychosociological differences, but the definition of ‘physical types’ was equally complex, since ‘pure races’ were rare and the world was filled with miscegenated people since ‘high antiquity’; therefore, the researchers who based their ideas on superficial, unprepared and imprecise observations would contribute to the discrediting of anthroposociology (1919b: 22‒23).101 Further, if the determinism of biological phenomena was ‘obscure’, the determinism of social phenomena, promoted by ethnic psychology formulations, was even more complicated; Mendes Correia therefore criticized the description of European peoples as ‘hard-working, sober, honourable’ by their fellow Europeans (1919b: 23‒24). Anthroposociology was supposed to consider the knowledge from other areas in order to understand the present, but also the past, and to enlarge its scope. In this process, Mendes Correia highlighted the role that the study of human ‘races’ could play in human geography,102 political economy and the study of social facts, since the ‘telluric, psychological, economic, political’ conditions, among others, cooperate with ‘anthropological’ facts, which were seen by him as elements that were mainly innate (1919b: 26‒27). Furthermore, instead of office work, anthroposociology should be based in a laboratory environment and on direct field research, considering not only one ‘anthropological characteristic’, but a whole set of them, so that it would not become ‘an ill-advised patriotism’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 27‒28). He saw this science as a service provider and, in that sense, he saw it as a means to study the factors that might have influenced the formation, evolution and future of the Portuguese nationality. The work that he set for himself was thus defined – a scientific mission, of nationalist inspiration, in which archaeological, historical, pedagogical, socioanthropological, criminal and colonial studies would play a fundamental role. Like other authors, Mendes Correia analysed the role of geographical and ethnic factors in the formation of the Portuguese nation. Francisco Silva Teles asserted that Portugal was a geomorphological unit; Amorim Girão, Anselmo Ferraz de Carvalho and Damião Peres stated the existence

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  143

of geographical connections between Portugal and Spain. However, for Mendes Correia, the authorized voices of geographers who claimed Portugal’s geographical autonomy and the role of mesological factors in the formation and independence of the country were often those of foreigners. This was the case for Élisée Reclus, Hermann Lautensach and Theobald Fischer. Unlike José de Oliveira Boléo,103 Correia did not agree with Francisco Silva Teles, Élisée Reclus or Theobald Fischer as to the exclusivism or preponderance of geographical factors in the genesis of the Portuguese nationality or to Portugal’s alleged geographical individuality (1944b: 136). Although he did not deny the intervention of certain geographical factors, such as its oceanity, he considered that these factors were not exclusive, given that, per se, they did not explain the country’s autonomy and one had to bear in mind the ethnic, linguistic, psychological, political, religious, social and historical facts. With regard to the political constitution of the Peninsular Bloc,104 he considered the existence of a common peninsular heritage in terms of ‘ethnic psychology and folklore’ to be possible, but this was not detrimental to the Portuguese independence (Mendes Correia 1944b: 138); nor was it in territorial differentiation that one could find a legitimation for the country’s political autonomy, but rather in its history. At the end of Raízes de Portugal, and with a vision opposed to that advocated by Damião Peres in his work Como nasceu Portugal (1938), Mendes Correia defended the idea that a state does not depend solely on the ‘human will that is not rooted on the land and blood of this people’ and insisted on the particularity of forces, both material and spiritual, to explain the existence, independence and fate of the Portuguese (Mendes Correia 1944b: 106‒8). Mendes Correia’s racial nationalism, to the extent that he stated the importance of heredity, led him to justify the existence of ethnic elements that might have been as or more important in the formation of Portugal. The nation would result from a ‘deep hereditary instinct, with remote and permanent particularities’ and from its ‘genotypical heritage’, integrating both hereditary and environmental factors. The dialectics between these factors arose gradually in a struggle between forces over time. For example, although in his anthropology classes he had praised the neo-Lamarckist doctrines and the influence of the environment as fundamental to human differences (1915b), already in Raça e Nacionalidade, published after the First World War in which Portugal took part, he considered that heredity was the strongest vital principle (1919b: 19). In the 1940s, and although he recognized the complexity of ‘phyletic and ethnogenic problems’, ‘classifications’, ‘affinities’ and ‘racial hierarchies’, he stated that it was necessary to assign less importance than previously assumed to the ‘morphogenetic

144  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

role of the environment and, on the contrary, to consider the action of hereditary and constitutional factors as more powerful and transcendent’ (Mendes Correia 1944d: 34). As such, while in other scientific traditions the emphasis was then placed on environmental factors, such as in Europe (by British social anthropologists) and the United States (by the Boasians), in Gérmen e Cultura (Mendes Correia 1944d), and in other examples of his contemporary works, the spotlight is focused on hereditary factors. Mendes Correia adapted his strategy to what he intended to state. Previously he had focused on factors that had influenced the entirety of humankind in general, and not specifically the Portuguese. As a result of that, he argued for a national identity that did not depend merely on environmental factors and, in that sense, he also stressed biological factors. For example, in Raízes de Portugal, in order to approach the genesis of a country’s independence, he argued that neither ‘race’ nor bioethnical factors were preponderant or exclusive in the history and life of peoples and nations, even if scientifically he could not consider them as non-existent or unreal (Mendes Correia 1944b: 128). In other words, in several works, the biological elements were often sought to reinforce the historical and sociocultural elements, the importance of which he recognized in principle, but for which he sought the support (in this case biological) from an area that was closer to natural sciences – and thus considered as more scientific – in order to legitimize his theses and obtain credibility. Mendes Correia also tried to distinguish the Portuguese from the Spaniards.105 Although there were common traits between them, he considered that there was a larger Portuguese average dolichocephaly as compared to the Spanish mesati-dolichocephaly, as noted by Fonseca Cardoso. Damião Peres (1938) did not consider this element to be significant, but for Mendes Correia, the cephalic index was still a ‘stable biological character’: The Portuguese extreme dolichocephaly proves the racial antiquity and relative racial purity. After so many invasions, migrations and minglings that history and even prehistory show us in the populations of the peninsular West, and in the certainty that these invaders and immigrants did not lack brachioids among their ranks, it is surprising that the cephalic index, which was low in several pre-historical types of Western Europe, did not increase in the Portuguese population … This mixture was not, by far, as intense as announced. (1944b: 94)

Furthermore, the Portuguese population, despite not presenting a ‘perfect anthropological homogeneity’, was one of the ‘most homogenous in Europe’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 94), i.e. Portugal was distinguishable not only compared to Spain, but to all of Europe. In previous studies (Mendes Correia 1932c, 1933b) he concluded that the Spaniards and the Portuguese

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  145

did not overlap regarding regional averages within similar boundaries. On the other hand, the district average heights in Portugal did not reach values as high or as low as the averages in the Spanish provinces, although among the Spaniards, the Valencians were the closest to the Portuguese (Mendes Correia 1933b). For Mendes Correia, there might have existed a remote kinship between the ancestors of the Lusitanians and the ancestors of the Iberians from the Valencian coast. Besides analysing the physical differences (build and cephalic index) between the Spaniards and the Portuguese, he sought psychic differences in language, literature, history, family life, temperament and character. The Portuguese language, for example, was distinct and independent, and was not a dialect of the Spanish language; according to Mendes Correia, this independent glossological evolution may have been a consequence, and not the cause, of political independence; on the other hand, he highlighted different greetings and gestures (1944b: 104, 86). His main conclusion is that the Portuguese population, on several levels, was more homogeneous that the Spanish population. Raciology Is Not Racism: Invent(ory)ing Humankind In his anthropology chair, Mendes Correia generically outlined a ‘classification of peoples and races’ (1915b). He assumed that not only there were different peoples or human groups, but also identifiable and classifiable races. Although he was not the creator of an inventory of humankind, this act raises several questions. The way in which the world is ordered and how its elements are classified may be influenced by social and political assumptions. On the other hand, both the logic of social classification and the act of classifying can be exercises of power, as naming, organizing, classifying, distinguishing, discriminating and hierarchizing are acts of control. The act of classification is related to an ordering of reality and can be seen as a necessity. However, it is also a form of power because it engages whoever has the power to classify and because the basis of a classification can be criteria that discriminate some individuals at the expense of others, where some are privileged, or that promote a hierarchization with no scientific grounds. According to Durkheim and Mauss (1903), to classify is not merely to gather in groups, but rather to arrange them according to special relationships that are coordinated or subordinated to each other. These authors formulate the hypothesis that ideas are grouped not only based on their affinities, but also based on their interaction. According to them, ‘a class is a group of things’; however, these things do not present themselves as grouped by observation. Are there differences between them? And are their similarities enough to group entities within certain limits and within genuses and species? What model was used to organize those ideas? Like science,

146  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

classification systems have a speculative goal: they seek to make intelligible the relationships that exist between beings and give reality a sense of coherence. When speaking of primitive classifications, Durkheim and Mauss consider that these have a social nature (1903: 83). Considering that other classifications also have a social nature, we can apply this reasoning to the present analysis. According to Durkheim and Mauss, ‘the first logical categories were social categories; the first classes of things were classes of Men’ and ‘because Men were grouped … they ideally grouped other beings’ (1903: 83). The bonds that connect the beings of a same group and the beings of different groups are conceived as social bonds and their relationships have a moral significance. According to Durkheim and Mauss, the reasons that underlie the domestic or social organization, among others, were at the base of the logical distribution of things. All have their place in society and that place determines their place in nature. A few years later, Durkheim defended the idea that a logical classification is a classification of concepts, not of emotions. Emotions are fleeting and inconsistent, as well as all emotional states. The concept, in turn, is not committed to time or contingency, does not have an internal and spontaneous evolution, and resists change. Durkheim also mentioned that thinking logically is thinking in an impersonal way, since impersonality and stability are two features of the truth. Durkheim justified his preference for concepts because these have ‘a greater stability than sensations’ and because ‘collective representations are more stable than individual representations’ (1912: 620). In the case of inventorying humanity by ‘races’, which Mendes Correia sought to do, ‘race’ is not a concept, since it is not abstract or operative over time and in different spaces, and is not a collective representation, since it is submitted to very subjective observation and classification criteria. In his texts, as we shall see, this term can acquire several hues within the same principle. For Mendes Correia, the classification of the peoples was based on data from political geography, linguistics and material, psychic and social life, while the classification of ‘races’ was based on the study of somatic characters. In his anthropology classes, and according to an evolutionist perspective, he made reference to Deniker’s classification, who structured peoples into three groups: 1) ‘uneducated peoples’ (with an ‘excessively slow progress’ with no writing, composed of small groups of hundreds or thousands of individuals, who may have a pictography and be hunters (Bushmen,106 Australians and Fuegians) or farmers (North American Indians, Melanesians and most of the black peoples)); 2) ‘semi-civilized peoples’ (with a considerable, but slow progress, with ideographic or phonetic writing and rudimentary literature; they form societies or authoritarian states with thousands or millions of individuals, and can be farmers (Siamese, Abyssinians, Chinese, Malayan

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  147

and Peruvian) and nomads (Mongols and Arabs)); 3) ‘civilized peoples’ (with a fast progress, with phonetic writing and developed literature, who form groups composed of millions of individuals, with a state that is characterized by cosmopolitan industrialism and mercantilism (most European and American peoples)) (Mendes Correia 1915b: 106‒7). An aspect stressed by Mendes Correia (1915b) is linguistics,107 since it allows the classification of peoples according to their idioms and grouping them into three groups: 1) ‘monosyllabic’ (words – invariable roots: Chinese and Tibetan); 2) ‘agglutinating’ (words formed of several combined elements, where one element is the root and the remaining are affixes: Bantos, Turks and Mongols); 3) ‘flexive’ (in which the root, by being able to connect to affixes, can modify its form and express relationships to other words: Indo-European and Semito-Hamitic). On the other hand, the religious aspect made it possible to distinguish monotheist, polytheist, pantheist and fetishist populations, among others; finally, the classification of peoples could be based on criteria connected to ethnic characters – geographical elements, kinship or linguistic affinities.108 Mendes Correia considered that studying the somatic characters of human groups would allow the establishment of physical types. Although peoples with ‘pure-raced’ individuals were rare, since almost all were the result of a great deal of miscegenation, it seemed clear that the study of the heredity of somatic types would produce a more precise and explicit outcome than using psychological and social types. Therefore, ‘the best conformity with the criterion of the naturalist or of the zoologist, used to dealing preferably with physical characteristics, has led anthropology to largely develop the methods for determining the taxonomic elements that are necessary to classify human races’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 108). The physical characters considered in that determination were: pigmentation; hair form; nasal, orbital, cephalic and facial indexes; cranial capacity; lip form; nose profile; prognathism; forehead inclination; prominence of the supraorbital arcades, malas and zygomas; eye format; and body proportions, among others. Mendes Correia’s texts indicated his expert knowledge regarding the human body, which he acquired during his medical education. In his anthropology discipline, pigmentation was the first criterion to be mentioned, since according to the presumed existence of ‘races’, these would be associated with different skin colours that were distinguished through at least ‘ten typical nuances’: ‘pale-white, rosy-white and tawny; pale-yellow, dark-yellow and dead leaf; cinnamon-dark, chocolate, dark-tawny and black’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 108‒9). To achieve this classification, Mendes Correia suggested the use of Broca’s chromatic tables, which were also useful for hair colour (blond, intermediate,109 dark and black) and eye

148  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

colour (clear colour (blue and grey eyes), intermediate (green, yellow and greyish yellow) and dark (light brown or dark brown)). Another character was the pilous system, with a balance between its abundance on the head and body. As to its form, hairs could be straight, wavy, ringlike or woolly, according to its degree of curl. Despite the importance given to the above-mentioned characteristics, craniology – considered as one of the fundamental branches of anthropology – was the one that mostly stands out in this period, both in determining the alleged human ‘races’ and in the study of the human being’s ancestors.110 According to Mendes Correia, Broca’s and Virchow’s orientation planes were the most frequently used to obtain the best perspectives or ‘norms’ (anterior, lateralis and inferior). It was necessary to also consider the reference points on the skull, the fontanelles, the sutures of the cranial vault and the projection of the zygomatic arcades (Mendes Correia 1915b: 112). Some of the topics dealt with in his anthropology classes were, in fact, those still taught in biological anthropology, e.g. the determination of the age of skulls (by analysing the denture, the sutures and the bone tissue), of the individual’s sex and the observation of cranial deformations, as these could be pathological,111 artificial or posthumous. The international agreement for the uniformization of craniometric and cephalometric methods occurred at the 13th Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques in Monaco in 1907. This stated that the skull should be analysed based on its diameters and curves, and several measurements should be taken of the face. With these measurements, indices could be determined. The values obtained allowed for the identification and classification of skulls. Mendes Correia quoted Camper’s facial angle, only for its historical interest, and concluded that facial angles have a reduced anthropological value. He considered the auricular and occipital angles (of interest from a compared perspective) and the symphisian angle (that indicated the inclination of the mentum). According to him, the latter was ‘smaller in adults and superior races and larger in children, inferior races and animals’ (1915b: 115). On the other hand, he added that human beings can be divided according to their cranial capacity. Thus, Europeans presented an average of 1:500‒600 cm3; those he designates as ‘Blacks’ had 1:400‒500 cm3; and the Australians, Bushmen and Andamanese112 1:200‒350 cm3. These seem to be the values generated by the indices that led Mendes Correia to mention, for the first time in his anthropology classes, the existence of superior and inferior races. Before that, he spoke mainly of distinct civilizational stadiums and more or less complex developments. However, after presenting numerical data, he made reference to the superiority and inferiority between ‘races’, and his conclusions seem to have been based on a set of cranial measurements and not on

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  149

the observation of living individuals, of the complexity and difficulty of their life in society or their material and cultural remains. In other words, the abilities an individual might or might not have, and in which circumstances, were assumed based on his or her bone remains and, more specifically, his or her skull. Mendes Correia might not have based his conclusions merely on measurements, but might have assumed from the beginning a hierarchical difference among human groups, a hypothesis that seems more valid. But more than just the skull should be analysed. Osteology in general, besides allowing for the reconstitution of the individuals’ stature based on the dimensions of long bones, also allowed for the determination of indices,113 taking the whole skeleton into account, as well as the existence of a perforation in the olecranon fossa and the value of the humeral torsion angle; the existence of the third trochanter114 and of the intertrochanteric fossa115 in the femur; and, in the tibia, the bone head retroversion (frequent in individuals that walked with the lower limbs bent). It was also possible to perform observations in vivo. By means of cephalometry, for example, one could measure the head in vivo, in parallel to the craniometry measurements, but also the overall facial length, upper lip height and ear width. However, despite the ability to determine the cephalic, nasal, overall facial and facial indices based on cephalic measurements, these should not be mistaken for the measurements obtained on the skulls. As to the head, one could study descriptive characters such as the: pigmentation; pilous system; dimensions and inclination of the forehead; form and prominence of the supraciliary arcades, of the cheekbones and of the mentum; nose profile;116 direction and form of the orbits; form and specificities of the ear; development and prominence of the lips; general form of the skull and of the face. On the torso and the limbs, one could study, in vivo, several proportions of body parts.117 One of the other main characters was the stature, which varied according to age, sex, state of health, occupation, environment and also, according to Mendes Correia, ‘race’. These elements also supplied components for the classification of ‘races’: the weight of the brain, its structure and the superficial dimensions of the cortex; the muscular system; and the morphology of the several organs, their physiology and pathology. The elements referred to establish distinctions between alleged ‘races’ were also used in finding differences among the Portuguese. Mendes Correia stated that pigmentation had not yet been studied across the entire country. Despite that, it was possible to conclude that in the Beiras and Minho regions in general, ‘dark-haired people exist in larger proportion than in Italy, where the excess of the dark-haired type is 49.8%, and also larger than in the southern departments of France, where the excess is 38.5%’; nevertheless, in certain coastal regions, such as Póvoa de Varzim and the regions

150  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

between the Ave and Vouga Rivers, blond individuals were more common than dark-haired ones. Broca’s scale is used to state that the Portuguese’s skin colour varied between ‘rosy white and tawny, numbers 23, 24, 25 and 26’; the calculation of the orbital index led Mendes Correia to conclude that, despite the existence of variable outcomes, the Portuguese individual had affinities with the Muge and the Cro-Magnon types; the determination of the cephalic index made it possible to conclude that the Portuguese people were ‘the most dolichocephalic in Europe’ (1915b: 127‒28). Besides pointing out that there are several differences between the average cranial capacity of men and women, he claimed that Beira Alta was the province where the greatest average cranial capacity was found, whereas in Trásos-Montes inferior averages were observed. If we believe this presumed evidence, and with reference to formulations that at that time related the cranial capacity to cerebral mass or intelligence, these statements could result in many discriminations.118 Finally, Mendes Correia affirmed that the Portuguese’s stature was, on average, ‘inferior to the average of human races’ (1915b: 129), seeming here to suggest that the Portuguese would constitute, per se, a ‘race’. For Mendes Correia, those from Alentejo and Beira Alta were taller than the general average, perhaps due to the contribution of the Semitic influence in Alentejo and the influence of the ‘tall and inharmonic cro-magnonoid type’ in Beira Alta (1915c). Despite exposing these data, Mendes Correia concluded that many of them refer to restricted areas of the country and/or an insufficient number of observations. For that reason, he pointed out that new research should be performed and that the research already available should be reviewed. The fact that he saw anthropology as something close to a national project that could bring solutions for the future should also be noted (1915b: 130). This nationalist project integrated several studies. One of the most important of these was the physical study of human groups, designated as ‘races’, not only of those who were presumably related to the origin of the Portuguese, designated in this context as primitive because they were their historical ancestors, but also of those who, contemporarily to the Portuguese, inhabited the spaces administered by Portugal in other continents and who some authors designated as primitive for considering that they were anterior, not from a temporal (Fabian 1983), but from a civilizational point of view (Jahoda 1999).119 Other projects would later be associated with this project ‒ for instance, the one we can describe as a project for the betterment of the race in which Mendes Correia and other contemporaneous scientists were involved. In the Portugal Médico journal,120 Mendes Correia published a study on a series of sacrums he obtained for the Anthropology Cabinet of the FCUP (1917a). The sacrum was the segment of the backbone to which

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  151

anthropologists had directed most of their attention, since it made it possible to analyse sexual differences, physiological connections and ‘ethnic differences’ (the analysis of the sacral index – width/height – was presented as an element for the classification of ‘races’). In this study, Mendes Correia considered the results from different authors for several ‘ethnic groups’ and concluded that ‘there is not enough uniformity to consider the sacred index as an important element in anthropological taxonomy’, since ‘some of those groups were presented, according to some, as dolichohieric’121 and, ‘according to others, as platyhieric,122 and vice-versa’ (1917a: 5). Besides using the expression ‘ethnic groups’ and not ‘racial groups’, he presumed that some of the studied series were overly reduced and that perhaps for that reason the conclusions were so dissimilar. However, he considered that it became possible to establish a classification of ‘races’ by using the sacral index: Europeans, for example, were considered as platyhieric and Bushmen were, unanimously, considered as dolichohieric or subplatihieric.123 Despite the relative contribution that this index might have brought to the study of human differentiation, Mendes Correia considered that the sacral index was ‘not close to possessing the distinctive relevance of the cephalic index’ (1917a: 5), i.e. the measurements obtained from the head were still the most valued. On several occasions, such as in Raízes de Portugal, Mendes Correia expressed the maxim raciology is not racism and defended the need to: Prevent the confusion of raciology – a scientific branch, part of Anthropology – with racism – well-known political and social doctrine that, after its proclamation in chapter IX of Book I by Esdras, of the Old Testament,124 for Israel’s benefit, was adopted in modern times, by a cruel irony of fate, against the same Jews, by the so-called German ‘Aryanism’. (1944b: 128‒29)

When, in 1943 during the Second World War, Mendes Correia wrote the chapter ‘The Race’, he mentioned that he almost did not raise this topic, seeking to avoid to be called a racist, since the term was being understood by some as a synonym for ‘materialist, atheist, anti-Christian, enemy of mankind’, but he did so because he did not see himself as an ‘advocate, from a political point of view, of the exclusive hegemony of a race … and, from a scientific point of view, of the exclusive interpretation of history and social life based on the factor “race”’ and mentions that he was attached to ‘Men from all races’ by a ‘solidarity and empathy that are the duties of every Christian’;125 however, from a scientific point of view, he thought it imperative to recognize ‘race’ as a reality and one of the factors intervening in the course of history and in the life of peoples (Mendes Correia 1944b: 61). Besides stating the existence of races, he suggested that they

152  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

bear a hierarchical inequality: ‘to deny … that there is a certain hierarchy of nations and peoples, related to racial differences, is to deny an evidence’; however, he cautioned that ‘claiming that these differences entirely erase the multiple bonds and affinities that unite human beings is to claim the absurd’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 61‒62). He recognized the challenge in defining the term ‘race’, since it did not merely mean a zoological entity or an individualized ethnic group. Although it occurred to him that the use of the term ‘ethnicity’ (promoted by Regnault in a noological sense, setting aside the somatic features, and by George Montandon to refer to the ‘French ethnicity’ from a ‘somatic-psychic’ point of view), he considered that the former did not express his reasoning well and raised difficulties. He thought this because ‒ and he expressed this very clearly‒ he was not going to deal with the study of the linguistic or ethnographic characteristics of the Portuguese people, but rather of the ‘role of psychosomatic heredity in the genesis of its ethnic, political and historical physiognomy’ (1944b: 63‒64). The biological element was considered to be an ancestor of the cultural element. Therefore, he stated: Language, politics and history are like symptoms in clinical practice. The same way the latter reveal disease, without being the morbid entity itself, and much less the true causes or origins of the illness, the former also can translate … deep, hereditary, remote energies that can be included in the expression ‘race’, without being themselves identified with race. (Mendes Correia 1944b: 64)

Here, like elsewhere, it was common for Mendes Correia to use medical terms such as symptoms, clinical and disease, while the terms most linked to the sociological language, such as actor or stage, seem to have been excluded from his vocabulary; although he used ‘social fact’, he did not always draw conclusions from social facts. For him, it was necessary not to confuse ‘bioanthropology, linguistics and history’; ‘race’, despite being imprecise, had an ‘impressive fixedness’ considering that the groups’ biopsychic diversities did not depend on ‘simple individual fluctuations … but rather on a true zoological subdivision of human species’ (1944b: 66‒67). Mendes Correia criticized Walter Seiffert, who in 1935 asserted that hair colour and the cephalic index were not the basis to recognize ‘race’, but rather its history; additionally, he criticized René Martial, for whom ‘race’ was confounded with the linguistic group. However, he considered that ‘race’ was not merely ‘an association of somatic characters … nor genes or germinal factors’ referring ‘only to physical characters’, since they also formed the basis for ‘moral qualities, affective, intellectual and volitive tendencies’ (1944b: 66‒68). Yet, he admitted that between individuals from different ‘races’, it was possible to find neither similarities or differences, that it was possible to speak of a ‘Portuguese ethnicity’, but not of a

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  153

‘Portuguese race, a uniform race, exclusive to the Portuguese people’, and that anthropological analysis would never reach the precision of chemical analysis. He therefore considered it unfair that anyone dealing ‘scientifically with problems related to races or genetics issues’ should be called a ‘racist’ (1944b: 68‒69, 132). However, his thoughts regarding the need to invent(ory) humankind would last for a long time. In an article written in the late 1950s and published after his death, he mentioned the work by Franz Boas and considered that racial hierarchies do not make sense, but still defended raciology as a science (1962: 153, 222). This formulation should be understood in the light of the historical context in which it was produced, in which it was urgent to introduce a change of paradigm. The Challenges of Anthropobiology Despite all these uncertainties, Mendes Correia stated the existence of several human races and the inequality between them. However, the hierarchy supported by measurements and classifications led him to raise several questions. One of the almost insurmountable difficulties was related to classifications, since ‘natural’ classifications in biology were based on two criteria: character association and hierarchy. He recognized that there were several classifications and the one proposed by Blumenbach126 could no longer be adopted; further, according to contemporary authors, there were three to twelve (or more) European ‘races’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 11‒12). Beyond classifications, the result of the efforts to establish a hierarchy and characters – skin colour, the cephalic index, heredity, morphological characters or blood groups – was precarious. According to Mendes Correia, it was common to give more relevance to skin colour, since it was ‘one of the most visible characteristics’, although most anthropologists preferred the cephalic index; however, he observed that ‘many Europeans, Blacks and Australians are dolichocephalic, as other Europeans, rarely Blacks, many American Indians, the Mongols are brachycephalic’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 12). In other words, the cephalic index seemed to bring together very different groups and divide others that, in principle, would otherwise be very close. Another fundamental study was the one on heredity, although this one raised several questions to him. For example, the studies by Davenport, Hurst, Danielson, Fischer, Frets and Hilden, among others, showed some difficulties.127 Correia also approached the way in which morphology and physiology were related, since form could be translated into a functional phenomenon. Anthropology, which until then had been mainly an anthropomorphology,128 had been guided towards a ‘more rational and practical direction’ – anthropobiology (in the expression created by the German

154  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Eugen Fischer) (Mendes Correia 1933a: 17). For Mendes Correia, the study of ‘race’, seen by him as a ‘morphobiological entity and not purely as morphologic’ and ‘static’, also contributed to this shift towards anthropobiology, which he considered to be more scientific than anthroposociology and anthropomorphology. This change occurred in the sense of a greater study of the internal elements and not merely external, or more visible, elements, which he defined as follows: Anthropology deals with the research on normal and pathological heredity in the human being, eugenic studies, the physiology of races, blood groups and other matters of human biochemistry, builds and temperaments, determination of the biological base of the mentality and activity of different races, etc. (Mendes Correia 1993a: 18)

Blood groups were another significant element. According to some authors, it was possible to associate the blood group and the build and/or the blood group and ‘race’. Mendes Correia quoted, among others, Emil von Dungern, Ludwick Hirszfeld, Felix Bernstein (statistics professor at the University of Göttingen) and Tanemoto Furuhata (forensics professor at the University of Kanazawa). In 1926 a doctoral dissertation by Adélia Seirós da Cunha was produced on Portuguese blood groups at the IAUP, and in 1928, a study was published on the blood groups of the Portuguese by Waldemar Teixeira at the Lisbon Câmara Pestana Bacteriological Institute. Mendes Correia wrote articles on blood (1926d, 1927a), in which he refuted the findings of Bernstein, despite being impressed with his results, as he revealed in a communication to the ACL in 1930 (Mendes Correia 1933a: 27). According to him, from the ‘Portuguese sero-anthropological studies’,129 we should retain two facts: 1) ‘The Portuguese have no hematic affinities to African Blacks’, who, unlike the former, had low biochemical indices and high group B proportions; 2) ‘The Portuguese people presents the lower average cephalic index in Europe’, which, according to him, ‘proves their antiquity and relative ethnic purity’; further, ‘the differences in province or district averages for several characters are not as high as in other countries, which proves a greater homogeneity’ (1933a: 36‒40). Mendes Correia’s conclusions, based on his studies and those by other authors, led him to regret that, despite the results, ‘in some educated countries, there are still plenty of people claiming that the Portuguese people is a people made of blacks or mixed-raced individuals, or that, at least, it presents a strong influence of African black races’ (1933a: 36). For example, Hans Günther from Germany wrote that Portugal ‘presents, as a consequence of an ancient importation of African slaves, a particularly significant influence’ and criticized the French policy that promoted an ‘increase of the black danger’ by giving ‘civil rights’ and ‘officer ranks to

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  155

black people’ (quoted in Mendes Correia 1933a: 36‒38). For Günther, the Nordic element existed in a small proportion and only in coastal cities, and a ‘strong influence of black blood’ seemed to ethnically separate the Portuguese from the Spaniards. Moreover, he wondered if this blood has its origin in the Palaeolithic age, in the Arabic invasion or in the slave era. For Günther, the black influence in Portugal was so strong that ‘the natives from Western Africa consider the Portuguese as almost their equals and respect them much less than they respect other Europeans’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 38). Mendes Correia believed that Günther did not know that the Portuguese had been the first Europeans to establish relationships with African peoples; moreover, Günther’s ‘allegedly scientific’ book was a ‘manifesto of Pan-German propaganda’, which included ‘biased deformations of the scientific truth’. For Mendes Correia, ‘the study of the indices and of the prognathism angles, the colour, the nasal index, body proportions and other anthropomorphological characters’ was enough to contest Günther’s formulations and the results of anthroposerology made it possible to ‘individualize the Portuguese from a biochemical point of view’ (1933a: 39‒40). These formulations by Mendes Correia must be seen mainly as a reaction to the attacks by Pan-German authors, since the issues around racial purity and the possible harmful effects of miscegenation were later discussed by him when he dealt with Portugal in its relationships with the colonies, as will be developed below. Miscegenation Does Not Dilute: Issues Raised by Miscegenation In an article in the Ocidente journal – where the texts were published and, afterwards, grouped together in Raízes de Portugal – Mendes Correia explained that science ‘does not systematically condemn miscegenation’; however, by recognizing that ‘mixed-race people are not identical, from a physical and psychic point of view, to the races they descend from’, he advised, ‘despite devoting them the best fraternity and empathy feelings’, that they should not be given, ‘in the case of an ancient nation such as Portugal, the supreme command of the national helm, if one wants to preserve the historical continuity of this country’; he also reminds us that the ‘republican constitutions determine that no naturalized foreigners can be heads of State’ (Mendes Correia 1944b: 129, emphasis in original). He defended his position by saying he did not consider mixed-race people to be ‘bad’, by virtue of biological miscegenation, and stated that ‘modern genetics accepts a true germinal lottery’; besides, ‘the flaws of many’ could be attributed to unfavourable educational and social conditions, derived from the ‘instability of the connections they resulted from’ and from the ‘animosity in the environment they live in’ (1944b: 130). However, ‘the genotypical legacy of

156  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

a population’ could be changed with an ‘intensive miscegenation’ and could modify ‘the traditional features of the country’; in the case of countries that did not strive to maintain ‘their historical physiognomy’, he was not opposed to miscegenation, but this was not generally the case in Portugal and therefore he saw change as a negative influence. He further thought it unfair that he had been called an ‘enemy of the mixed-race people’, since, in his opinion, he simply did not like the ‘bad ones’ – those that presented personal fetishes, such as those who ‘oxygenate or shave their stubborn frizzy hair’, ashamed of their ascent and those that, ‘without scruples’, said that he, by denying the scientific foundation for racism (which ‘proclaims the superiority of an alleged race and the dominance or exclusivity of the racial factor in the life of the peoples and of the nations’), was dissimulating his true intention (Mendes Correia 1944b: 130‒31). Mendes Correia then sought to find grounds in genetics, which he considered a serious domain of study. He named articles published in journals, such as Nature, in 1940, which declared the issue of ‘races’ as a scientific matter and published the conclusions of a report on mixed marriages in South Africa, written by a committee, which stated that the undesirability of miscegenation had a social, economic and political character, and not a biological one130 (1944b: 133). He also quoted the Immorality Act (1927), which stipulated that relationships between Europeans (white people) and South-African natives (black people) were illicit, and he stated that, according to that report in Nature, these marriages were not approved by the public in general and by the churches, but that they were not forbidden. The report proposed measures for improving social conditions in order to fight the tendency for such unions, as well as laws that rendered these marriages impossible and measures against the miscegenation created by illicit unions (Mendes Correia 1944b: 134). In this case, the issue of miscegenation was not biological, but rather political and social. In the 1950s, Mendes Correia perfected his views, which were also motivated by the changes in the international context and by the criticism to the Portuguese presence in the colonies; he then considered miscegenation as a powerful agent in relation to Portuguese expansion and a testimony of the ‘absence of racial prejudice from the Portuguese’, in a context where settlers from other countries rejected ‘intimate and cordial contact with the indigenous’ (1954a: 258‒59). According to him, miscegenation could even be seen as a cultural factor, since culture was also influenced by germinal factors. These thoughts led him to consider the existence of a ‘biochemistry of the Portuguese-Christian culture’, raising the possibility that this could be related to a certain build or bioethnic structure. He concluded that the affectivity of the Portuguese culture allowed it to have a great ‘assimilating ability’ and an ‘extraordinary diffusion around the world’. But his

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  157

statements did not reach beyond the idea that it is possible that it exists, but was not yet discovered, since he presented the following formulation: ‘it is highly likely that the psychological and social attitudes characteristic of a culture have a biological basis or conditioning … but simply, this basis … this organic quid, was not yet discovered’ (Mendes Correia 1954a: 259‒63). He therefore sought to demonstrate that miscegenation does not dilute, based on studies he had performed on the blood groups of the Portuguese and in analyses that defended the existence of a certain homogeneity in the national population over time. However, as regards the colonial context, he did not initially formulate this opinion and highlighted the potential dangers of miscegenation, which should be limited to special circumstances, namely those related to the effective Portuguese presence in those locations. In a later phase, during which anticolonial pressures were widespread, he praised the special abilities of the Portuguese in relation to miscegenation, which was inclusively a colonization agent. Culture Is a Psychological Attitude: Definition and Contexts The term ‘culture’ refers to probably the most central notion of contemporaneous anthropology. In Germany, the term was used in historical works, from the second half of the eighteenth century, and started to be used in its plural form in the sense of a humankind that is divided into several cultures. In the plural and relativizing anthropological sense, the world is divided into cultures and all have their worth. Any individual is therefore the product of the culture in which he or she lives and less so of biological elements inherited from previous generations. In 1944, in Jornal do Médico, Mendes Correia sought to define culture and cultures (1944g); for him, the word ‘culture’ had only very recently adopted the sense assigned to ‘Kultur’ in Germany, and not only in the sense of culturing the land or of intellectual development and application of knowledge, but rather as a synonym of civilization (a heritage of knowledge and the use of natural resources). He considered that it would be the association of the word ‘Kultur’ (that the Germans were proud of, but that had associated their excessive ambition) with the word ‘culture’, which he had used in ethnological and archaeological works, subjected to the ‘review of learned French’, about ten years earlier, that must have contributed to the reluctance with which these reviewers accepted the way he used the term ‘culture’ (1944g: 1). He used the term ‘culture’ in the sense of a set of knowledges and processes of using natural resources. However, the reviewers replaced ‘culture’ by ‘civilization’. For him, this was not correct, since although ‘civilization’ was a state of ‘culture’, etymologically it implied an ‘advance over the societies that live in a wild state’; therefore, one could

158  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

not refer to the ‘civilization of a bunch of savages’, since this would be equal to ‘calling a city a small inland village’ (1944g: 2). It thus seems that, in his opinion, those he designated as ‘savages’ would have a ‘culture’, but not a civilization. With the purpose of defining culture in ethnography and sociology, Mendes Correia (1994g: 4) adopted Ratzel’s131 and Hoernes’ formulation: ‘a set of additions that Man made to nature to bring the latter to his service’; ‘a set of material and spiritual availabilities of a people on a given moment’, considering that ‘cultural expressions encompass the most varied domains of human life, whether … material, or … psychic’. He recalled that, for the evolutionist school, culture ‘followed, in all peoples, an ascending curve, with an equal succession of the same phases, even if however, these phases were not necessarily synchronic in all populations’ and ‘the analogy of cultural facts in peoples distant in time or space was therefore explained by coincidence, by a parallelism of the evolutionary curves’; conversely, for the historical-cultural school, ‘cultures are organic complexes, “all” distinct, more or less mutually independent, each with its own, more or less individualized history’ and ‘if two peoples, distanced in time or space, reveal a same cultural fact, this happens because there must have been a genealogical link or a direct or indirect contact between them’ (1944g: 4). This way, there would be no uniform cultural evolution, but rather several types of culture, in the sense that the French ethnologist George Montandon ascribed to the cycles of civilization. Despite the merits of these systematizations, Mendes Correia considered that ‘nor should one exaggerate the stability and independence of cultures, nor can these be overlapped, as many have imagined, with “races”’ (1944g: 5‒6); here he is probably referring, for example, to Franz Boas’ suggestion that ‘race’ should be replaced by culture, a formulation that he strongly criticized. He admitted the existence of a bioethnic factor in the genesis and characterization of cultures, but he thought that racial differentiation was translated in psychological diversities and distinct visions of the world, as well as attitudes and special historical behaviours (1944g: 6). Although he did not state it clearly, he seems to say that, in the same way that ‘races’ should not be replaced by cultures, their study should not also be inspired by the biological domain. He actually criticized the organicist view of society because, for him, sociology was not mere biology; even if society is made up of organisms, it is not a simple organism, but rather a set of superorganisms. Although he was not limited to a strictly organicist conception, he admitted the hypothesis of ‘cultural mutations’, comparable to biological mutations, as he stated in Gérmen e Cultura (Mendes Correia 1944d). According to him, culture was more ‘a psychological attitude than an objective and concrete set of facts’ (1944g: 7). This explained why certain

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  159

cultural facts were easily spread and some peoples could become attached to facts restricted to limited areas. It was a ‘fundamental unity’, resulting from a shared human heritage (referring to the formulation that Adolf Bastian (1826‒1905) called the psychic unity of humankind), that admitted the existence of an eternal diversity, translated in the several conceptions of the world and in different predispositions among peoples (1944g: 8). Below I shall present some examples of his attempts to explain cultural aspects. When he wrote on the ‘Mother-in-Law’s Taboo in the Bantu of Portuguese Africa’, Mendes Correia (1945c) was based on studies on Angola performed by Ferreira Diniz (Populações indígenas de Angola, 1918) and Luís Figueira (África Bantu – Raças e tribos, 1938), and on Mozambique by Henri A. Junod (The Life of a South Tribe, 1927, 2nd ed.) and J. Gonçalves Cota (Mitologia e direito consuetudinário em Moçambique, 1944). In other words, to analyse the avoidance of the mother-in-law or father-in-law, he did not perform fieldwork and tried to explain this avoidance based on the explanations of other authors ‒ such as James Frazer, Alfred William Howitt, William Rivers, Salomon Reinach, Ernest Crawley, Marcel Mauss (Le tabou de la belle-mère chez les Baronga, 1914) and Sigmund Freud (Totem et tabou, 1925), among others ‒ that this approach could be seen as an incestuous relationship. However, his text eventually reflected the ethnocentric character of his analysis by ironizing the rituals of purification and the expiatory ceremonies that seek to lessen the prohibitive character of the encounter of daughter/son-in-law with the father/mother-in-law. In 1945 he still used expressions such as ‘savages’ to refer to Africans, suggesting that these often mixed what was real with what was apparent. In conclusion, he seemed to agree with Luís Figueira, who said that it were mainly the sacred principles and shame that generated this avoidance and not the lack of respect or animosity, which were frequent among the ones he calls ‘civilized’. However, in the end, Mendes Correia proposed that, like Junod with the Tongas, the Portuguese settlers should seek to know ‘among the indigenous populations that adopted the mother-in-law taboo, the traditional explanation those populations present for such a curious precept of family life’, since this probably had ‘remote and powerful, magical-religious roots’ (1945c: 12). In 1950, Mendes Correia took part in the colloquium of Brazilian Studies, at the US National Library in Washington DC. This trip allowed him to recognize that cultural anthropology was greatly developed in North American university centres and that this would be of importance for the study of native populations in overseas territories and for the guidance to be adopted in their ‘educational, political and legal regime’ (Mendes Correia 1951h: 6‒7). During that time, he visited the natural history, ethnology and archaeology collections at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural

160  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York, with António José de Liz Ferreira (his disciple, who was at that time finishing his doctorate at Columbia University). In the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University, Mendes Correia met Margaret Mead, whom he considered one of the greatest personalities in American cultural anthropology. Mendes Correia stressed the fact that a colloquium taking place at the most prestigious cultural institution in the United States had the presence of researchers from several countries that dealt with PortugueseBrazilian culture, and in Portuguese, which demonstrated the global projection of the Portuguese language and culture and of the history of Portugal. Although he did not agree with all the proposed solutions for social problems, he empathized with the remuneration system, the ‘absence of classes in trains and the carefreeness regarding certain unnecessary, anachronic norms and hierarchies’ (Mendes Correia 1951h: 11). At the colloquium, in the Cultural Anthropology section, he presented a text on the ‘Portuguese Culture in Africa and in the East’, in which he dealt with the ‘psychology of the Portuguese or Portuguese-Christian culture’ (1951e).132 He praised the definition of Portuguese culture presented by Jorge Dias during that colloquium – insisting on the primacy, or almost exclusivism, of the psychological aspects of that definition – although he considered that ‘a culture is above all a translation of a psychology’, without excluding the existence of strongly expressive material indices of that psychology (1954a: 227). However, for him, it was not always easy, or possible, to find links between the mentality that created those elements and its physiognomy. Rather, ‘affectivity regulated, in degree and sense, the majority of intellectual, volitive and social activities of the Portuguese’. Mendes Correia mentioned the concept of affectivity ‘from the love-related aspect, that led the Portuguese settlers to a fusion with native races, to a spiritual concern … that inspired its action in the world (even without the strict rigidity of ecclesiastic canons)’ and even called it a ‘Portuguese-Christian culture’. He recognized that religious intolerance had led to persecutions and violence in the metropolis and overseas, but stated that such facts have parallels, and even graver ones, in other ‘civilized nations’. He added that, despite the proselytistic intention in favour of the Christian faith, this eventually became an important cultural element. Thus, the ‘Portuguese culture’, which he believed to be the same as ‘Portuguese-Christian culture’, was the ‘set of cultural elements, mainly psychological attitudes, that the Portuguese widespread in the entire world or that in many aspects received the influences or the penetrations originated by the physical environment or the contact with other peoples and cultures’. This ‘culture’, despite its ‘predominant psychological trait’, also possessed ‘material or ergologic aspects’ and ‘biological or bio-ethnic correlations’ (1954a: 228‒32).

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  161

Mendes Correia’s reasoning demonstrated the influence of Darwinist thought, for example, when he stated that all humankind was evolving in one direction in a more or less universal way. For him, in a time when skyscrapers and mass construction were already appearing in the big cities, the architecture of the Portuguese overseas towns would have to adapt to the new context and climate and seek to renovate the indigenous housing; it was ‘an index of cultural evolution towards a world civilization’ (1954a: 238). However, he established distinctions between overseas territories when he stated that the Portuguese had found in the ‘East’ ‘relatively advanced and ostentatious cultures that could barely be compared to the greatest potentates in Black Africa, which were backward and rude’ (1954a: 234). He also highlighted the teachings that the Portuguese took to the colonies. However, his ethnocentric perspective stood out when he criticized the Bijagós chieftains he saw in Bissau (recalling his trip to Guinea from 1945 to 1946), wearing top hats but barefooted, or the Africans who wandered around half-naked, but showed off the helmet worn by European settlers (made of local wood and heavy materials), or even their predilection for flashy, useless objects (1954a: 241‒42). It thus seems that he considered culture as something immaterial. It was probably in this sense that he stated that culture resided ‘more in the souls … than in the material aspects of Ethnography’ and could not be superimposed upon ‘race’; therefore, he did not agree with the authors who did not recognize a relationship between biological facts and cultural aspects and processes; both were important and were related, but were different, and thus they should not overlap. He therefore insisted that the edification of the Portuguese culture had relied on environmental factors and historical conditions, but also on a biological predisposition or conditioning (1954a: 255).

The Variety of Topics in Mendes Correia’s Work The diversity of topics that Mendes Correia included in the anthropology chair at the FCUP is noteworthy (1915b), and this is reflected in the works he performed afterwards. His publications in journals were also diverse at both a national133 and an international134 level. Although archaeology and biological anthropology were predominant, this diversity also stretched to subjects that nowadays we would connect mainly to a specific discipline. His works dealt with subjects relating to archaeology, some of them mentioned above, and to the past material culture (Mendes Correia 1925c, 1925d, 1925e, 1927c, 1928e, 1928g, 1928h, 1928i, 1929b, 1929c, 1930a, 1931d, 1933c, 1933d, 1953a). The archaeological articles pertain to Portugal (Mendes Correia 1916f, 1916g), the then colonies such as Mozambique

162  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

(Mendes Correia 1934g, 1936b) and Timor (Correia, Almeida and França 1954), or the former Brazilian colony (Mendes Correia 1932d). Brazil was a suitable field for several studies, both about the past and about his contemporary period (Mendes Correia 1935c, 1935e). He also wrote on palaeontology and human evolution (Mendes Correia 1919f, 1919g, 1922b, 1924c, 1925b, 1925f, 1926a, 1926b, 1926f, 1927d, 1933e, 1933f,135 1935a, 1936a, 1949c) and the anthropology of the human skeleton (Mendes Correia 1916‒1917, 1917b, 1917‒18, 1918a, 1918b, 1919a, 1919c, 1920, 1921b, 1922b, 1923b, 1925g, 1925h, 1926b, 1928j, 1932e, 1956a). Other subjects approached by him were genetics, serology, blood groups (Mendes Correia 1922c, 1926d, 1931b, 1931c, 1941b) and body builds (Mendes Correia 1941b). Mendes Correia also developed works on the relationships between the physical and behavioural domains of human beings (1932i), which denote some conformity with other works produced at that time in Europe and in America (Stocking Jr. 1988). He wrote on demography in Portugal – male birth rate (Mendes Correia 1946a) – in Africa (Mendes Correia 1948, 1951c, 1953b) and in Brazil (Mendes Correia 1940d). He dealt with general areas connected to history or the origins of Lisbon (Mendes Correia 1934d) and of Porto (Mendes Correia 1935b). Additionally, he touched on specific figures that stood tall in the history of Portugal or in the science that was produced in the country such as: Alexandre Herculano (Mendes Correia 1910a);136 D. Nuno Álvares Pereira (Mendes Correia 1916a);137 the Queen of Portugal, D. Catarina de Áustria (Mendes Correia 1925k); Father Eugénio Jalhay (Mendes Correia 1951a); and Júlio de Matos (Mendes Correia 1954e). He wrote about figures who were famous internationally, such as Leonardo da Vinci (Mendes Correia 1952c). He also wrote about cultural anthropology in general (1944g) and the then colonies, such as Timor (Mendes Correia 1944a), and specifically the African colonies (Mendes Correia 1945c, 1946c, 1950, 1951d, 1952b, 1958a), as well as the ‘Portuguese culture in Africa and in the East’ (Mendes Correia 1951e) and the Portuguese-Brazilian culture (1956c). As in other countries, anthropology was initially associated with the physical and biological study of the human being. Even the essay by Jorge Dias entitled ‘Cultural Anthropology’ (1984) is partially devoted to physical anthropology. However, the descriptions by Jorge Dias are far from what had already been done, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, in biological anthropology from the 1950s onwards. Adding to the variety of topics, the diversity of locations, besides Portugal, on which Mendes Correia wrote should also be highlighted: the then Portuguese colonies (Angola,138 the Cabinda enclave,139 Mozambique,140 Timor,141 Cape Verde,142 Guinea143 and India)144 and the former colony (Brazil),145 but also other regions such as Zimbabwe,146 Congo147 and Europe.148

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  163

The Diversity of Topics in the Conferences in Brazil (1934) The range of Mendes Correia’s intellectual interests was expressed on such occasions as his visit to Brazil from May to July 1934149 at the invitation by the Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro, where he presented lectures on topics connected to anthropology150 (‘criminal anthropology’, ‘Portuguese anthropology’, ‘pre-historic races’ and ‘Europeans and Africans in the Brazilian ethnogeny’, among others). The newspaper A Pátria (15 July 1934, Rio de Janeiro), for example, presented a summary of the first phase of the papers he presented at the Portuguese-Brazilian Institute for High Culture.151 In Rio de Janeiro, he visited schools, institutes and guilds, such as the Historical and Geographical Institute of Brazil,152 among other locations.153 He was also invited by the faculties of the city of Niterói and visited the medical and law faculties, where a solemn ceremony on his behalf took place and where Oliveira Viana made a speech. On 12 June, at the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading, Mendes Correia spoke on the ‘Races of the Portuguese Colonies’, on 13 June on ‘Man in the Animal World’ and on 15 June on ‘The Fossil Man’. At the National Congress of Identification on 18 June, he presented the lecture ‘The Individual, Biological Reality’. On 19 June, at the National School of Arts, he presented a lecture on ‘Prehistoric Art in Western Europe’, on ‘Montaigne and the Pre-Colombian America’ on 22 June at the Brazilian Academy of Letters, on ‘Atlantis and the Origins of Lisbon’ at the Brazilian Academy of Letters on 23 June, on ‘Vallaux and the General Geography of the Seas’ at the Historical and Geographical Institute on 26 June, and on ‘The Origins of the Portuguese People’ at the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading on 27 June. On 12 July, he presented the conference ‘Criminals in Portugal’ at the Institute of Barristers, and on 13 July he presented a lecture on ‘Prehistoric Research Technique’ at the National Museum. Also in July, but at the University of Sao Paulo, he presented again some of the conference papers that he had previously used in Rio de Janeiro: ‘Man within the Animal Series’, ‘Montaigne and Pre-Colombian America’ and ‘Atlantis and the Origins of Lisbon’. Besides presenting them at the conferences, in Sao Paulo he visited the Faculty of Medicine, the Institute of Forensic Medicine, the Identification Service, the Faculty of Law, the Butantan Institute, the Penitentiary, the Santa Casa, Portuguese Beneficence and Museu Paulista, where, according to Santos Júnior, ‘he studied 26 skulls of “Sambaquis” of the island of Santo Amaro, which had not been studied before by any other scientist’ (1934: 7). During his visit to Rio de Janeiro, he became an honorary member of the National Academy of Medicine (proposed by Renato Kehl) and of the Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene, and was decorated with the Order of the Southern Cross

164  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This visit revealed Mendes Correia’s several intellectual interests. However, this diversity did not mean that these interests were far apart from each other. As he mentioned in his acceptance speech at the Brazilian Academy of Medicine: Human medicine and the natural history of Man are not separated by clear limits and are rather related, in an indissoluble way, in mutual penetrations and connections … It is by means of the fields of Criminal Anthropology, Biotypology and Clinical Anthropology that these interferences are most strongly intensified in the current state of our studies. (AAVV 1935: 72)

Conclusion Mendes Correia’s discipline of anthropology (1915b) allows us to observe his broad and inclusive vision of the study of humankind. Biological and also social and cultural aspects were treated as having equal importance; however, the former were often presented as a possible explanation for the latter. The human being arises within the scope of a zoological classification and the proximity between anthropology and biology, and natural sciences is a constant. In the discipline’s curriculum (Mendes Correia 1915b), physical characteristics were preferential in terms of distinguishing human groups, since they were considered to be the most ‘fixed’ and most easily observable for a more objective and precise analysis. The topics in his anthropology classes were the starting point for the works he published over a period of fifty years, some of which have been mentioned in this chapter and will be further analysed in the following chapter. Although not designed for that purpose, his anthropological programme was later connected to the Portuguese colonial project and to the offices he would later hold at the CEEP, the JMGIC, the ESC and the SGL. On the other hand, his anthropology curriculum had nationalist purposes and its knowledge, according to him, should contribute to an improvement of the general state of the population, seeking to save the nation. This is the articulation we can see when he stated that anthropology ‘provides, like language, like history, like the collective will, one of the safe foundations of the national unity and conscience’; furthermore, taking care of the ‘vitality, health and sturdiness’ of the Portuguese people was meant to accomplish a ‘patriotic’ mission (1933a: 42). For Mendes Correia, all these topics, despite their diversity, were interconnected. Perhaps influenced by his medical education, he observed objects in an organic way, which, while speaking of its different parts and its peculiar functioning, allowed him to also see the full object that they formed, which enabled their interaction and their existence. Although he

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  165

criticized the organistic analysis of society, in his speech at the inaugural session of the Congresses of the Portuguese World he said: Living beings have an embryology. A Nation, a living being, has an onthogenesis, undoubtedly long, complex and obscure, but real and necessary. (Quoted in Mendes Correia 1944b: 148‒49)

For Mendes Correia, the diversity of topics on which he reflected did not mean any kind of divergence because, like an organism, it was connected to a whole comprised of multiple areas that, despite existing in different times, were connected to the same space – in this case, a territory that became a body – and between these parts there was an organic solidarity that allowed them to evolve over time and not to be extinguished. In Raízes de Portugal he stated: There is no dispersion or disconnection in the subjects approached. In fact, these are all related with the doctrine of remote historical continuity. (Mendes Correia 1944b: 148)

Perhaps it was this continuity ‒ a historical continuity, in his words, based on a solidary body ‒ that allowed Portugal to persevere. He defended the need and the interests of anthropology, which should not be surpassed by botany or zoology. The knowledge provided by anthropology could inclusively support national strategies or directives: The greatest universities in Germany, England, Italy, Russia, Switzerland and other countries have meanwhile positioned this study on the superior level where it belongs. Let us congratulate ourselves on the fact that Portugal has long been following this trend. One could not desire otherwise, considering this is a country where we need to keep watch on our national conscience, feeding its deepest roots, and where we must defend and value a large colonial domain. (Mendes Correia 1933a: 5)

However, he added that anthropology was not worthy merely because of its utilitarian character: Even if Anthropology did not reveal a utilitarian interest, it still would possess a high moral value. To measure the importance of a science only by its practical utility is, as someone said, a crime against intelligence. (Mendes Correia 1933a: 6)

Mendes Correia’s arguments evolved along with his intellectual maturity and, mainly, with the changes in the historical context. He demonstrated that he knew the main theories on the study of humankind, especially those

166  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

related to anthropobiological studies. Among his main arguments, we find the defence of a relative homogeneity of the Portuguese population over time, its clear integration among Europeans and the need to develop a deep study on it that contributed towards improving its conditions on all levels, as well as towards its affirmation in the European and, in general, the Western context. On several occasions, Mendes Correia sought to present different works to distinct audiences and to increase the range of topics under analysis. He was not an expert in one or two topics. This diversity applied not only to his work, but also to the different people to whom he was related and to the responsibilities he took in the offices he held. However, the exercise of political offices was not his strict motivation, regardless of the topics to be dealt with and to be debated in this context; his motivation was the implementation, by means of politics, of ideas and knowledge that he took from science, from the studies he performed, from his learnings based on his experience at the FCUP and at the Porto Youth Detention Centre, among others. This knowledge illuminated him and influenced his speeches, both at the CMP and, later, at the AN. He used these elements as tools to defend his ideas: 1) on the improvement of the living conditions of the population in the metropolis by promoting the creation of housing for the poorer classes; 2) on the possibility for all women to vote; or 3) on the abolition of the ‘indigenous statute’ in the colonies.

Notes   1. At the AN session on 20 January 1950 (5th legislative period) he said: ‘Within my personal bibliography, I had the pleasure … of revealing, in Portuguese language, with a detailed summary, the magnificent work, published in 1933, Geometria Geral dos Mares, by professor at the French Naval School Camille Vallaux.’  2. The text is organized into: ‘I. General considerations; II. Statistical methods in Anthropology; III. Man among the Primates; IV. The origin of Man; V. The primitive Man; VI. Current human types’.  3. According to Topinard, anthropology was not related to the people’s nationality, ethnogenesis or genealogy, since these areas were part of ethnography (1885: 212‒13).  4. Populations and species with which the human being shares an evolution history, except other living primates. It is presumed that the hominid lineage evolved approximately 5‒10 million years ago.   5. In the American anthropological school, the material culture of the past is studied by cultural anthropologists.   6. Ethnography here has the meaning that is usually given to ethnology.  7. Linnaeus’ division was the one that gained the greatest recognition. In System of Nature (1735), he organized the species (immutable prototypes) into number and type (they existed within the species as well as ‘races’) and defended the idea that the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  167

members of a species should produce fertile offspring. The human being, classified among monkeys, was divided into four ‘races’: Homo europaeus, Homo asiaticus, Homo afer and Homo americanus.   8. Camper argued that the ‘facial angle’ – the measure of facial prognathism – made it possible to compare heads based on the measurements of the skull and of the face. According to him, the ideal facial angle was a 100° angle, which was found solely among the ancient Greeks.  9. Samuel George Morton (1799‒1851), polygenist and disciple of Louis Agassiz, established physical and moral relationships between the populations of the United States and Egypt, based on their skulls, in Crania americana (1839) and Crania aegyptya (1844) (Schwarcz 2007: 54). 10. The Swiss anthropologist Andrés Retzius (1769‒1860) developed the cephalic index in 1840. Based on the width and length of the head, the following classification was established: dolichocephalic (long, narrow heads), mesocephalic (intermediate heads) and brachycephalic (short, wide heads). 11. Francisco Martins Sarmento (1833‒99) sought to develop the city of Guimarães by creating a society that was named after him (the Martins Sarmento Society). He began excavations in 1874 in Briteiros (in the municipality of Guimarães). He was mainly interested in the study of the Portuguese people and its origins, and was stimulated by the study of the Lusitanians. He influenced the generations that followed him, namely Leite de Vasconcelos and the young scientists who founded the Carlos Ribeiro Society. 12. This definition could not be precise, according to Mendes Correia, since there might be ‘types’ based on other characters, such as psychological or ethnic types. 13. Italics in original. 14. Their role was to ‘evidence the variation of a character among regions’. Therefore, in a geographical chart of a country, ‘each circumscription is given a colour or a special outline, according to the value that, in this circumscription, has the analysed anthropological character’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 23). 15. In the diagrams, which could include dots, lines, areas or stereograms, ‘dimensions proportional to the number of cases in which that character or variant was found’ corresponded to each character or variant; however, he highlighted that, sometimes, some ‘less rigorous’ diagrams were used ‘in order to make very apparent … the variation mode or the distribution of characters in certain morphological groups’ (Mendes Correia 1915b: 23). 16. This is used to check if there is a correlation between different characters and whether there is variation in a character regardless of other character(s). One can, for example, seek to analyse the correlation between the cephalic index and the cranial-zygomatic index and represent them in a correlation table. 17. Correia also quoted Die Methode der Variationsstatistik by George Duncker (1899). 18. A requirement according to Topinard’s scientific method (1892: 314). 19. One of them related to slavery. Some pro-slavery individuals defended the plurality of the origins in order to sustain an inherent inequality and the maintenance of the subjugation practice of some beings over others. 20. These discussions had continuity with the contributions of other authors. While some defended the existence of a sole human species, others admitted the existence of more than one or even several hominid genuses. 21. The author of Histoire naturelle, in forty-four volumes, published from 1749 to 1804. According to Buffon, a black and ‘savage’ person transported to Europe would gradually become not only ‘civilized’, but also white.

168  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

22. As mentioned by Mayr (1982), the evolutionist idea was not due to Darwin. Evolutionist models had already been previously known in Europe, such as Lamarckism. Besides, the advocates of monogeny and polygeny were often influenced by evolutionist theses. On the other hand, some ideas from the late nineteenth century, despite being evolutionist, were anti-Darwinian (Stocking Jr. 1968). 23. In 1830, the Académie Scientifique de Paris was the venue of the controversy between Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier; the latter apparently won, due to his prestige. 24. Environmental theories date back to the time of Hippocrates (fourth century BCE), who sought to explain the physical and mental differences in Europe’s and Asia’s inhabitants based on environmental influences. 25. However, the maxim ‘survival of the fittest’ can be traced back to Herbert Spencer (Poliakov 1974: 290). 26. He refers to the text ‘The Transformist Controversy’ (Mendes Correia 1934c) published in Da Biologia à História. 27. See Mendes Correia 1934c: 337‒38. 28. See Mendes Correia 1931a: 301‒2. 29. French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (1861‒1942). 30. This was published in Archivo de Medicina Legal (volume V) and in Da Biologia à História (Mendes Correia 1934c). The physiognomic studies date back to the eighteenth century. An example is the work by Johann Caspar Lavater (1740‒1801), a Protestant pastor from Zurich, who defended the idea that painting was the ‘mother’ of his new discipline – physiognomy – and that Greek statues represented ideals of beauty. According to him, the first visual impression of a person was always the best and the facial traits of living creatures indicated the form of their inner self, their moral and the influence of Divinity in the human being (Augstein 1996; Baroja 1995). 31. Liz Ferreira obtained her doctoral degree from Columbia University, where Margaret Mead worked. 32. The role played by Louis Leakey was decisive for the establishment of relationships between anthropology and primatology. During the 1960s, he promoted works by Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey and B. Galdikas on the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) on their natural habitat, i.e. twenty years after the work undertaken by the Portuguese in Maiombe. 33. According to Ana Cristina Martins, in Portuguese historiography there are no direct references to the archaeologist Gordon Childe ‘at least until his journey to Portugal during the 1940s’ (2011: 55). However, his thought may have been behind some of the research done in Portugal and several of his works were translated into Portuguese. 34. The study by Perthes in carved silex that followed the ancient fauna started in 1837 and led him to conclude that its manufacturers preceded the flood described in Genesis. 35. Mendes Correia wrote specifically on geology and its relations to anthropology (1929a). 36. From his personal diaries, under the care of the FCUP’s Museum of Natural History, we are able to understand his connections to geography and to researchers in the areas of geology and mineralogy. The notes from his general geography classes, taught in 1920, include topics such as: the formation of the continents; glaciations; prehistoric periods; formation of the earth’s crust; climate changes; continental bridges (the phenomenon probably inspired the formulation of his hypothesis on the settling of South America from Australia, via Antarctica) and expeditions in the nineteenth century. Other subjects were as follows: pluviometric index, latitude, longitude, watercourses, tectonic faults, volcanoes, relief, rocks, planetary relations, cooling of the earth, mineral beds, migrations and isolation, palaeontology, plant distribution

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  169

factors, influence of human beings on nature (‘disturbing action in the natural reproduction of the living beings’), animal domestication, the influence of climate on the soils, and origin of the cultures (Mesopotamia, Libya and Egypt – barley, wheat, vine and linen; India and the Far East – rice, tea, sugar cane and cotton plant; Intertropical America – corn, potato and tobacco). Mendes Correia wrote on physical and human geography. He sought to analyse the importance of geographical factors around the human being and societies, and the contributions of political and economic geography. Some of his notes were also written in the IAUP’s charts containing items such as: descriptive characters (eye, hair and skin colour, facial format, nose profile and prognathism) and anthropometry (build and cephalic index, among other elements). Directly or indirectly, Mendes Correia’s interests were always interrelated. 37. After the 1880 Congress, archaeology was not immediately recognized and only subsequently was incorporated in the UC (the only university in the country at that time), but through zoological studies. 38. Carlos Ribeiro’s archaeological campaigns from 1870 to 1871 led him to conclude that there had been hominids on Portuguese territory since the Tertiary period, and not only the Quaternary period. However, several participants at the Congress expressed their scepticism regarding his thesis. 39. AAVV 1884. On that occasion, the foreign participants visited the archaeological stations of Ota, Muge, Cascais and Citânia de Briteiros. The Congress counted on the participation of, among others, Rudolf Virchow and Gabriel de Mortillet – one of the precursors of the studies in prehistoric archaeology. 40. Presentation at the 3rd session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie in September 1927. 41. Brachycephalic – individuals whose brain, when observed from above, has an anteroposterior diameter slightly larger than the transversal diameter. 42. In 1924, Mendes Correia has reformulated this thesis. Although he admitted the contacts with cultures from the Eastern Mediterranean, he stated that this was not a loss of individuality or autonomy, as proven by archaeological data (1924a: 239‒40). 43. Individuals whose skull, when observed from above, is less wide than it is long. 44. In the Iberian Peninsula, he identified four relatively homogeneous cultural areas and one of them corresponded to the Portuguese Megalithic culture. He directed the Barcelona School of Archaeology, which had a German influence. 45. On 18 January 1951, Mendes Correia gave a eulogy for Father Eugénio Jalhay at a tribute session devoted to him at the Portuguese Archaeologist Association, which was later published (Mendes Correia 1954a: 319‒34). 46. A Russian geologist who studied natural sciences in Paris in 1931 and who travelled to Portugal on several occasions from the mid-1930s; he settled here and joined the staff of the Geological Services. 47. A German palaeontologist who designated the Iberian axe as ‘Galician-Portuguese’. 48. A French archaeologist who sought to associate bronze axes with some European cultural areas. 49. Of which some remains had been found in France (Chelles and Menton). 50. The Chellean and Acheulean industries had been found in all European countries, except for glacial areas in the North and the regions beyond the Rhine. Some discoveries made in Southern Africa would also correspond to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. 51. From this era, discoveries were made in Europe (out of the glacial area), Southern Africa and Western Africa.

170  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

52. Remains found in France, Belgium, Austria, among other sites. 53. Discoveries made in France, Russia, Austria, Spain, Belgium and the United Kingdom. 54. Mendes Correia developed studies on totems (1928e, 1928f). He referred to peoples who used the serpent as a totem ‒ for example, the Celts. The totem claim is common nowadays, but back then it was an original statement. Durkheim had already written on this subject, but in Portugal it had not been the subject of much examination. 55. Discovered in the Neander Valley (near Düsseldorf), Gibraltar, La Naulette, Mauer, Spy, Krapina, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Le Moustier, La Ferrassie and La Quina, among other sites. 56. Discovered in Langerie-Basse, Chancelade, Sorde, Vilhonneur, Rossillon and in the Grimaldi caves. 57. Bone, horn and stone instruments and weapons (scrapers, knives, saws, chisels, scissors, pickaxes, daggers, spear ends, arrow ends, adzes, gouges, combs and polished axes, wooden recipients or deer points, pirogues carved in tree trunks, spinning spindles, hand-operated millstones, ceramic fragments, threads, ropes, remnants of cloth (linen and wool), and also amulets and adornments. 58. One of the authors frequently quoted by Mendes Correia is Giuseppe Sergi, an anthropology professor and rector of the University of Rome, who dealt with subjects related to physical anthropology, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, human and mammal palaeontology, and general biology, among others. He issued opinions on human genealogy and hominid classification; he was a polygenist, admitting evolution only within the groups, and when classifying, he mainly used descriptive characters of the skull and of the living being, and considered the metric methods to be less relevant. 59. In his personal diaries, Mendes Correia identified the archaeological stations and the objects found. Despite not being a talented draughtsman, he counted on Rui de Serpa Pinto for the drawings and on his brother Humberto for the photographs. In a 1926 diary, he referred to the visit to the Museum of Póvoa do Varzim, where he bought a bracelet for the FCUP in 1931; he recorded observations made in Abrantes, Santarém, Chã de Ancas, Carrazedo do Alvão and Lixa do Alvão (Vila Pouca de Aguiar). He also recorded folk poetry from the Trás-os-Montes region. In another diary (1928), he recorded the travels to a Palaeolithic station in Vila Praia de Âncora and to Oliveira do Bairro; in September of that same year, he travelled to Telões, where he mentioned the objects from Carrazedo do Alvão, Pedras Salgadas, Outeiro Seco (Chaves), Vila Meã, the parish of Vale d’Anta (Serra do Boqueiro, Chaves) and the rock art station of Outeiro Machado. He also recorded ethnographic data on spiritism and folklore in Lixa do Alvão. There are photographs that document these visits in the UP’s Museum of Natural History. 60. In this Congress, which took place from 21 to 30 September 1930 in Coimbra and Porto, Mendes Correia played an important role in the organization of the sessions in Porto. He arranged several researchers to come to Portugal. Like in 1880, the national experts were able to present lectures on anthropology, ethnography and archaeology. See TAE, volume V, and the report published in Paris in 1931 that, despite not including all works presented, includes 717 pages with figures. On this occasion, an archaeological site was prepared to receive the participants by means of the acquisition of a plot of land where the Roman city of Conimbriga (near Coimbra) was located; excavations were carried out there, which were directed by Virgílio Correia. 61. A town near the Quinta dos Patudos, belonging to José Relvas, his uncle by marriage. 62. On this subject, an issue of the Les Cahiers de Glozel was published to which Correia contributed (Bruet et al. 1928) and that gathered together experts such as: Mimi

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  171

Johnson (Oslo Mineralogy Institute); Couturier (Institute of Chemistry of the University of Lyon); Jean Buy (anatomy professor at the Clermont-Ferrand Medical School); Charles Depéret (professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Lyon); Edmond Bruet (vice-president of the French Geology Society); F. Croze (physics professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Nancy) and José Pereira Salgado (professor and director of the FCUP’s Chemistry Laboratory). 63. ‘Les préhistoriens, surtout, Wilke, Aoberg, Bosch Gimpera, Breuil, Obermaier, etc., ont pu parler d’une culture mégalithique portugaise, dont plusieurs auteurs reconnaissent aujourd’hui l’ancienneté et le pouvoir d’expansion. Un foyer atlantique de civilisation s’est constitué et s’étend, bien que tous les liens culturels avec la Méditerranée oriental ne soient pas nuls. Les péninsules et les iles du nord-ouest de l’Europe sont englobées petit à petit dans ce domaine culturel, certainement par un processus de diffusion politique et économique de proche, plus pacifique que belliqueux, origine d’une thalassocratie occidentale, fondement d’une véritable empire atlantique préhistorique.’ 64. Third session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie, 21‒29 September 1927, Amsterdam. Around 200 lectures were presented, with the participation of around 250 congressmen and women from twenty-five nations. The sessions took place in the building of the Colonial Institute and at the Anatomy and Tropical Hygiene Institutes. There were six sessions: morphological and functional anthropology; prehistory; ethnology; sociology; heredity; eugenics; and folklore. Reports by van Loon and Papillault were presented on psychological and psychiatric methods to study the aptitudes of ‘human races’ and of Pittard on how to organize and stimulate the teaching of anthropology in universities and higher schools. The sections of morphological anthropology and heredity worked in cooperation with the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations (AAVV 1927: 231). In a postcard sent from Amsterdam to Santos Júnior on 21 September 1927, Mendes Correia wrote: ‘The battle of Glozel occurred today. I said my mind, at the Congress, and Bégouen, Capitan and Breuil contradicted me; they recognize the authenticity of Alvão, but are now doubting Glozel’s … They want a scientific committee to assess this issue’ (correspondence by Mendes Correia 1925‒29, Folder 364, Centro de Memória, Torre de Moncorvo). 65. During Reinach’s visit, they spoke of Leite de Vasconcelos, since he also had been in Glozel ‘and had expressed his favourable views on the station’s and of the objects’ authenticity’ (Mendes Correia 1946b: 16). 66. Mendes Correia stated that when José de Figueiredo, a friend of Reinach’s, saw the contents of the letter, he thought it did not offend the Portuguese national pride. However, Mendes Correia did not share that opinion and never wrote to Reinach again. Despite that, he later wrote his necrology for the TAE. According to Mendes Correia: ‘Silence was the only revenge I could offer against that old man that, in 1927, in Boulogne, seemed a harsh soul to me … an old, bitter man’; nevertheless, ‘he was the owner of an amazing erudition’. Mendes Correia said he heard him for the first time in 1919 or 1920, ‘when visiting a congress at the Museum of National Antiques of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which he directed’ (1946b: 15). When Mendes Correia visited that museum, he was impressed with the large collection of offprints that belonged to its monumental archive. 67. This text was published in Portuguese in Da Biologia à História (Mendes Correia 1934c) after a conference promoted by the Portuguese Archaeologist Association on 7 February 1934 entitled ‘The Myth of Atlantis and the Origins of Lisbon’. The topic of Atlantis was approached in other texts (see Mendes Correia 1934e).

172  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

68. This intuition should be highlighted if we consider that, at the time, Mendes Correia ‘could only have knowledge of scarce materials collected by Virgílio Correia in the “cloister” of the Cathedral and at the foot of the hill, underground in Rua dos Douradores, only recently … attributed to the sixth century B.C.’ (Cardoso 1999: 151). 69. The toponym ‘cividade’ that had been used until the sixteenth century was no longer in use. 70. Radio lecture, on 5 May 1957, published in Boletim da SGL (Mendes Correia 1958b). 71. Before that, Leite de Vasconcelos had already accepted the Lusitanian descent of the Portuguese and their pre-Celtic origins. 72. The Bronze and Iron Ages belong to the protohistoric period and in Portugal the archaeological findings from the Metal Age are abundant. The ‘citânias’ (pre-Roman settlements) in the north of Portugal (mainly Briteiros) date from this period. 73. Oliveira Salazar’s nationalist ideas led Mendes Correia to the protection of monuments that signalled the antiquity of the nation, although this idea had already emerged during the First Republic (1910‒26) with the General-Directorate for National Buildings and Monuments (the principles of which dated back to 1919, despite its creation in 1929). Salazar’s government supported the restoration of monuments related to the foundation of the nationality (castles and Romanic churches). The relations between archaeology and the circumstances of the political power of the time have allowed conditions that came to influence the studies that were promoted. In this context, one valued the past, its existence (evoking facts to mark the antiquity of the country and of the nation), its preservation, the evocation of heroes and the feats of the so-called Age of Discovery in idealizations such as the Exhibition of the Portuguese World (1940), or the impulse given to promote studies on the antiquity of the country. Also, for Mendes Correia, history was not a cemetery, but rather a resurrection (1940f). 74. Smith also distinguished ‘state’ from ‘nation’, since the concept of ‘state’ relate to the institutional activity, whereas ‘nation’ denotes a type of community; on the other hand, he distinguished ‘nation’ from ‘ethnic community’, since the latter ‘usually has no political referent, and in many cases lacks a public culture and even a territorial dimension’ (2010: 12). This was the case despite the similarities between both words: a collective proper noun, a common ancestry myth, historical memories, the belief in the existence of a common culture and the possibility of being associated with a territory. 75. For an analysis of the Lusitanian theses in Portuguese archaeology, see Fabião (1996). 76. George Mosse (1992) was one of the first historians to distinguish racism towards colonized populations (the colonial empires of Western Europe) and racism against the Jews (Eastern and Northern Europe). 77. On this subject, see Mendes Correia 1918b, 1918c, 1919b, 1919f. 78. Contemporarily, several authors were dedicated to the topic of the origins of the Portuguese, e.g. António Sérgio (1883‒1969), Jaime Cortesão (1884‒1960), Damião Peres (1889‒1976) and Torquato Sousa Soares (1903‒88). 79. The second edition, published six years after the first, was a result from the series of three articles he wrote to the Ocidente journal with the titles ‘Portugal Ex-nihilo!’, ‘Land and Independence’ and ‘The Race’. According to Mendes Correia, these articles were motivated by his colleague Damião Peres and although his writings were associated with a ‘personal attack’, since there were doctrinal differences between the two, he stressed that he felt a fond friendship for him and that he held him in great esteem (1944b: 109). Whether these feelings were reciprocal or not, Damião Peres’

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  173

invitation to Mendes Correia to contribute to the work for which he was acting as editor (Mendes Correia 1928b) may have been a political compromise. 80. On the Celts, see Jubainville (1904) – publication of a course taught by the author at the Collège de France, in the 1902‒3 academic year, on the history of Celtic families. In this book, Jubainville, who deliberately omitted his sources, divided the Celts into two families: the ‘gôidels’ (which include the Irish and the Scottish Gaelics) and the Gallo-Brittonic (divided into Gauls, or Continental Celts, and Bretons). He revealed that the Celtic domain reached a considerable extent in Europe, from the northern coasts of Scotland to the southern coasts of Portugal, having reached the northern coasts of the German empire and having included a large part of Italy. To the West, it met the Atlantic Ocean and, to the East, the Black Sea. In Portugal, Jubainville was quoted by authors such as Mendes Correia (1919b) and Aquilino Ribeiro. 81. According to the inventory of Portuguese cultural and literary journals (Pires 1996), there are twenty-five publications that, from 1900 to 1940, had a reference to the Lusitanians or Lusitania in its title. 82. By Alfredo Pimenta, Sousa Soares and Oliveira Boléo, Luís Vieira de Castro (on the role played by the Order of Cluny in the nationality’s foundation), Canon Bernardo Xavier Coutinho (on the papacy’s actuation) and João Ameal (a book entitled História de Portugal). 83. A movement that evolved from 1912 as a reaction to ‘cosmopolitanism’; it was centred on the A Águia journal and was integrated into the context of nationalist trends that grew stronger with implantation of the Republic regime (after the monarchy). The purpose of this movement was to give Portuguese life back its lost greatness and reinforce the cult for Portuguese rather than foreign elements, the latter being considered to be responsible for the decay. 84. Several years before, some authors had defended the existence of different peoples with distinct features. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788‒1860), for example, hierarchically compared Northern Europeans (mainly Protestant) and Southern Europeans (mainly Catholic). 85. From this author, Mendes Correia quoted Introdução e teoria da história da literatura portuguesa (1896). 86. From this author, Mendes Correia quoted A Pátria Portuguesa (1906). 87. One of them was Hans Günther (1891‒1968), whose theses were largely criticized by Mendes Correia. 88. With his participation in excavations in Portugal, he wanted to obtain a better knowledge on the Mesolithic. 89. Le Bon was an advocate of an innate inequality between ‘races’, genders and social groups (1910: 6). He considered ‘race’ as something static that determined the evolution of peoples. 90. Mendes Correia quoted Race et milieu social by Lapouge (1909). Lapouge, a professor at the University of Montpellier, had also written Les sélections sociales (1896), in which he explained that the causes of social evolution (military, political, religious, moral, legal or economic) are determined by natural selection. 91. The term ‘great race’ refers to Nordic, tall, blond groups. 92. The access to immigration was made difficult not only for the Portuguese, but also for the Italians. Anthropologists like Franz Boas, Melville Jean Herskovits, Ruth Benedict and Alfred Louis Kroeber were also the object of racism in the United States. 93. The author of Essai sur l’ inegalité des races humaines (2006 [1853]); he considered that the value of a ‘race’ was judged by its ability to create an original civilization. According to Gobineau, European civilizations, except for the Assyrian civilization,

174  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

had their origins among the populations more or less related to the Aryan ‘race’, the group that spoke the Indo-Germanic dialects and, in whose veins ran the blood of all ‘ruling peoples’. He further defended the idea that the representatives of the Aryan ‘race’, his contemporaries and considered as the ‘purest’, were the Germanic groups. However, he did not consider that Jews were an inferior ‘race’ (Ruffié 1983: 167‒71). 94. A quote from L’Aryen et l’anthroposociologie by Emile Houzé (1906). 95. His criticism of Pan-Germanism must be seen regardless of the influence of some German authors on his work, such as the geographer Friedrich Ratzel (1844‒1904), since the predominance of anthropogeography (also connected to archaeology) was very inspiring for him. For example, he placed Portugal geographically in a location called the ‘old Lusitanian manor’, with specific characteristics on a physical and human geography level (Mendes Correia 1924a). 96. Other authors highlighted the role of geographical or social isolation, such as the English anthropologist Arthur Keith (1916), Mendes Correia’s contemporary, who assigned a more important role to the class or ‘race’ spirit (clannishness) in the formation of new ‘races’ than he did to hybridism. For Keith, the gregarious instinct, the conscience of the species and the national spirit were forms of clannishness and geographical isolation, language diversity and habits that underlined the influence of this factor. 97. The physician Prichard (1786‒1848) combined the knowledge of natural history with abolitionism. In Researches into the Physical History of Man (1813) and other subsequent publications, he sought to prove that the story told in Genesis was correct and that all human groups descended from Adam and Eve. Considering that monogeny had been sustained by a theory that defended determinisms, such as the climate, Prichard sought to demonstrate the unity of humanity without relying on that theory of the eighteenth century. He was therefore based on the ‘analogue method’, proposed by Blumenbach, Buffon and John Hunter, to sustain that humanity had originally been ‘black’ and that the differentiation resulted from civilization (Augstein 1996). 98. In this text he dealt with subjects such as: the influence of the physical environment in the formation of several types of animals and the confirmation, or not, of that influence in the human being; and the relationship between population density, latitude, altitude, nutritional poverty, soil richness, economic prosperity, public health, selection (military, professional, sexual), urbanism and human build. 99. Analyses made in human groups, in the country and the former colonies (Hindus from Satary, Andulos from Angola, Luimbes, Quiocos, Luenas, Lutchazes and Ambuelas, also from Angola, and Timorese from Okussi-Ambeno), often based on data collected by Fonseca Cardoso, but also by authors such as Schwalbe and Topinard (Mendes Correia 1926a). 100. Some recent studies argue that Boas was, in general, correct, but modern analytical methods provide better support than those he used. See e.g. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard 2003. 101. In 1920, at the inaugural session of the Institut International d’Anthropologie in Paris, Mendes Correia proposed the designation ‘Ethnic Psycho-sociology’ for the branch of anthropological studies that seeks relationships between psychosocial facts and the anthropological build of the peoples (1922d). 102. He quoted Jean Brunhes 1912, La géographie humaine, 2nd ed. Paris, 569, Félix: Alcan. 103. In an article published in Boletim da SGL, 1959, 57th series, no. 9‒10, Lisbon. 104. He published an article on this specific subject (Mendes Correia 1943b). 105. He had previously referred this issue in Chapters 5‒7, in the book Raça e Nacionalidade (1919b: 97‒151). Later on, taking into account not their origins, but their role in the

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  175

period of the so-called Discoveries in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Spaniards and Portuguese were once again considered in Antropologia e História (Mendes Correia 1954a) in a chapter based on the inaugural speech given at the Portuguese-Spanish Congress of Sciences in Porto on 18 June 1942. 106. I use the expression ‘Bushmen’ because it is used by the author. I also use it in other parts of this book (although I know that it is a colonial expression with an offensive origin) because this expression was meanwhile adopted by the ‘Bushmen’ themselves, as opposed to other expressions, such as Khoisan, which are well meant, but equally problematic. 107. On his defence of linguistic studies, see Mendes Correia (1956b). 108. In Europe two linguistic groups were distinguished ‒ the Aryans (Latin peoples, Germans, Slavic, Celts and Leto-Lithuanian) and Anaryan (Basques and FinnoUgric) ‒ and one geographical group – the Caucasians (peoples from the Caucasus). 109. The red-headed appeared in cases of erythrism and the whites in cases of albinism and in old age. 110. On this subject, see Mendes Correia (1917‒18). 111. Microcephaly, macrocephaly, scaphocephaly, trigonocephaly, oxycephaly, acrocephaly or plagiocephaly. 112. Asian pygmies. 113. For example: lumbar-vertebral, sacrum, pelvic, antebrachial, tibiofemoral and intermembral. 114. Protuberances on the upper section of the femur. 115. On the upper section of the femur. 116. It could be rectilinear, convex, concave or sinuous, with a thick, thin or intermediate extremity, and a horizontal nostril plane, directed upwards or downwards. 117. Form and height of the neck, protrusion of the shoulders, lumbar saddle, hand folds, fingerprints, muscles, parting of the big toe, appearance of the external genitals, or form of the breasts. 118. One of the consequent effects was the association between a greater cranial capacity (as, on average, observed in men compared to women) and the increase in intelligence that led to the discrimination of women (as did Broca during the height of craniology) and to the discrimination of some groups compared to others (Gould 1981). 119. Jahoda’s work (1999) on the existence and permanence, throughout the centuries, of images regarding the representation of ‘others’ (generally the people who were different from the White, male and educated human) by Western society demonstrates that the term ‘primitive’ was a designation used after the term ‘savages’ to classify non-Europeans, which can still be found in modern anthropological and historical literature. Associated with this representation of ‘others’, we find older, but also longer-lasting images that remind us of the ‘animality’, the similarity to monkeys and cannibalism. Later on, from the mid-nineteenth century to the first three decades of the twentieth century, we find images that suggest a similarity of the ‘others’ with children. Besides these, already in the second half of the nineteenth century, we find images that did not represent ‘savages’, but rather individuals belonging to lower social classes, considered as criminals, the mentally ill and women. 120. A monthly illustrated medical science journal that published more than 1,200 pages a year with the works by the most renowned Portuguese physicians and also by foreign ones. 121. When the determined index (width/height of the sacrum) is less than 100. 122. When the index (width/height) is over 106. 123. When the index (width/height) is between 100 and 106.

176  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

124. In the chapter entitled ‘Marriages between Jews and Foreigners’, Esdras describes how the Jews – ‘the sanctified race’ – mingled with foreign women, from ‘hideous peoples’, in Jerusalem, becoming contaminated, creating a country of ‘impurity’, which was a sin and a motive for penitence in the face of God. Mixed marriages were forbidden by law, since they represented a threat to religious purity. 125. Here Mendes Correia claims to be a Christian; however, this is different from claiming to be a Catholic. 126. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752‒1840), a professor of medicine at the University of Göttingen, performed the first studies in craniology and questioned Buffon’s hybridization criterion, although he was inspired by his work. For Blumenbach, all human groups belonged to the same species and the physical variation was due to climatic circumstances. He defended the idea that the more moderate the climate, the greater the beauty of the face. Therefore, as black people were further away from moderate climates, they would necessarily be less beautiful (Mosse 1992; Stocking Jr. 1988). His division of humankind into five human varieties – Caucasian, Mongoloid, Ethiopian, American and Malayan – in 1781 (Augstein 1996), which would be very influential in the following century, was based on criteria such as the size of the skull and the forms of the nose and chin. 127. For example: ‘the reduced number of children, as compared to other species; the impossibility of promoting cross-breedings at the researcher’s will; the long duration of childhood, which does not allow each researcher the study of many generations’ (Mendes Correia 1933a: 16). 128. From physiology, the interest lay only in elements such as pulse count, temperature or dynamometry. 129. Studies on blood groups. 130. Nature no. 3698 (1940). 131. Ratzel defended the idea of geographical determinism and considered that the cultural development of a nation was completely influenced by the environment. 132. Published in Antropologia e História (Mendes Correia 1954a: 227‒63), which will be quoted henceforth. 133. He published in the following journals, among others: A Águia; A Medicina Moderna; A Terra: Revista Portuguesa de Geofísica; África Médica; Anais Científicos da Academia Politécnica do Porto; Anais Científicos da Faculdade de Medicina do Porto; Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto; Anais da Junta de Investigações Coloniais; Anais da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar; Anuário da Escola Superior Colonial; Anuário do Distrito de Viana-do-Castelo; Anuário do Instituto Superior de Estudos Ultramarinos; Arquivo de Anatomia e Antropologia; Arquivo de Medicina Legal; Arquivo da Repartição de Antropologia Criminal, Psicologia Experimental e Identificação Civil do Porto; Arquivo de Viana do Castelo; Atlântico; Boletim Cultural da Câmara Municipal do Porto; Biblioteca de Altos Estudos; Boletim da Junta da Província do Ribatejo; Boletim da Junta Geral do Distrito de Santarém; Boletim da SGL; Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências Naturais; Boletim do Instituto de Criminologia; Boletim Geral das Colónias; Brotéria; Bulletin de la Société Portugaise des Sciences Naturelles; Bulletin des Études Portugaises; Descobrimento; Diónysos; Educação Nova; Estudos Coloniais: Revista da Escola Superior Colonial; Estudos de Ciências Políticas e Sociais; Estudos de Morfologia; Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos; Estudos Italianos em Portugal; Estudos Portugueses do Integralismo Lusitano; Gazeta dos Hospitais do Porto; Gente Lusa; História Portuguesa no Mundo; Independência; Jornal do Médico; Lusitânia; Medicina; Medicina Contemporânea; Memórias da Academia de Ciências de Lisboa; Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar; O Arqueólogo Português; O Instituto: Revista do Instituto de Antropologia de

A Diversity of Topics Attached to the Study of Humanity  •  177

Coimbra; O Século; O Ocidente: Revista Ilustrada de Portugal e do Estrangeiro; Porto Médico; Portugal em África; Portugal Médico; Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto; Revista das Beiras; Revista de Estudos Históricos; Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto; Revista de Guimarães; Revista do Centro de Estudos Demográficos; Revista do Gabinete de Estudos Ultramarinos; Revista dos Centenários; Revista dos Liceus; Terra Portuguesa; Trabalhos da Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses; Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia; Tutoria; and Ultramar Português. 134. He published, among others, in the following: American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Washington DC); Anuario de Prehistoria Madrileña (Madrid); Anuario del Cuerpo Facultativo de Archiveros, Bibliotecarios y Arqueólogos (Madrid); Archeion (Archivio di Storia della Scienza) (Rome); Arquivos de Medicina Legal e Identificação (Rio de Janeiro); Arquivos do Seminário dos Estudos Galegos (Santiago de Compostela); Atti della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze Nuovi Lincei (Rome); Bolletino del Comitato Internazionale per l’Unificazione dei Metodi e per la Sintesi in Antropologia Eugenica e Biologia (Bologna); Buttleti de l’Associació Catalana de Antropologia, Etnologia y Pré-historia (Barcelona); Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Sciences (Paris); Comptes rendus des séances de la Société de biologie et de ses filiales (Paris); Forschungen und Forstchritte (Berlin); Giustizia penale (Cittá di Castello); Investigación y Progreso (Madrid); L’anthropologie (Paris); Le Sang: Biologie et Pathologie (Paris); Natur und Mensch (Bern); Rassegna di Studi Sessuali, Demografia ed Eugenica (Genesis) (Paris: Libreria Italiana); Revista Las Ciencias (Madrid); Revue anthropologique (Paris); Revue Archéologique (Paris); Revue de Biologie Sociale (Bern); Revue de Droit penal et Criminologic (Brussels); Rivista di Antropologia (Rome); S.A.S. (Bologna); Scientia (Paris); Scientia: Revue Internacionale de Synthèse Scientifique (Milan); and Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde (Stuttgart). 135. Conference at the Paris School of Anthropology on 25 April 1931. 136. Conference of the North Centre of the National League for Education, 29 March 1910, Porto. 137. An article on a ‘national hero’ based on his portraits. 138. See Mendes Correia (1916e, 1918d) on the elements collected by Fonseca Cardoso. 139. See the preface he wrote in Ferreira, Athayde and Magalhães (1945). 140. See Mendes Correia 1936b. 141. See Mendes Correia 1916b, 1916c, 1994a, 1944e, 1945b, 1955. 142. See Mendes Correia 1937b, 1951b, 1954b. 143. See Mendes Correia 1951b, 1952b; Correia and Athayde 1931. 144. See Mendes Correia 1916‒1917, 1954c. 145. See Mendes Correia 1932d, 1935c, 1938, 1940d, 1944g, 1954d, 1956c. 146. See Mendes Correia 1934g. 147. See Mendes Correia 1958a. 148. For example, Asturias (Mendes Correia 1928g). 149. On that occasion, and in 1937, he established contacts with persons in order to exchange works and made invitations to present lectures by occasion of the creation of the Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies (1937) and at the Congresses of the Portuguese World (1940). 150. Physical anthropology was developed in Brazil with L. Agassiz and Nina Rodrigues, Broca’s disciple, although the issues regarding cultural anthropology were also considered. However, as was the case in Broca’s work, the cultural analyses were seen in light of physical anthropology (Schwarcz 2007). 151. Within the scope of the invitation for the inauguration of this institute in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, an edition was prepared that was based on articles that had been

178  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

published in Brazilian newspapers, when he was in Brazil, by the SPAE’s collaborators (AAVV 1935). 152. Its chairman in 1934 was Count Afonso Celso. The following figures belonged to this institute: the Duke of Saldanha, the Marquis of Sá da Bandeira, Alexandre Herculano, João Batista da Silva Leitão de Almeida Garrett, António Feliciano Castilho, Latino Coelho, Pinheiro Chagas, Tomaz Ribeiro, Alexandre de Serpa Pinto and the Kings D. Luiz and D. Carlos, as well as the former President of the Republic, Bernardino Machado. 153. Institute of Identification, Military School of Physical Education, Portuguese Beneficence, National Library, Faculties of Medicine and Law, National Museum, National School of Arts, Anatomical Institute Benjamim Baptista, Granado Laboratories, Rotary Club and National Institute of Music.

Chapter 4

Practical Uses of Anthropology

According to Mendes Correia, anthropology had ‘useful’ applications in the study of children in schools (pedagogical anthropology); in the study of offenders and those designated ‘pathologically abnormal’ (criminal anthropology); in colonial administration (colonial anthropology); and in art, philosophy and history, among other areas. Anthropological and, above all, psychological and ethnic data could be used to ‘guide political, religious, economic, commercial or industrial action’ (1915b: 15). In 1931, he continued to define anthropology as part of natural history, ‘in which the physical and psychological study of Man is carried out from a comparative point of view, that is, comparing him with other animals and comparing the various human types (current and fossils) with each other’; he added that doctors in schools, industrial plants or the military should take this into account (1931a: 1, 28). It was based on this definition that the SPAE proposed that the country’s medical schools should include anthropology as part of their medical studies. A doctor, according to Mendes Correia, should know anthropometric techniques and the complexities involved in morphology. In a lecture delivered at the Sala dos Capelos at the UC on 18 May 1925, Mendes Correia also stated that anthropological studies, particularly the anthropometric, could aid in creating and interpreting works of art (1925j); in his opinion, anthropology could enable the characteristics or ‘types’ represented by artists to be identified (1931a: 16). In this chapter, I will present an account of the applications of anthropology and its role in various institutions as seen by Mendes Correia, and the work carried out by certain members of the Porto School of Anthropology. It was the elite, or those with more knowledge, who appropriated the power to classify and compare human groups. However, those classifying often followed models of development and backwardness – to be found,

180  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

for example, in the reports of universal and colonial exhibitions – that betrayed their prejudices. In this context, the so-called primitive peoples, above all the Africans, were placed on a level with the less intellectually gifted. Darwinist thinking and the foundations of social hierarchy, heavily supported by anthropometric measurements, contributed to this trend. From that point, it was only a short step for Cesare Lombroso (1835‒1909)1 and his disciples to consider the insane and the criminal as being comparable to the so-called primitive peoples. In the context under analysis here, in which it was doctors and scientists who classified and made considerations about humanity, I found traces of this strain of thought. I also found that the terms used to describe diseases could be used to talk about national decay in a country whose presence in Europe was the subject of reflection. On the other hand, the strategies developed to uphold the overseas territories at that time, and gaining a better knowledge of them as well as of their populations, constituted an important source of information in which Mendes Correia was clearly involved.

Criminal Anthropology The tradition of criminal anthropology studies in Portugal dates back to the late nineteenth century with, for example, the doctoral thesis ‘O Crime: Apontamentos para a sua sistematização’ (1880) by Roberto Frias, four years after Lombroso’s L’uomo delinquente. The 1880s and 1890s saw the rise and establishment of means to control crime and individuals considered to be criminals, and the improvement of techniques and instruments for measurement. In 1885, following the lead of Luís de Freitas Viegas (professor of anatomy at the School of Medicine and Surgery, and founder and first president of the SPAE), the anthropology laboratory at the Hospital Conde de Ferreira at Porto initiated its activity with the objective of implementing official teaching of criminal anthropology. On 17 August 1899, legislation was published creating the Anthropometric Posts to undertake ‘anthropometric measurements of all prisoners’ who entered the Central Prison or were dispatched by police commissioners or criminal investigation judges (Article 81).2 According to the Decree-Law of 16 November 1899, the Anthropometric Posts should be equipped with the Bertillon system at the Royal Procurators. The Decree-Law of 21 September 1901 established the creation of posts for the collection of photographs, physical measurements and fingerprints in the civil prisons of Lisbon, Porto and Ponta Delgada.3 According to Article 77 of the 1901 Decree, prisons should have an anthropometric post for the study of criminal anthropology and to assist the police and the court services ‘to verify, as precisely as possible, of the

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  181

identity of individuals who entered therein’.4 This method, which was based on ‘the principle that there are no persons who exactly resemble each other and that the dimensions of certain bones, unchanged from adulthood, differ considerably from one specimen to another’, would allow individuals to be identified via particular distinguishing marks and measurements of height, length of feet and the middle toe, among others. The colour of the iris, hair, beard and skin were also observed and placed on the prisoner’s identification card along with other specifics, together with photographs, front and profile, to which a serial number was assigned.5 On 2 March 1902, the Central Anthropometric Post was created next to the Civil Prison and the Porto Court of Appeal, under the direction of Luís de Freitas Viegas. The Revista de Antropologia Criminal was published from this post; it was directed by António Ferreira Augusto and Freitas Viegas, and two issues were published (Pessoa 1940). This post also gave rise to the work A Tatuagem nos Criminosos (1903) by Álvaro Teixeira Bastos; this post was succeeded by the Department of Criminal Anthropology, Experimental Psychology and Civil Identification and by the Porto Institute of Criminology. The Anthropometric Post collected ‘thousands of anthropometric and fingerprint records, in addition to photographs, tattoos, etc., of delinquents’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 14). The requirements for obtaining photographs were first applied at the Anthropometric Post of the Porto Municipal Prison; the documentary estate of this post, currently under the auspices of the Portuguese Photography Centre, consists mostly of portraits of prisoners. Mendes Correia wrote a number of works on criminal anthropology (1912a, 1912b, 1913a, 1913b, 1913a, 1915a, 1925a, 1926g, 1931a, 1931e, 1931f, 1932f, 1932g,6 1932h,7 1936c, 1936d, 1937c, 1939). In some academic years, criminal anthropology was taught as an independent subject; in the case of Porto, there was ‘a Department of Criminal Anthropology as a dependency of the Ministry of Justice’ and this branch constituted ‘one of the subjects in the course for coroners’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 16). In addition to the works of anthropology produced at the IAUP, others emerged from the Criminal Anthropology and Civil Identification Department, then the Criminology Institute (directed first by Joaquim A. Pires de Lima, who succeeded Freitas Viegas, and then by Luís de Pina, all of whom were doctors). In the reports and opinions prepared by physicians, the inclusion of medical terms in expressions which were more appropriate to other contexts, such as ‘social parasites’, to classify people whose behaviour was considered deviant is notable. Homosexuals, for example, who had long been classified among the mentally ill, received harsh treatment from doctors: men were supposed to be virile, not effeminate, and specialists attempted to correct these tendencies.8

182  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Mendes Correia’s interest in studying individuals with deviant behaviour began in the dissertation for his medical course – O génio e o talento na patologia (1911) – in which he drew up a critical overview of the doctrines that establish the pathological roots of genius and talent. He sought to find traces of genius and talent in patients in the Hospital de Rilhafoles and the Hospital do Conde Ferreira, basing this on an analysis of their musical and poetic compositions, drawings, paintings and portraits. Lombroso’s work seems to inspire the text throughout the dissertation, but mainly in terms of criticism of it. According to Mendes Correia, in the work L’uomo delinquente (1876), Lombroso’s intention was to site crime as an atavistic concept; however, many behaviours9 were not explained by atavistic regression, but by mesological conditions of a social nature, i.e. ‘it was necessary to recognise the place of moral madness, misery, alcoholism, political tyranny, mental alienation and finally other social and individual causes of human criminality’ (Mendes Correia 1911: 3-4). For Mendes Correia, from the outset this debate was of interest for jurists above all, and if Lombrosian exclusivism prevailed, the penal system’s only requirement would be to eliminate criminals, ‘once the impossibility of correcting their atavism was proven’. However, in criminal matters, ‘the principle of reparation for crime’, ‘the penal substitutes, suggested by Ferri’s doctrines’10 and the suggested ‘systems for correction of criminals, especially minors’ had already been established; in addition to erudite precision and scientific rigour, what provoked this debate was ‘a lofty aim of social justice’ (1911: 5) because: The social value of geniuses is enormous and invaluable. They have been the vanguard of civilization, true agents of social progress. And modern humanity relegates them, summarily and with barely no defence, to the field of mental pathology! If this is not indeed an injustice, as we suppose, it is at least ingratitude for these processes. (Mendes Correia 1911: 6)

Phrenological positions and the prejudices underlying them ended up discredited, not only because they were inconclusive, but also because they were to be found at the root of atrocities carried out against innocent people. As well as refuting the identification of genius and madness, Mendes Correia rejected Nordau’s ideas which he published in Entartung, referring to the case of Friedrich Nietzsche as evidence. Mendes Correia, then a medical finalist, believed that although Nietzsche was a genius, his madness only appeared at an advanced stage of his life (1911: 101‒2); donning his doctor’s gown, he laid claim to the task of analysing the mental value and works of ‘great men’ and he also claimed that both in hygiene and in forensic medicine, a doctor ‘is not an ancient physicist’, a ‘remote surgeon’ or an ‘archaic healer’, but ‘a true sociologist, who brings social facts into play and intervenes powerfully in the collective life of human societies’ (1911: 7). This was

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  183

one of the first works that indicated Mendes Correia’s interest in sociology and psychology, i.e. in the study of human beings that includes not only the physical body, but also thoughts, behaviours, practices and individual and collective life. Mendes Correia also openly criticized Lombroso’s work for the following reasons: that it was a corrected and expanded edition of Jacques-Joseph Moreau’s work; although it was not plagiarism, he did not say that Psychologie morbide was an adjunct; there was sloppiness in the choice of documentation, with people of simple talent being cited to substantiate claims of genius; that Lombroso called famous personalities geniuses, placing geniuses of science alongside religious ones, far removed from logic and closer to mysticism; that Lombroso’s conclusions were frivolous and his text was incongruous, with contradictory statements;11 and that Lombroso ‘sketches out a demonstration of the atavistic character of genius, confusing regression with degeneracy’12 (Mendes Correia 1911: 74‒75, 124). From his studies in hospitals, Mendes Correia concluded that: ‘the mentality of the alienated does not reach the limits of genius’; ‘among the alienated who have artistic tendencies, painters predominated, followed by poets’; and the alienated who were authors of appreciable works of art ‘were already artists … before their illness’ (1911: 179). He agreed with Lombroso that the form of alienation influences the chosen themes of the artworks, but he did not agree that genius and genuine talent flourished in asylums, as the Italian author argued. According to Mendes Correia, genius and talent ‘are manifestations of a healthy improvement, not of an atavistic return, a degeneration or a clear psychoneurosis’; however, better knowledge of these phenomena was needed and what remained was the ‘lack of basis for the arguments which intended to prove the psychopathic nature of all the superior activities of the privileged spirits’, which were not found ‘in the exclusive domain of pathology’ (1911: 183‒84).13 Two years later, Mendes Correia wrote not so much about the alienated, or individuals with behaviour which was considered pathological, but about ‘Portuguese criminals’, in a work of the same title (1913a), revised in 1914, which was at the root of the thesis he presented for his application to be the second tenured assistant at the FCUP. Unlike Lombroso, Mendes Correia considered that ‘criminals’ were not necessarily pathologically abnormal. And while he did not exclude biological factors, he placed great importance on the psychological, moral and social factors behind crime. He analysed different types of crime and how they can be relative, taking the context in which they occur into account, as well as different types of criminals; he divided these into ‘random’ or ‘occasional’ offenders, and ‘habitual’ offenders. This division suggests that Mendes Correia believed there were false criminals – the occasional ones, like most murderers – and true ones – the habitual ones (with a congenital or acquired habit), such as thieves and vagrants. Occasional criminals were those who were free from:

184  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

profound and particular criminal tendencies, they accidentally commit a crime, moved by a powerful momentary factor, such as misery, hunger, drunkenness, passion, an emotional state, love, honour, anger, hate, revenge, or a political or religious ideal. (1913a: 52)

The anthropologist João Fatela, who analysed violence in Portugal between 1926 and 1946, also concluded that ‘homicide is a practice of adult men with no criminal past, and occurs in a context of strong relational proximity’ and that ‘despite the absence of statistics global by cause, everything indicates that homicides resulting from serious pathological anomalies are rare, as are, in fact, homicides associated with organized crime’ (1989: 52, 58). In Mendes Correia’s opinion, occasional criminals could become habitual criminals once convicted and detained in prison, ‘where they found harmful coexistence’ (1913a: 52); continuing the study of this variability, he produced a text on ‘the criminal in Portuguese popular traditions’, in which he gave examples of punishments across the centuries (1931a). Over the years, Mendes Correia had perfected his theories regarding the explanation of human behaviour, always taking physical elements into account. In 1931 he was at the Institute for Brain Research in Buch, Berlin, which was founded and directed at that time by Oskar Vogt (1870‒1959). In an article describing his visit (Mendes Correia 1935d), he reported his impressions of the research carried out there. He considered the archive of brain cuttings, as well as the research undertaken, to be magnificent. The Institute had a special clinic with hundreds of beds, and offered the possibility of observing the inmates in asylums and madhouses in Berlin. It had diverse histological material, as well as elements of biochemical, genetic and psychotechnical research. Mendes Correia was fascinated by the fact that the Institute included an engineer whose job it was to invent apparatus for investigating experimental psychology; further, he referred to the arrival of the brain of a Nordic individual who, when alive, spoke more than twenty languages, as well as the brains of calculators, thinkers and artists, and concluded that the panoply of elements he observed was based on a certain belief in finding a natural and material basis for transcendent psychic activities. Later, Mendes Correia wrote about the theory of brain locations and the segmental or metameric theory, although he concluded that very little was known about the subject, given the structural complexity of the brain (1934c). To provide a foundation for his writings, he often looked for support in the knowledge of anthropobiology. In the second lesson of Introduction to Anthropobiology he made a connection between ‘constitution, race, endocrine’ and ‘human personality’. He also alluded to the antiquity of the connections between constitution and temperament – from Hippocrates and Galen – to the more defined tendency to relate forms and

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  185

functions with Lamarck and Goethe, who introduced the term ‘morphology’; for him, one’s constitution, although hereditary and ‘susceptible to changes over the course of existence’, was not the same as ‘race’, since many characteristics used in the description of ‘race’ were of biomorphological interest, which was not the case with characteristics that, in general, defined constitutions (1933a: 45). At this time, the study of constitutional types (the most common being respiratory, abdominal, muscular and cerebral)14 was, for some authors, one of the most fruitful guidelines of anthropology. In this context, some psychiatrists, such as Ernest Kretschmer (1888‒1964), valued the knowledge of constitutions and the study of internal secretions, such as hormones, which allowed relationships to be established between morphological types and endocrine activity. Morphology also sought to ascertain what behaviours, diseases and predispositions each of the ‘types’ thus defined would have. Mendes Correia found it interesting to register various morphological combinations that would enable a more detailed subdivision; however, he added that this would lead not to types, but to individuals. For example, he considered that ‘it is premature to intend to establish an exclusively endocrinological classification of offenders’ and concluded that ‘the living reality is not, after all, the races, constitutions and diseases, but individuals’ and ‘in biology, types are replaced by individuals’ (1933a: 69, 75). According to him, the environment, although it was not omnipotent, was the ‘breakthrough condition’ for some individuals or geniuses. He concluded from his studies that it was mainly in the large Portuguese urban, cultural and university centres,15 such as Porto, Coimbra, Évora and Lisbon, that the greatest number of distinguished individuals was to be found, with a notable proportion of them in the city of Coimbra; in other words, in many of these cases it was the environment which acted as a factor of stimulus and advantage, and he recognized that although ‘tendencies’ may be inherited, it is ‘education and the environment’ that complete the individual constitution (Mendes Correia 1933a: 83). The influence of the environment was highlighted by Mendes Correia, but it did not always hold the same value. As for the individuals he classified as criminals, he continued to criticize Lombroso’s atavistic ideas and pointed to works written in Portugal that opposed Lombroso’s delinquent theory (1931a, 1932h). Interestingly, however, the atavistic ideas appear in an article about beggars surveyed at the Porto Entreposto,16 in which Mendes Correia found ‘a similarity between some of their types and those of criminals’ and recognized ‘nearly identical processes that determine begging and crime’; moreover, he considered that the alms with which ‘private charity intensifies begging in the streets’ should be prohibited (1919h: 1, 8). This article, which was later included in A Nova Antropologia Criminal (1931a), is, according

186  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

to criminologist Quintiliano Saldaña17 (1933: 6), the least regarded part of Mendes Correia’s criminology. But Mendes Correia believed that the beggars who were often found in hostels and begging houses were ‘weakwilled and maladjusted’ and were incapable of taking the initiative or persevering in earning a living (1931a: 179‒80). Mendes Correia included prostitutes in an ‘anthropological and social category’ close to that of the criminal, as ‘degeneration, neurosis, psychosis, especially moral madness, hysteria and mental weakness, spread abundant stigmatization’ among them; just as criminals were victims of their social environment, prostitutes were influenced by ‘deplorable social conditions, such as abandonment by their family, abuse, misery, seduction, unhappy love affairs, bad or no education’, being ‘the determining factors of prostitution … parallel in essence to the parallelism of criminality’; both prostitution and crime were ‘social scourges’, which are equivalent in their aetiology, meaning and consequences; and prostitutes were ‘prison regulars’ and had multiple convictions (1913a: 77‒78, 240‒41). Although he recognized the existence of individuals with a greater predisposition to deviant and criminal behaviour, Mendes Correia denied that there was a ‘type’ of born delinquent, since any individual can be a delinquent; thus, although he did not establish a direct relationship with pathology, he admitted the possibility that there may be an offender pathology; criminal anthropology ‘must not systematically consider the criminal as a bio-anthropologically aberrant being, but must also regard him as a normal man’ (1925a: 8). He suggested (1913a) the possibility of finding an index of Portuguese value based on the study of criminality, as there was a lower percentage in Portugal than that of countries considered more cultured and progressive; homicides, for example, were more frequent than in France and northern countries, but less so than in Austria, Spain, Hungary and Italy; in the case of theft, in the context of Europe, Portugal had the lowest numbers and ‘given the poor economic conditions of the Portuguese population, their family, legal and political disorganization and the poor educational environment … more advanced delinquency would be expected’ (Mendes Correia 1919b: 162). In the article entitled ‘A Habitual Delinquent’, Mendes Correia characterizes a person who appears in the judicial and police records as being a ‘pickpocket’. He starts by giving his biographical data (name, place of birth, age, marital status, residence and reason for arrest) and then collects data on ‘heredity’, ‘personal antecedence’, ‘morphology’ (descriptive and anthropometric characteristics), physiology and psychology, and ends up considering him to be incorrigible, one who gets out of jail and goes back to stealing; for this reason, he considers that deporting him or sentencing him to unlimited confinement in a penal colony where he would be obliged to work profitably

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  187

for himself and for society would be more suitable. He adds that being out of jail for a few months from time to time was pointless from the point of view of correction (1913b: 14). However, this and other cases led him to conclude that: Born criminals are atypical beings. They are often marked by numerous stigmas of degeneration, but it is impossible to demonstrate that there are any strict norms in the distribution of these stigmas, let alone that they are of atavistic origin. There are believed to be correlations between some anatomical signs and criminal tendencies, but … a rule has not been found. (Mendes Correia 1913a: 114)

Mendes Correia’s originality also lies in the idea of the criminal’s moral, or psychomoral, individuality. This idea opened new horizons for the study of the causes of crime, which interested both medical examiners (who could treat them) and jurists (who could punish them). The idea of observing (by the doctor) and punishing (by the lawyer), present in institutions where Mendes Correia exercised his duties, recalls Foucault (1975) and his analyses in similar institutions. For Quintiliano Saldaña,18 the main issue involved in crime was not criminal intent, but criminal capacity and the result of the crime and the punishment; it was the degree of criminal capacity that was at stake, as well as the skill in punishing it. Between approximately 1880 and 1920, there was a collaboration in Portugal between doctors and jurists for the coordination between criminal anthropology and psychiatry. However, despite the techniques or equipment used being similar or identical to those of other countries, the place (country) where they were carried out could lead to different results. The legislation, the police or judicial power, the convictions, what is considered a crime or not and how it should be punished should be taken into account. João Fatela suggests that violence was hidden in Portugal as a cultural practice and that this occurred not only in this country, or during the Salazar dictatorship, but throughout the West, ‘as it became a delinquent practice’ (1989: 14). According to Fatela, this concealment cannot be separated from the legal-criminal movement that, from the nineteenth century onwards, began to hide it in the delinquent’s body and in prison in order to correct it, and ‘the legal definition of crime or tort (“voluntary fact declared punishable by criminal law”, according to article 1 of the former Portuguese Penal Code)’ was the basis for bounding a field of investigation that determines the logic of violence (1989: 14). The history of anthropology was thus linked to the history of criminology. According to Fatela, various anthropologists (including Mendes Correia) were involved in this criminalization; perhaps this was the reason behind Mendes Correia’s need to isolate himself from these intentions when he stated in A Nova Antropologia Criminal that his

188  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

work was the testimony of an anthropologist (1931a: v) and that it was the jurists who should establish prophylaxis and therapies for the individual factors of crime. For this reason, except on incidental occasions, he set aside penal problems, the penitentiary issue and the social reforms related to the fight against crime. He also separated himself from any association with potential schools: Not being a Lombrosian, I recognize the innovative merit of the positive school and the services it has rendered to the doctrines of individualization and social defence. Nor do I align with the idealist school,19 though I do consider psychological factors, especially those of the moral psyche, as the most direct in the genesis of crime. (1931a: vi)

However, Mendes Correia claimed that he was increasingly convinced of the atypical situation of criminals and the inanity of the multiple classifications proposed for them, as, for the most part, they were ‘individuals who were irreducible to the schematism of established types’ (1931a: vi); at various points in this book (1931a: 254‒58, 295‒99) he was concerned with the doctrines of Freud and psychoanalysis. For him, the unconscious and the deep strata of the personality played an important role in individual psychological life; however, he did not accept incest, the Oedipus complex, according to which children would be attracted to the parent of a different sex, as Freud did, since this could be denied. Furthermore, he considered the role Freud attributed to the libido and the sexual instinct to be unfounded. In lectures in Paris and Brussels (1932h), he refused to accept the generalization of the Oedipus complex and the extent attributed to the libido; nevertheless, he believed in the perspectives that these works opened to other investigators, such as Carl Jung and Otto Rank, who would take disturbances of volition and more current phenomena into account and not merely old psychic traumas. Mendes Correia also pointed out the existence of a moral and ethical deficit in criminals, which reinforced the affinity between tramps, beggars and criminals (1931a). The idea of morality, in part inspired by Nietzsche,20 was a constant theme for him and is present in several of his works. When he wrote, he was not just reflecting on a subject, but how he viewed it morally. This was not about religiosity, but about morality. I think Mendes Correia struggled with morality while writing; he almost always analysed the advantages and disadvantages of everything, one side and the other, the thing and its opposite, and in the end, he seemed to seek balance and was moved by the idea of morality. Religious morality was one of the concerns in his memoir (Mendes Correia 1946b); in this case, and as he wanted to justify the existence of a religious morality, he sought examples from his previous writings. According to him, the most profound and decisive

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  189

evolution of his thinking took place between the first and second editions of Homo (i.e. between 1924 and 1926). Without abandoning transformism, he recognized that there was a spiritualistic evolution between one edition and another. On the other hand, there is a spiritual side that shows through in some of his writings. For example, in Os povos primitivos da Lusitânia, he spoke of revelation and religious respect for God and, at the end, alluded to natural, healthy and beautiful virtues such as ‘the enlightened self-denial that produces saints’ (1924a: 5, 381). In the case of criminal activity, he saw its factors as being dependent on the nervous system and endocrine glands. However, he considered the problem of criminality, although not simply a moral one, to be moral above all. He further argued that biological, psychological and social factors can be glimpsed in individual morality and act upon each other. In his lecture ‘The Normal Delinquent and the Moral Crisis’, he stated that there was no scientific morality and that a morality without sanction or obligation was pure ideological artifice, a theory without roots or efficacy; here he made an association between Lanessan’s ‘morals of transformism’, the ‘natural morals’ of others, Nietzsche’s ‘morals of lords’ and Spinoza’s ‘morals of perfection’. He also proclaimed that there is only one morality – the religious – which is even in the subconscious of some agnostic or anti-religious spirits, converted into a dogma of conduct (Mendes Correia 1925a: 12, 21, 15). Mendes Correia also read Henri Lichtenberger’s La Philosophie de Nietzsche (1898). Although he did not consider himself a Nietzschean, he pondered on some of the philosopher’s passages. In 1910 he had already published the article ‘Tolstoy and Nietzsche, Opposites in Philosophy, Brothers in Living’ in the newspapers O Porto (19 November 1910) and O Imparcial (21 November 1910); according to the then young student, Tolstoy appeared in his work as a: Venerable figure of an apostle of ultra-Christian ideals, of supreme selflessness, limitless altruism … of great value for humanity … a friend of the oppressed, an intransigent adversary … of those who … trample a multitude of unhappy people, poor creatures … ignorant, hungry, living in the saddest and most desolate misery. (Mendes Correia 1910b)

Nietzsche, on the other hand, who also thought about becoming a pastor, but abandoned his faith in his youth, ‘does not bow to the values of the past that bear the Christian note, which represent the slightest altruistic aspiration, the slightest pious emotion’. Furthermore: While he does not bow before a fussy and insufferable aristocracy of cretinous snobs, he nevertheless preaches the morals of lords, allows for a great aristocracy, of which Zarathustra, the superman, is a symbolic creation. He fights the

190  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

scoundrels, the mobs and understands slavery, because he does not tolerate the inferior and sick slave morality, which naturally leads them to the laughter of oppression. (1910b)

For Mendes Correia, ‘Tolstoy, in his communist conception, establishes an ideal of Humanity’ and Nietzsche ‘in his individualism … conceives, in a flash of genius, the superman, male creator of values, audacious enemy of scoundrels and modern decadence’ (1910b). At the end of the article, Mendes Correia considered that the contrast between the ideas and doctrines of these two figures was apparent and that they were complementary. Both lived modest, humble and selfless lives, and their ideas could provide the answer to some social and moral problems. From the perspective of this final year student on the medical course, as he was then, ‘one can be generous and strong, humanitarian and jealous of their personal power, altruistic and great in their individuality’ and ‘pity is ridiculous and even repugnant when it is cowardice, a total abdication, a complete denial of the “ego”’ (Mendes Correia 1910b). When writing articles like this one, he seemed to outline his interests, give structure to his postures and argue his ideas. It was often the moral issues that were important for him: what, from a moral point of view, it is right or not to do. At a later point, he reconsidered his criticisms of morality and Christianity; in ‘The Moral Attitude’ he lamented that scientific progress was not accompanied by moral progress (1925l). The confused way in which morality was sited was perhaps, according to him, due to the fact that some religious dogmas that constituted the foundation for moral conscience had been lost. From this article it appears that although his interest in Nietzsche’s work remained, Mendes Correia had become more critical; however, it seems that knowledge of Nietzsche’s work would have been valid in interpretive terms and useful in the sense of contributing to a greater balance in taking positions and defending excessively humanitarian or altruistic ideas, which could be revealing of hidden selfishness. The question of morality played a preponderant role in Mendes Correia’s studies of criminal anthropology. Although Paul Topinard had fought the designation criminal anthropology in 1885, as he considered anthropology to be anthropozoological and ethnic somatology, this designation should not be abandoned according to Mendes Correia, as anthropology can be physical or psychological, and ‘if it is the latter, which is mainly of interest to the study of delinquents, we must always keep in mind … the relationships that exist between the physical and the moral’ (1931a: 311). Mendes Correia defended the idea that there was no problem in designating the new criminal anthropology as integral criminal anthropology (Saldaña’s expression), as this encompassed both biologically normal and

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  191

abnormal delinquents; moreover, this designation had the advantage of avoiding confusion with Lombrosian criminal anthropology (1931a: 311). For Mendes Correia, although some authors still defended Lombroso’s old concept in the 1930s, it was no longer acceptable to consider criminals as morphologically distinct. Thus, it was necessary to research not only descriptive or somatological characteristics, but above all their ‘moral individuality’. In this sense, general anthropology could have medical and legal applications, which were defined as follows: Judicial anthropology requires important elements of this science not only for services of anthropometric and dactyloscopic identification … but also for other scientific police work, especially in cosmopolitan centres where people of different origins, individuals of very different races and customs have to be dealt with. (1931a: 57)

For Mendes Correia, it made sense to speak of a ‘criminal ethnography’ and that cultural anthropology could provide the key to certain criminal manifestations, guiding the police and justice in investigating and identifying criminals (1931a: 57‒58). Another element for consideration was the criminal’s individual file, which was to be filled out as a result of collaboration between an anthropologist and a physician, or was to be done by physicians with anthropological training; the technique of medical-anthropological examination should enable ‘discrimination of the factors and mechanisms of their crimes, the degree of their criminal capacity, the special nature and development of their moral feelings and ideas, their character and their aptitudes’. However, he considered that ‘psychological analysis’ could not lead to conclusive results and that there was a danger of exaggerations arising from the ‘personal coefficient of appreciation and exclusivist doctrinal tendencies’ (Mendes Correia 1925a: 23‒24). He noted that he had not been able to ‘reliably discern the relative value of certain conditions such as race, heredity, physical environment, pathological anomalies, psychological tendencies, moral and religious education, social environment, etc.’ in the determining of offences; although he recognized that there could exist a combination of these various factors, they were registered in different degrees. He further understood that in ‘crime prophylaxis’, in addition to eugenic measures (to combat ‘morbid heredity, physical degeneration and pathogens’) and social reforms for legal, professional and economic problems, moral action connected to spiritual values and a belief that humanity can always improve were necessary (1925a: 25, 21). He believed that ‘the criminal is wrongly considered … a biologically anomalous being’; conversely, he held that ‘every normal man, every sane man, is endowed with criminal capacity’, ‘all of us are potentially born criminals’ and often it was

192  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

the environment, or a fortuitous situation, that triggered the crime (1931a: 54‒55). Both in Portuguese prisons and in the Refúgio,21 an annex of the Porto Youth Detention Centre (Tutoria),22 Mendes Correia says that he encountered: A large mass of delinquents whose criminal acts cannot be considered the product of degenerative flaws or pathological defects, but are essentially the consequence of a deplorable earlier education. Some were absolutely ignorant of certain moral ideas. Were they insusceptible to acquiring these ideas? In general, no. (1925a: 3)

The Tutoria collective court 23 consisted of a magistrate, a doctor and a teacher. As a doctor and assistant judge at the Porto Youth Detention Centre, established in 1912, Mendes Correia took part in this court several times as a doctor and issued opinions on children and young people24 from that year until the mid-1920s. The Tutoria was a republican project of social regeneration that aimed to eliminate crime and youth felonies, but also to watch over and protect the most disadvantaged social classes. In the Tutoria and similar places, each minor was observed and examined carefully to determine their physical, intellectual and moral condition, and analyse their dysfunctions, ‘psychological disturbances, ethical irregularities, academic or educational gaps, professional skills’, as well as ‘ascertaining the environment from which they come’; using anthropometric methods, their sensory (hearing ability, visual sensitivity and chromatic sense), neuromuscular (reaction times, muscle resistance and bimanual coordination) and mental (memory and practical sense) functions were evaluated (Lopes et al. 2001: 35, 37). In this context, and according to the positivist rationale, bodies were treated almost like objects: they could be observed, analysed and manipulated. As Foucault (1975) suggested, Lopes et al. also point out that in some places, such as in youth detention centres, we find a ‘tension … between homogenization (normalization of obedience to highly fixed codes) and individualization (the incessant production of files, diagnoses and exams that allow the immediate location of the subject’s history)’ (2001: 43). The Tutoria was a space for resocialization and purging (with the aim of eliminating previous records) of the inmates, providing them with an environment that would lead them to reflect on their actions. From previous observations recorded in publications (Mendes Correia 1911, 1913a) and from those carried out in the Tutoria, Mendes Correia drew his conclusions: criminal behaviour was mainly associated with social and economic conditions, linked to aspects of moral order, education and training, hygiene and mental health rather than individuals’ physical components (1915a). Elsewhere, he stated that crime does not decrease

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  193

with education, but it can bring a reduction in the most violent occurrences (Mendes Correia 1912a, 1913c) and he argued for the development of measures to combat social deprivation. A few years earlier, geographer Gérard Péry also considered that serious crimes had decreased not because of the abolition of the death penalty in the mid-nineteenth century, but because of the increased educational level of the people (1875: 284). For Mendes Correia, examining children and young people contributed to an understanding of the roots of crime and criminality in adults (1915a, 1925a, 1931a).25 The instruction referred to by him was part of education. Education was a whole which was related to the morals that must be part of the family; a lack of parents or bad examples set by them meant the educational role was compromised. For him, ‘moral imperfection … is the fulcrum of the criminal problem’ (1925a: 21). It was because the children were in ‘moral danger’26 that they should be under the tutelage of the state, with the state replacing the family; they were the institutions that exercised pedagogical and social reintegration functions. Defining the ‘Norm’, Finding the ‘Deviation’ Correia wrote about various deteriorations – linguistic, moral or behavioural – defined from the starting point of norms and deviations, or from the establishment of deviant behaviour in the terminology of Goffman (1963). Mendes Correia wrote ‘The Slang of Delinquent Children’, in which he explored the vocabulary used by minors admitted to the Youth Detention Centre (1931a: 57‒169), resulting from a review of an article published in 1915 in the Tutoria journal. On the other hand, Mendes Correia analysed the slang used by ‘Portuguese criminals’ (1913a: 244‒47); he pointed out that some vocabulary was not exclusive to delinquent children and was in common use in criminal circles in Porto (1931a: 159). The deviation in linguistic skills also allowed him to establish associations between language and psychology: The Black who learned Portuguese did not change his race. But it is undeniable that his mentality became closer to the Portuguese mentality than that of Blacks who only speak the indigenous language. If the Portuguese language is not, however, a product of his psychology, it will, however, influence it as an instrument of mental assimilation. (Mendes Correia 1931a: 166)

The distortion Correia, ‘slang who use them, emblems, such

of the norm reveals the deviation. According to Mendes and certain tattoos pull down the morally regular people to some extent’; it does not matter that tattoos are religious as crucifixes, as the ‘delinquents’ who used them often did

194  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

not know their meaning or adopted them out of subservience or imitation, and they could exist side by side with ‘obscene representations’ such as ‘naked women in lubricious positions’. Manifestations of religiosity of criminals and prostitutes had a tenuous moral value, as they did not ‘guide their conduct by the norms established by religion’ and might even evoke the divinity and the saints ‘in their criminal machinations’ (1931a: 166, 168‒69). Mendes Correia also analysed ‘criminals in Portuguese popular traditions’ to ascertain whether in popular formulations there was ‘a vague feeling of the modern doctrines of criminal anthropology about the individual diversity of criminals’, criminal somatology, heredity, correctability and fearfulness of offenders (1931a: 207). He indicated situations of popular and cultured origins; adages, for example, can highlight: incorrigibility; individual diversity; relations of external morphology with psychological or moral qualities (taking into account height, body signs or eye colour); heredity; madness and weakness of spirit; habit and influence of companies and the educational regime; begging, vagrancy, idleness and prostitution; random and occasional criminals; and the excesses of crowds.27 In several instances, he found disparities and contradicting adages; nicknames could also reflect physical or psychic defects, or criminal tendencies. On the other hand, superstitions and omens related to crimes and criminals were ‘naive beliefs’, as well as the belief in certain interpretations of dreams. However, he considered that the erotic character of some dreams was less vulgarized than Freud’s analysis intended and that some objects did not appear there as sexual symbols, since Portuguese popular semiology ‘is much more chaste than the Austrian psychologist intends, in its bold generalization’ (1931a: 252‒57). Mendes Correia concluded that the people ‘clearly distinguish between the moral personality of the random offender and that of the repeat offender’, when analysing episodes in pilgrimages and fairs or acts of a greater or lesser gravity, such as poisoning, infanticide or treason; these people, though ‘ignorant’ and ‘easily deceived’ by an attitude or tears, nevertheless had the capacity to condemn certain crimes and discern that moral ruin is the worst of all ruins (1931a: 259‒62). More surprising is his finding that popular formulations have truths from modern criminal anthropology, such as heredity, cases of incorrigibility and the action of the environment and education in criminality. According to him, the morality of the people was influenced by religious commandments and, as Adolfo Coelho pointed out, the Portuguese popular mentality extols loyalty, fidelity, firmness and integrity of character as symbols of high morality; it was ‘in firm moral education’ that the ‘basic element of the uprising of the Nation’ was imposed (Mendes Correia 1931a: 263‒64). It can be concluded that Mendes Correia, at the same time as criticizing Lombroso and giving rise to the task of the anthropologist by promoting

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  195

the importance of individuality and knowledge of its context, ended up typifying the Portuguese by attributing identifiable psychological characteristics to them, such as ‘excessive and unstable as authentic southerners’ ‘aggressive and intelligent’, and not possessing ‘the cruelty of the Calabrian or the Neapolitan, nor the cold cunning, measured and shrewd skill of the northerner’; these characteristics also led him to the conclusion that the Portuguese, as ‘the least fierce and the least cunning’ of the southerners, were those who had the lowest percentages of homicides and crimes against property in the statistics28 (1913a: 39). Thus, although he criticized Lombroso and correctly argued that crime is relative and that the individuals who commit it can be normal beings at the outset, Mendes Correia ended up not following his misgivings to their ultimate consequences; indeed, he did not deny the individual compulsion to commit a crime. However, by considering that there are social and national reasons for certain behaviours, he ended up diminishing the importance of this individuality, i.e. by replacing the biological determinism proposed by Lombroso, the result, in a way, is social determinism. However, in some situations, Mendes Correia sought to analyse the sociocultural context in which the crime occurred; he recalled, for example, that a provocation ‘fully justifies, in popular morality, a violent redress, as self-defence in the eyes of the courts’ (1931a: 259). The attempts to try to explain the behaviours considered deviant continue. Currently, there are still two theses that support the possible correlation between biology and deviant behaviour: by António Damásio, who highlights the role of the orbitofrontal cortex as a sensitive area in psychopaths; and James Blair, for whom the amygdala (the area between the orbitofrontal cortex and the hippocampus) is the zone that is the focal point for the study of individuals considered to be criminals.

Population Policy: Education, Gender, Hygiene and Prophylaxis In 1890, 61.1% of the Portuguese population was dedicated to rural work, with 18.4% in industrial work; by 1960, these percentages had changed to 47% and 27%, respectively (Lopes 1996: 950). Over time, techniques for monitoring the population at times such as production, birth, death and disease have been perfected. This form of power acted on individuals, but also on the population in general. Power and its relationship to knowledge was also in the practice of medicine. Physicians, in trying to find an answer to social ills, brought anthropology and biology closer together, living up to their training, and focused on alcoholism, poverty or malnutrition. Alternatively, they questioned whether some pathologies had a natural origin or would be a consequence of hunger, degeneration due

196  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

to consanguinity, poverty or other forms of deprivation. The answer to these questions was through debate about social hygiene and sterilization. Doctors were, in fact, the great social hygienists. Mental health was also important. One of the aspects that united Mendes Correia and José de Matos Sobral Cid, Miguel Bombarda and Júlio de Matos was the fact that they were concerned about mental health (in addition to all being republicans). Health, and specifically mental health, was a national issue. Underlying nationalist ideals for keeping the population healthy were issues related to schooling and education. At the school level, Mendes Correia wrote the aforementioned Crianças Delinquentes (1915a); he also wrote specific texts on education, pedagogy and pedagogical methods (Mendes Correia 1925i), extending the theme to the re-education of disabled war veterans (Mendes Correia 1917d), and participated in national broadcasting programmes and published these interventions. The theme of education and schooling ran through several of his texts, as well as the intervention he would make in the political field, as will be seen in Chapter 5. According to him, for educators, there is not just one theoretical child, but different children; for the criminologist and the jurist, there is not just one type of criminal, but only criminals; for the doctor, there are no diseases, but diseased people. Mendes Correia believed that no child should attend school without first being observed from a medical-anthropological perspective. Furthermore, collaboration between the physician-anthropologist and the teacher was required. According to him, the following were needed: special anthropological preparation; use of a proper anthropometric technique; methods of experimental psychology; and knowledge about child development and variations due to sex, age, ethnicity, social setting, morphology and psychology. Among these areas of knowledge, he highlighted those of E.C. Rowe, Alice C. Strong, William Henry Pyle and Umberto Saffiotti, among others, on ‘mental differences between children of various races’, and of William Henry Pyle and Alfredo Niceforo on ‘somatic and psychic differences in children of various social classes’ (Mendes Correia 1931a: 19). The IAUP itself, headed by Mendes Correia, provided medical and anthropological records to educational establishments and prepared questionnaires on school delinquency aimed at high school students and primary school teachers. With regard to these questionnaires, Mendes Correia recalled the survey carried out by the IAUC on the colour of the hair and eyes of students in Portuguese primary schools (Tamagnini 1915). However, Mendes Correia stressed his interest in obtaining other elements, since in the case of pigmentation, for example, not using a chromatic scale with defined standards raised the ‘danger of personal coefficients of appreciation and the diversity of criteria in the designation of colours’. For this reason,

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  197

he considered that ‘the information given by teachers about some psychological and moral qualities, educational conditions, achievement, etc., of their students was unquestionably safer’; although there could be a lack of sincerity in the responses to the questionnaires addressed to students, he reinforced the importance of surveys in the study of pedagogical processes, moral problems and issues of life outside school, as they were ‘matters of the greatest national interest’ (1925i: 3, 7). The information provided in the school environment could be extended to what Mendes Correia would designate professional anthropology, although he did not use this expression; he thought an anthropologist should not abandon his subjects when they left school, but should accompany them to the workplace and to industrial work. It seems that from his perspective, anthropologists would be more dedicated to observing individuals whose intellectual competence was reduced or directed towards manual work; the anthropologist, as he said, ‘helps in the diagnosis of aptitudes’ (1931a: 21). However, for their evaluation, what is analysed is their robustness or competence for services in places such as railway companies. For him, ethnic differences in professional capacity and energy29 should also be taken into account; in addition to the workshops and factories, ‘anthropological observations’ were carried out in barracks. Indeed, in addition to those carried out by other researchers, such as Fonseca Cardoso, work was carried out at the IAUP based on the population of the barracks. Aurélio da Costa Ferreira had already highlighted the usefulness of using robustness coefficients, dynamometry, ergometry and experimental psychology processes and of morphological classification in the services of the military medical inspection for the recruitment of young men and selection of candidates for airmen (1931a: 26‒28). Mendes Correia also reflected on the role of Portuguese women. On the one hand, he analysed the ‘condition of women’, based on studies that compared their physical and mental capacities with those of men. In 1917, he began to study skeletons and their sexual differences, but considered that most Portuguese anthropology set aside ‘female anthropology’, which had ‘a high degree of scientific interest, even from an ethnic point of view’; he concluded that the ‘criterion of a phylogenetic or taxonomic hierarchy should not apply to the sexes, which we should rather consider as different morphological and functional expressions of the same evolutionary level’, and that ‘women are neither superior nor inferior to men’, being ‘equal on the zoological scale’. However, he considered that there was a profound difference between the male and female mentality (Mendes Correia 1934c: 371, 376‒77), i.e. although not physically inferior, the woman held a sense of reality stemming from determinism, albeit a social one, which had long existed:

198  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Female intelligence, no matter how high and admirable, never displays the creative power of the genius mind of a Newton or a Leonardo de Vinci. Her most servile and timid feature is perhaps, in large part, the expression of a secular social determinism, even the atavistic heritage of a multi-millenary, pre-human past of submission and obedience. But even if such a feature were nothing else, it did not cease to constitute, like heredity, a tremendous and incurable reality, a biological fact that no human force can destroy. (1934c: 378)

Although Mendes Correia recognized that it was social determinism that most influenced the way women behaved or the intellectual skills they revealed, he considered that their understanding of the world was different from that of men and that their capacities for motivation and action were inferior; he did not reduce women ‘to the simple condition of a sensitive being’ and said that he admired the constancy of their activities, their analytical faculties and their subtlety in detail. However, their ‘power of enlightened volition, their character, their capacity for action’ differed structurally from the ‘corresponding masculine faculties’ (1934c: 378). He reproduced the stereotypes of male gender domination, stating that ‘true feminism’ should cultivate and encourage the woman’s own virtues, her ‘luminous role as a heroine of domestic virtues, as a home angel, as a loving companion, as a blessed mother’, i.e. reducing women to a set of roles previously assigned by the bonds of family and society. He considered that a wife should not be a slave or a ‘poor ignorant person, incapable of understanding her husband’s intellectual aspirations’, but should not be a ‘competitor of the other sex, rather a collaborator’; on the other hand, in politics women should not ‘meddle in matters that go beyond the familiar sphere of the parish and municipality’ (1934c: 379). As I will show in Chapter 5, this idea changes when he spoke in 1946 at the AN, for example, in favour of the importance of votes for women and the participation of women in politics, although he recognized that women faced a more complicated social problem than men, as they were required to have a ‘purity of attitudes and customs that few men possess’; thus, issues such as divorce, female celibacy, prostitution and women’s sex education were covered with a complexity that, he believed, evoked the need to better prepare women for social life ‘in an intelligent prophylaxis of these evils’. These evils, he made clear, were often the responsibility of men, from whom ‘a moral attitude of greater elevation and nobility’ should be demanded (1934c: 380). In the field of health, there were three notable reforms in Portugal in 1901, 1945 and 1971. In addition to these, the 1926 reform is also worth noting, as it sought to address the deficiencies of the 1901 statutes. The first reform, known as the reform of the famous hygienist Ricardo de Almeida Jorge (1858–1939), was related to a social hygiene project which he conceived and proposed in 1884. This reform, which preceded the Republic (1910),

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  199

gave the state ‘a role of coordinating assistance initiatives’, whether public or private, with reduced direct state initiatives, favouring and encouraging actions of a private and philanthropic nature (Costa 2009: 74). During Mendes Correia’s period of activity, after the establishment of the Republic, there was a strengthening of state intervention, since the 1911 Constitution enshrined the right to public assistance with the creation of the General Directorates of Health and Social Assistance. With the consolidation of the corporative regime in the Estado Novo (established in 1933), the principles of a ‘statist, secular and even socialist character’ were replaced by a re-evaluation of private beneficence initiatives, also known as charitable assistance of an almost exclusively confessional nature, with an evident influence of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church in social and welfare policy. Thus, while other European countries began to face the question of health and assume it as a matter of state in the 1930s, the Estado Novo preferred to adopt an ‘attitude that was concomitantly promoting and inspecting private care institutions’ (Costa 2009: 76, 79). During this period, it was difficult to include concern for the health system in the political programme. Support was often reduced to orthopathy and welfare practice, especially for the more passive fringes of society. Professionals from industry, commerce and services, excluding the rural population, had the support of social security organizations, organized by national guilds and unions. Some important periodicals that included medical concerns in the first half of the twentieth century were: Boletim da Ordem dos Médicos, Brotéria, Jornal do Médico and O Médico; Mendes Correia’s work was published in Brotéria, Jornal do Médico and Portugal Médico. On the other hand, the International Health Conferences resulted from the idea that the health of peoples should be treated on an international basis by the various governments; between 1851 and 1938, there were fourteen conferences to regulate the international prophylaxis of major epidemic diseases. However, Portugal had one of the highest mortality rates among European countries (in 1946 it was 14.7 per 1,000 inhabitants), especially when compared to countries that participated in the Second World War; the same was true of infant mortality, with ‘almost one in ten Portuguese children dying in their first year of life’ in 1953 (Costa 2009: 51, 55). Mendes Correia was also associated with foreign institutions linked to hygiene, specifically mental hygiene, such as the Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene, to which he was invited during his visit to Brazil in 1934. The proposal, published by the Jornal do Brasil on 29 June 1934, referred to Portuguese nuclei with parallel activities or with a similar medical and social agenda; it pointed out that only the previous year (1933), Renato Kehl,30 President of the Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene, had returned from Europe and brought news about Portuguese societies such as the Portuguese

200  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

League for Social Prophylaxis, the Society of Anthropology and Ethnology, and the Society of the Study of Eugenics (AAVV 1935: 48). Although the latter (founded in 1937) was still being organized, all of them had an affinity with the Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene. At the inaugural session of the CNCP, as part of the Congresses of the Portuguese World, Mendes Correia (1940a) pointed out that the progress of biology, hygiene and medicine were collaborating elements in a serious population policy and that demographic-social problems benefited from modern branches of biology, such as heredology, sexology, biometrics,31 endocrinology, biotypology and constitutionalism. Nutrition was another aspect addressed by Mendes Correia (1951f), supported by the idea that the nation needed capable and robust people; as a deputy, he took this issue to the AN sessions of 15 December 1945, 27 January 1948 and 29 January 1948 (see Chapter 5). Racial Health, Betterment of the ‘Race’ and Eugenics Charles Darwin (1859), inspired by the population theories of the Protestant pastor Thomas Malthus (1766‒1834), had defined the process of natural selection of species and argued that they were not immutable, but evolved gradually; according to Darwin (1859), natural selection preserved favourable differences and variations, and eliminated harmful variations, i.e. fitter beings lived longer and had more offspring ‒ it made no sense to speak of the existence of permanent racial types, as populations adapted and evolved progressively. Darwin’s theory, inspired by the natural world, was suited to the analysis of human societies and other areas. Also during the nineteenth century, and after evolutionism, eugenics emerged, a practice or social movement that sought to improve the physical and moral qualities of future generations, mainly through the social control of marriage. The term ‘eugenics’ (eu – good, genus – generation) was created in 1883 by Francis Galton (1822‒1911), Darwin’s cousin. Although this ‘novel’ term is associated with 1883, eugenics was not a new idea, as the ancient Greeks had referred to the elimination of the incapable. This association perhaps stems from the proximity of eugenics to the shocking notion that less gifted individuals should not reproduce (Stepan 1991). In Hereditary Genius (1979 [1869]), Galton sought, using a statistical and genealogical method, to prove that human capacity was influenced by heredity and not by the environment, and suggested the prohibition of interracial marriages, with a view to improving populations and eliminating undesirable features. Galton drew inspiration from Darwinism to elaborate on the eugenic theory of ‘improving the human race’ in Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (1883), but concluded that the Darwinian selection process no longer operated in a ‘civilized’

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  201

environment, and intervention in the development of human beings was necessary. Galton was also inspired by the discoveries of Gregor Mendel (1822‒84), a Czech monk known as the founder of genetics. Mendel found that when wrinkled pods were crossed with smooth pods, the result tended to be wrinkled pods, as this was the dominant gene. Some eugenicists considered the wrinkled husk peas to be a degeneration (and not just a genetic variation). By transferring the result of these discoveries to humans, Galton found it necessary to keep the ‘breeds’ pure. Galton became President of the Eugenics Education Society in England in 1907 and was succeeded by Leonard Darwin, Darwin’s son. According to M. Sophia Quine (1996), at the time of the creation of this society, a group from the Nordic wing defended negative eugenic measures to prevent the transmission of hereditary defects (such as prohibition of marriage, sterilization and segregation of the ‘abnormal’), as delegates from the Latin Catholic countries32 insisted on positive measures (strengthening social assistance, maternal and child protection, and support for large families). These two forms of eugenics, present in several countries, came to be based on state intervention, although in different ways, through more or less constraining legislation (Pichot 2000: 159). Eugenics aroused the interest of scientists, physicians, legal experts and mental hygienists, but such a process must be seen as the culmination of an intellectual and social transformation in which human life was increasingly interpreted as the result of biological laws (Stepan 1991: 21). Questions were then raised regarding miscegenation, as this would allow uncontrollable combinations to be produced. Some theorists argued that inferior ‘races’ would be favoured, while superior ‘races’ would be disadvantaged, culminating in their degeneration. To prevent miscegenation, segregation of groups, isolation of ‘inferiors’ and sterilization were promoted. Eugenics became popular in Britain and the United States, at least until the first quarter of the twentieth century, although it was influential in other European countries such as Sweden. However, when it ceased to be just a theory and became a radical and unruly practice in Nazi Germany, it was subject to criticism and rejection (Llobera 2003: 84). In the context of Portugal at the beginning of the twentieth century, some authors, specifically Mendes Correia (1928a),33 addressed this theme, as they were concerned with the progress of the population. On the other hand, as Portugal administered overseas territories, some of these ideas were extended there. On some occasions, science and state power ended up supporting each other, often transmitting the idea that both contributed to the progress of the nation. One of the forerunners of eugenics in Portugal was the physician Câmara Sinval, who in 1837‒38, at the opening of the discipline of childbirth, stated as follows:

202  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Nubile virgin, when you propose becoming a mother, do you know if you will give rise to a valetudinary caste; or if, due to an anomaly in the construction of the generating apparatus, you are going to buy the delights of Hymen, at the price of your life? … Consult an obstetrician. I hope, gentlemen, that the government decides one day (and that it will be soon) to interfere, on the organic physical side, in the union of spouses. (Published in issue 188 of Gazeta Médica do Porto, 1849, cited in Mendes Correia 1941a)

In issue 158 of this magazine, Câmara Sinval had already dealt with the ‘importance of age, the conformation of the generating apparatus, certain diseases, such as pulmonary tuberculosis, uterine cancer, aneurysms, epilepsy, melancholy, venereal disease, certain diseases of the skin and hereditary diseases in marriage, the prohibition of which he advised in certain cases’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 6). In 1919 Júlio Dantas (1876–1962), future Minister of Public Education (1920) and Foreign Affairs (1921 and 1923), President of the ACL (1940) and General President of the Congresses of the Portuguese World (1940), proposed the introduction of the pre-nuptial exam, the prohibition of marriage between the sick and the isolation of individuals considered dangerous to the ‘race’ (Dantas 1919). According to historian Ana Leonor Pereira, the Portuguese case is not comparable to the dynamics of eugenics in Germany, England, the United States, Switzerland and the Nordic countries, but it reveals some similarities with French eugenics; this comes basically from the subordination of the eugenic spirit to the social hygiene movement and ‘it is understandable, given the hegemony of neo-Lamarckism (influence of the external environment on heredity) in the French biomedical community’ (Pereira 1999: 536). As we have seen, Mendes Correia was a defender of neo-Lamarckism (1915b); in 1919 he stated that ‘race is the plastic manifestation of a mesological past. If a new environment is created for it, it will certainly change’ (1919b: 168). However, the idea that the environment influences living beings and induces the adaptation and evolution of the species in Lamarckian terms began to fade in his work from the 1920s onwards, as indicated in Homo (Mendes Correia 1921a). A year after the military coup on 28 May 1926, at the National Congress of Medicine, Mendes Correia proposed that the human ‘shortage’ caused by the wave of emigration, mortality, tuberculosis and the illegitimacy of children had led to the need to take eugenic measures. In order not to manufacture ‘a miserable and incapable generation at the sad end of the race’, he proposed the establishment of: a family pedigree, segregation of recurrent criminals,34 sterilization and neoMalthusianism in cases of major deviations and profound illnesses, pre-nuptial examination with sanitary regulation of marriage, popular and school dissemination of eugenics (including sex education and venereal prophylaxis),

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  203

protection for pregnant women, medical regulation of immigration … the fight against disgenizing factors (alcoholism, use of alkaloids, prostitution, immorality, etc.). (1928a: 7)

Mendes Correia (1928a) was also concerned that, between 1915 and 1921, more than half of the men inspected in military recruitment were not accepted for lack of physical strength, height or health, or for physical deformities; for him, biosocial ineptitude was a constitutional-germinal phenomenon and therefore hereditary, against which hygienist means were not very effective. Another aspect that concerned him was immigration, which, he believed, should be regulated. In the First Portuguese Hygiene Week in 1931, he again proposed the investigation of the family pedigree (an idea taken up by the psychiatrist Barahona Fernandes) through the creation of a genealogical archive of patients, a measure put into practice five years later at the FMUL Psychiatric Clinic (Pimentel 1998: 22). In 1932 Mendes Correia was invited to organize the Porto section of the Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies, proposed in 1933 by Eusébio Tamagnini,35 the statutes of which were approved in 1934; it was founded in Coimbra on 9 December 193736 during the Centenary Celebrations of Coimbra University,37 in the presence of representatives from other countries, including the German Eugen Fischer, Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology in Berlin (Diário de Coimbra, 10 December 1937) and was active until 1974 (Matos 2010). In the 1930s, Mendes Correia once again proposed the prenuptial exam and argued that ‘eugenic sterilization’ was justified ‘in view of the morals such as medical advice on the use of condoms against venereal diseases in illicit sexual relations,38 or as health inspection of prostitution’; although birth control could be controlled, he recognized that ‘it is genetics itself that teaches us that the result of any conceptional act … is practically unpredictable’ and despite recognizing the need to increase knowledge about human heredity, he considered that enough was already known to allow precautions to be taken to avoid the transmission of certain manias and diseases (Mendes Correia 1934c: 353, 359‒60). However, he argued for the need to have limits, as attempts to improve humanity could lead to excessive standardization through the ‘monstrous purpose of, by scientific processes … reducing the whole of humanity to a uniform, mediocre and monotonous standard’ (1933a: 77). Despite his previous suggestions, in his speech at the CNCP’s39 inaugural session, Mendes Correia said that falling into ‘absurd and reprehensible neo-Malthusian excesses and eugenic radicalisms, condemned … by their precarious scientific basis – given our ignorance of many issues of heredity – and the respect due to human personality and morality’40 should be avoided (1940a). He did not defend the use of euthanasia, as there was a danger of

204  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

making a prognostic error and ‘we have no right to kill our fellow man’ (1946b: 28), and argued that, despite society seeking to defend itself from harmful beings, surgical mutilations parallel eugenic mutilation (1934c). He added that sterilization could have demoralizing effects on social life and, if widely practised, could deprive humanity and civilization of geniuses and great human beings. Between 10 November and 8 December 1935,41 the Swiss writer and theologian Gonzague de Reynold42 came to Portugal and wrote a book (1936) in which he quoted Mendes Correia. For Reynold, Portugal’s weaknesses were the same as the Portuguese: lack of hygiene, illiteracy, lack of physical education and weakness of the ‘race’. The Portuguese people were, especially south of Coimbra, highly mixed with ‘exotic races’ and this mixture of bloods harmed the nation; for this reason, the regime should take urgent action (1936). Interestingly, this book received the Camões award (from the SPN) in 1938, and Mendes Correia himself included some of Reynold’s judgements about the Portuguese people in Raças do Império (1943a) and Raízes de Portugal (1944b). Other Portuguese contemporaries of Mendes Correia concerned themselves with eugenics. For example, in the Demography and Hygiene43 section of the CNCP, João Avelar Maia de Loureiro44 (1901‒49), a physician and professor at the FMUL, argued that ‘the concept of eugenics necessarily involves a definition of what is the health of a race’, i.e. the ‘absence or rarity of flagrant diseases and anomalies in the individuals that compose it’ and the ‘ability to resist these diseases and not to procreate individuals with anomalies’ (Loureiro 1940: 124‒25). Among the greatest defenders of eugenics in Portugal were psychiatrists linked to state institutions such as Miguel Bombarda, Júlio de Matos, José de Matos Sobral Cid and Barahona Fernandes.45 However, although it had various apologists, even after the foundation of the Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies, eugenics was seen mainly in the context of social hygiene, i.e. resorting to environment and external factors. The social hygiene way (supported by the discoveries of chemistry, medicine and pharmacy) prevailed over that of eugenics, although the two could coexist. Discussions about eugenics added sociological, psychological and legal elements to biological arguments regarding the regulation of marriages and divorces. As for sterilization, there was a certain consensus on disapproving of it. In addition to Mendes Correia, the psychiatrist Miguel Bombarda also evaluated it negatively and criticized radical eugenics. Only Egas Moniz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1949, proposed sterilization to eliminate morbid heredity, although this was a measure restricted to more special clinical cases (Pereira 1999: 588).

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  205

In Portugal, the Church remained vigilant regarding excessive state intervention in the private and family domain, seeking to prevent the negative excesses of eugenics. Mendes Correia, for example, was the target of criticism from the Catholic camp; however, he considered his views moderate and continued to commend ‘a prenuptial medical check-up’ and ‘even, in very exceptional cases, eugenic sterilization’ (1946b: 101). In the speech of thanks for the honour he received at the SGL, Mendes Correia argued for the state creation of ‘a great Institute for Human Improvement, in the physical and moral aspect, with studies in human biology, genetics and social medicine’ (1957: 148). After his period of activity, there were those who continued to warn of the harm of eugenics, such as Maria Emília de Castro Almeida (daughter of the doctor António de Almeida), who said: Current or future eugenic practices … seem to us to be very dangerous, not only from a moral and ethnic point of view … but with regard to the future biological evolution of human groups. (Almeida 1968: 173)

Eugenic thinking was influential in Portugal at a time when demographic studies and studies of living and health conditions were a reason for broad reflection. Positive eugenics measures included the strengthening of social assistance and maternal and child protection, as evidenced by the child support homes created by Fernando Bissaya-Barreto and Elísio de Moura in Coimbra. Negative eugenics measures included attempts to eliminate physical and mental defects (transmissible through heredity), with suggestions of the prohibition of marriages and the segregation of individuals considered abnormal.46 There was sometimes a debate between quality and quantity. The most radical argued that only the most capable individuals should have more children; however, not only in Portugal, as in other European countries, fascist or demo-liberal, population increase was an important objective. Despite all these factors, in Portugal there was the persistence of humanist values, in part due to the Christian (and specifically Catholic) influence, with the intervention of the Church in the state; the principles of eugenics were not taken to their ultimate consequences with practices such as extermination or genocide, as in Germany, or sterilization as in Sweden between 1935 and 1974.

Colonial Anthropology Another area that Mendes Correia believed fit for the application of anthropology was colonial anthropology. Although there is no direct relationship, the production of knowledge about the colonies ended up giving power to

206  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

anthropology, which was reinforced by colonial studies. One of the characteristics of imperialist capitalism in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was the rush to colonize Africa and Asia. In the last decades of the Portuguese monarchy, there was ‘a policy of backcountry exploitation, military occupation and African economic exploitation, the latter largely through majestic foreign companies’; a ‘nationalist-colonialist current emerged in the literature, within which monarchists or republicans cannot be distinguished … and, on the other hand, positivists or secularists’ (Lopes 1996: 949). During the so-called partition of Africa, Portugal claimed areas of the African continent based on its ‘historical right’. However, this interest was shared with other countries, such as Great Britain, France and Germany, and from the 1870s onwards, historical right was found to be insufficient. For this reason, the geographical and scientific exploration of these territories needed to be reinforced. The SGL was founded in 187547 with the same objective as its European counterparts. A diffuse elite formed part of this society, consisting of higher education, civil and military professors, to which were added those of the liberal professions, intellectuals, merchants, industrialists and army officers. The Africa Commission, which prepared the expeditions of Hermenegildo Capelo, Roberto Ivens and Serpa Pinto, between 1877 and 1885 (Guimarães 1984), was established within it. The creation of the SGL brought a new dynamic to colonial studies and encouraged geographical explorations.48 In 1880, the SGL proposed that a colonial course be instituted by the public authorities, given at a Portuguese Oriental and Overseas Institute (Matos 2021). Thus began ‘scientific colonialism’ in action. In 1883 the Cartography Commission was created, and became the oldest Portuguese organization dedicated to research in tropical areas. Following territorial recognition achieved with the expeditions, the Pink Map was drawn up and presented at the Berlin Conference (1884‒85) (at which the African continent was divided up by the European powers); the referred map claimed a band of land for Portugal from Angola to the coast, i.e. Mozambique. This claim to sovereignty was also supported by military campaigns to conquer and occupy these territories. However, despite other countries agreeing with the project, England denied Portugal’s claim and in 1890 presented the Ultimatum, which demanded that the country withdraw military forces from the territory located between Mozambique and Angola (now Zimbabwe and Zambia). In spite of all the above, Portugal’s presence in Africa was reinforced from the end of the nineteenth century. In 1894, at the Instituto 19 de Setembro, a colonial course with ten subjects was created in Lisbon, although only the subject of colonial hygiene ran for a limited period. The contents concerning the colonies were also included in the School of Tropical Medicine, the Colonial School and the geography and history disciplines of the Higher

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  207

Course of Letters. The School of Tropical Medicine was created in 1902 with the support of the SGL and in 1935 was transformed into the Institute of Tropical Medicine. The Colonial School was created in 1906 to train civilian personnel for the administration of the overseas territories and the then Ministry of the Navy and Overseas; over time, this school changed its name, in line with the evolution of ideas about overseas politics, as well as changing the courses taught. The Naval School and the War School also had courses on colonial themes in the field of law and history. In 1974, there were already several subjects on the colonial theme in various university and military courses. However, a colonial university was never founded in the country. Besides, Portuguese colonialism and its relationship with political projects from the end of the nineteenth century, through the First Republic to the Estado Novo suggest that, as mentioned by John Comaroff (1997) in relation to models of British colonial domination in South Africa, in the Portuguese context there was no singular colonialism; rather, there was a plurality of forms and forces, which sometimes involved conformity and sometimes contestation between political, social and ideological elements. Some authors consider that anthropology played a collaborative role in colonial administration and that it was both the legitimate child of the Enlightenment and the bastard child of colonialism (Asad 1973: 16), these terms being mutually exclusive. As Cooper noted, analyses of colonial situations cannot be limited either in time or space, as they are fundamental to any history of the present, whether in London49 or in Calcutta (2005: 34). Indeed, colonialism prompted reflection on new phenomena, new people and new social orders, and anthropological thought played a fundamental role in this reflection. On the other hand, as other authors have argued, I understand that colonialism must be seen as a cultural process (Dirks 1992; Thomas 1994, 2000) and not just as existing from a political and economic relationship legitimized, or justified, through racist or progress-based ideologies. Colonial cultures were not direct translations of European societies brought to the colonies, as unique cultural configurations were in place: the imposition of laws, norms and ways of dressing, sometimes even stricter than in the metropolis, with a view to differentiating the colonizer from the colonized. Furthermore, the study of colonialism must include a careful observation of contradictions and tensions (Cooper and Stoler 1997) and an analysis that takes into account a process whose categories have to be rethought (Stoler 1992). Contrary to what Donato Gallo (1988) argues about the relationship between Portuguese colonialism and anthropology, it is perhaps more correct to say that anthropology, as an emerging science, was not at the service of colonialism, but that it increased its action contemporaneously. In addition, the focus of anthropology was not only on colonized populations,

208  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

but on other human groups such as the mentally and physically ill, or those with various disabilities, and prostitutes, delinquents, criminals, rural and fishing populations, among others, as happened (or had happened) in other European and American schools. If anthropology was at the service of colonialism, this phenomenon did not occur at an early stage, but later, when the political regime incorporated scientific theses to justify the colonization of territories inhabited by populations that were considered to lack civilization. What can be generalized about this anthropology are its interests above all in the physical domain and less so the sociocultural domain. In the mid-nineteenth century, a decree was issued in Portugal that highlighted the importance of ‘anthropological knowledge of the colonies’, but at that time there was still no tradition in this field. In 1874, two decrees were published that reinforced the instructions sent to the colonial authorities to ensure the development of these anthropological studies (Henriques 1997: 61). Travellers, merchants and missionaries, among others, were instructed to collect body parts (bones, skin and hair), take measurements or fill in questionnaires sent from the metropolis. These recommendations were based on the Instructions drawn up by Guérando and Cuvier (inspired by eighteenth-century ideology) given to travellers in the early nineteenth century (Centlivres 1982). The SGL also encouraged anthropological studies in the colonies by issuing a circular in 1885 ordering ‘the heads of the colonial health services and administrative staff to send skulls’ (Pereira 1986: 199). In addition to investing in the training of administrative officials, colonial exploitation needed to be rationalized. In around 1880, the Ministry of the Navy (which in 1910 became the Ministry of the Navy and Colonies) encouraged observations and collections of human skulls to be sent to the metropolis. The Portuguese scientific milieu was then made up of mathematicians, naturalists, zoologists, physicians, philosophers, historians and anthropologists. Later on, the governership of Norton de Matos50 encouraged anthropological studies in Angola, and also invested in ethnographic research. Before his governership, there was already a certain ‘sensitization to indigenous uses and customs’ in Angola, transposed into some legal provisions (Pereira 1986). However, only then were decisive measures taken. In 1913, the Indigenous Trade and Scientific Recognition and Exploration Service was created – later the Secretariat of Indigenous Trade – which aimed to carry out a survey of ‘indigenous uses and customs’. Ferreira Dinis, author of the exhaustive ethnographic survey of Populações Indígenas de Angola (1918), played a determining role in this process; his work (drawn up from questionnaires filled out by administrative employees) became part of the programme of the colonial anthropology course – attached to

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  209

the discipline of colonial ethnology and ethnography – led by António de Almeida at the ESC. The guiding principles of colonial policy were provided in the Colonial Act in 1930. Between January and July of that year, Oliveira Salazar was Minister of the Colonies51 (he was then Minister of Finance until 1932 and head of government until 1968). His policy was based on reducing public spending, with the colonies suffering the greatest rationing, which contrasted with the investment in Angola during the governorship of Norton de Matos. However, there was an agreement between the objectives of both – the idea of nationalization of the colonies. According to the Colonial Act, ‘it is the organic essence of the Portuguese Nation to play the historical role of owning and colonizing overseas domains and civilizing indigenous populations’52 (Article 2) and ‘the overseas domains of Portugal are called colonies and constitute the Portuguese Colonial Empire’ (Article 3). The Colonial Act included a political project and inaugurated a new imperial, nationalist and centralizing phase in colonial administration, and established differences in rights and duties between those born in the metropolis and in the colonies, and between the assimilated and the Indígenas. Thus, the colonial ideology was produced from the invention of the Indígena and from the myth of the civilizing mission of Portugal. The Colonial Act was debated in May 1930 at the III National Colonial Congress held at the SGL, and analysed by the Colonial Council, at which voices were raised for and against. One of the individuals who spoke out against the ‘inconvenient and pretentious’ expression of ‘Portuguese Colonial Empire’ was Cunha Leal (governor of the Bank of Angola) who preferred the ‘traditional designation of overseas provinces’, as in his view it was the only one that reflected the historical conception of the indivisibility and integrity of the national territory. Norton de Matos and Bernardino Machado (founder of the subject of anthropology at the UC and President of the Republic until he was deposed by the 1926 military coup) also criticized the document. In spite of this, the Colonial Act was approved, was incorporated into the Constitution in 1933 and was only revoked with the constitutional revision of 1951. Mendes Correia: The Driving Force of Colonial Anthropology in the Laboratory and the Field When Artur da Fonseca Cardoso published ‘O Indígena de Satary’ (1897), studies in colonial anthropology were not highly valued in Portugal and the scientific community, especially scholars more closely linked to ethnological sciences, were not receptive to anthropology studies in vivo and were even less focused on colonized populations. This may be due to the

210  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

fact that there was not yet an established group of scientists dedicated to this field. The investment in work on the colonial terrain was reinforced only later, during the Estado Novo, especially in the 1930s and 1940s, with Mendes Correia playing a key role. It took about twenty years for Portuguese anthropologists to validate Fonseca Cardoso’s study, when they elected him as a representative of the beginning of colonial anthropology. Mendes Correia did not personally know the infantry captain Fonseca Cardoso, but he was a friend of one of his sons, Armando da Fonseca Cardoso. This friendship led him to learn about the unpublished writings and the collection of objects given by the family in 1915 to the UP Museum and Laboratory of Anthropology, of which Mendes Correia was director. In 1936 the museum also bought Cardoso’s anthropometry box (designed by Topinard). Between 1916 and 1918, Mendes Correia published articles based on Fonseca Cardoso’s notes. Yet, contrary to the poor reception of ‘O Indígena de Satary’, these publications gained international recognition: René Verneau (an important figure in French anthropology) wrote encouragingly about it in the prestigious journal L’Anthropologie. The studies on Timor edited by Mendes Correia were referred to by the Swiss anthropologist Rudolf Martin, the French anthropologist Joseph Deniker in 1917 and the Spanish jurist Quintiliano Saldaña in 1920, while Cardoso’s notes on Angola were cited by national authors and by René Verneau, Aleš Hrdlička, Quintiliano Saldaña, Rudolf Martin, Wilfrid Dyson Hambly, George Montandon and Renato Biasutti (Pinto and Magalhães 1942). According to Ricardo Roque (2001a), it was these notes published by Mendes Correia that contributed to him gaining scientific credibility and being considered a specialist on colonial anthropology. However, such an assessment must be reformulated, as Mendes Correia himself stated that they were notes by Cardoso, and that he himself should only be associated with the colonial terrain in the 1930s and 1940s, when he participated in a programme that promoted scientific research in colonial terrain and produced works in this area (see Figure 4.1). In Mendes Correia’s opinion, public administration or development decisions should be taken with the knowledge of the psychosocial characteristics of the colonized populations in mind. In Germany, before the First World War, a similar plan was applied, and in England, William Ridgeway proposed the founding of a Bureau of Anthropology that would study human beings and help administrators, legislators, merchants and missionaries. Similarly, Mendes Correia considered that there could be an official body in Portugal for this purpose, as existing initiatives were limited to university institutes such as those of anthropology and anatomy at the UP. He also suggested that anthropological works on natives of Guinea,

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  211

Angola, Mozambique, India and Timor be presented in international pleas dealing with rights to colonial territories (1931a: 10). On several occasions, namely at congresses, he showed an interest in colonial areas. For example, at the Fifteenth International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology in 1930, with sessions in Portugal and France, he reflected on the craniology of Angola (Mendes Correia and Athayde 1930) and the anthropology of Guinea (Mendes Correia and Athayde 1931). In 1934, he participated in the Congress of Colonial Teaching in the Metropolis, organized by the ESC, and in the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology, which he was involved in organizing. Thanks to his efforts, the work carried out by the IAUP on colonial anthropology was presented at the colonial exhibitions in Antwerp (Exposition Internationale Coloniale, Maritime et d’Art Flamand, 1930), Paris (Exposition Coloniale Internationale de Paris, 1931) and Porto (Portuguese Colonial Exhibition, 1934). The First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology took place in Porto between 22 and 26 September 1934, on the initiative of and

Figure 4.1. Map of insular Portugal and the Portuguese colonial empire, 1934

212  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

organized by the SPAE, and with the support of the First Portuguese Colonial Exhibition, which was held in the same city between 15 June and 30 September 1934. In 1931 there had been an anthropology congress, running in parallel to the colonial exhibition in Paris, but it did not focus on colonized populations like this one did. In addition to presenting works in the field of colonial anthropology, Mendes Correia encouraged other researchers to carry out further studies in this field at the opening of the congress (1934b). The organization of the congress anticipated that in the exhibition, which ran in parallel, ‘numerous ethnographic documents’ would be exhibited, as well as ‘specimens of various indigenous races’, i.e. a way of bringing the field to the laboratory. Mendes Correia praised this possibility and regretted that the observations of participants in the Paris exhibition (1931) were prohibited, as in Porto it was possible to observe ‘more than 300 indigenous people’ (Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial 1934, volume 1: 7, 28‒29), who were part of the exhibition. The researchers working at the FCUP Institute of Anthropology and the FMUP Institute of Anatomy (Anonymous 1951: 6) observed descriptive and anthropometric characteristics, blood groups, basal metabolism, and some physiological and psychological characteristics (Mendes Correia 1934h: 15). Some presentations at the congress were elaborated from these observations of seventy-nine Guineans, forty Angolans, 139 Mozambicans, four Bushmen and several individuals from Timor, Macao and India (Anonymous 1935). For Mendes Correia, it was an ‘anthropological documentation superior to that of many important foreign scientific missions’ (1934h: 17, 19). Some of these studies were also published in works on the exhibition. However, in addition to the predominance of physical anthropology studies, it appears that the people under analysis were considered representative of the elements of the group they came from, and from them generalizations were made about larger groups. For Mendes Correia, colonial anthropology included ‘physical anthropology – based on skeletons and in vivo’, ‘ethnography’ and ‘linguistics’; however, work had been carried out without scientific preparation and guidance, and extensive and systematic research was scarce, as it could only be undertaken on expeditions to the colonies with reputable personnel and with material resources. He also argued that colonial scientific investigation could be done with the collaboration of people who were not specialized in the subject, such as ‘officials, military, teachers, physicians, engineers, missionaries, industrialists, farmers and merchants’, and he blamed the ‘Portuguese teaching regime’ for the fact that these people were not interested ‘in anything outside their profession’, nor did they have ‘the necessary level of culture to understand the scientific interest of certain facts’ (Trabalhos do I Congresso…, volume 1: 25‒26).

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  213

At the Congresses of the Portuguese World, which formed part of the Centenary Celebrations53 in 1940, Mendes Correia54 had another opportunity to share his ideas about the colonies. In ten independent congresses, in which 231 Portuguese and 121 foreigners participated, with a total of 515 presentations, an attempt was made to explain the history of Portugal, from prehistory to contemporary history, as well as efforts to achieve scientific advances in various fields, including the colonial, through the study of fauna, flora and tropical hygiene. Mendes Correia was a member of the Executive Committee of Centenaries, president of the organizing committee of the CNCP and also made several presentations (1940b, 1940c, 1940d). Anthropological Missions to the Portuguese Colonies Contributions to anthropological studies on colonial field initially came from travelling physicians and the military. One of the first major expeditions was that of the Torres Strait, organized by Alfred Haddon (1855‒1940) with the support of Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology, which included two scientists trained in neurophysiology and experimental psychology, C.S. Myers (1873‒1946) and W.H.R. Rivers55 (1864‒1922). Rivers’ Medicine, Magic and Religion (1924) considered native medical systems as social institutions to be studied in the same way as kinship, politics or other institutions, and native medical practices as rationally following culture; over time, medical systems were studied in a less ethnocentric way and some of the principles of medical anthropology began to be applied to Western medicine and societies (Porter 1999: 481‒82). In the Portuguese context, Fonseca Cardoso is sometimes considered the founder of colonial anthropology (Mendes Correia 1941a: 17) or as having left an important legacy (Athayde 1934: 151). As an infantry ensign, he observed forty-four individuals at Sanquelim (India) in 1895 during a campaign; his observations built on his previous experience of studying the Portuguese people and their origins with Rocha Peixoto and Ricardo Severo. This study, inspired by the French and German models, sought to draw up a chart of Portuguese stature from the observation of army recruits56 and enable a better understanding of the ‘Minhoto type’ (Roque 2001a). However, it was only in the twentieth century, with the publication of his notes by Mendes Correia, that Cardoso’s studies gained recognition. Among the first physicians to carry out anthropological studies in a colonial setting, Américo Pires de Lima (1886–1966) is noteworthy. He was part of a military expedition to the north of Mozambique during the First World War (1916‒17) and achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel (Martins 2006). During his free time in Palma and Mocímboa da Praia, he studied the flora and fauna and analysed local individuals within

214  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

the scope of the mission entrusted to him by the FCUP, which had the support of the state, his colleagues (especially the biology teachers Gonçalo Sampaio (1865‒1937) and Augusto Pereira Nobre (1865‒1946)) and the local authorities. As he was a doctor and therefore equipped to carry out anthropometric studies, in addition to gathering botanical and zoological specimens and Makonde objects (which he donated to the FCUP Museum of Anthropology), he gathered physiognomic data and measurements from around 170 Mozambicans. Although physical anthropology studies based on anthropometric measurements were still rare in the late 1910s, collections related to ethnographic interests did not have the same precursory character, as they were common, for example, in travellers and colonial officials (Martins 2006: 117). Anthropometric practices emerged in the wake of the tradition of the French anthropological school of the mid-nineteenth century, which, although including physical and biological aspects, ethnology, linguistics and prehistoric archaeology, ended up focusing mainly on biological facts (Dias 1996: 26). This habit, although found in several European countries from the mid-nineteenth century to the first decades of the twentieth century, was being distanced from the AngloAmerican tradition, where anthropology, despite being conceived with the aforementioned aspects, ended up making a distinction between the study of biological facts and the study of social facts. Contributing to this was not only Franz Boas, but also his disciples. After the intervention of Américo Pires de Lima, the need to study populations under colonial administration was once again debated. Vítor Fontes, President of the SGL Anthropology Commission, appealed at the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology for medical and administrative personnel to follow anthropological instructions to collect materials such as bones, hair and moulds of hands, ears and feet (1934: 189). In the 1930s and 1940s Mendes Correia also participated actively in the creation of a programme to boost scientific research in the colonies; this enabled the realization of anthropological missions to territories in Africa and Timor, under the responsibility of researchers from the IAUP, with nothing similar having been undertaken at the Coimbra School of Anthropology. The systematic and organized study of the colonies started to be supported by the state with anthropological missions proposed by Francisco Vieira Machado, Minister of the Colonies (from 1936 to 1944). These missions were dependent on the JMGIC (which was created in 1936 and constituted an extension of the former Cartography Commission created in 1883). The JMGIC depended on the Ministry of the Colonies and was only reformed in 1946 by the Minister of the Colonies Marcelo Caetano (from 1944 to 1947); it was independent of the National Education Board, but sought to share with it the personnel and equipment of university institutes and

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  215

other metropolitan schools57 and scientific establishments (Mendes Correia 1945a: 4). According to Decree-Law no. 34.478, dated 3 April 1935, the government was authorized by the Minister of the Colonies to ‘organize and send anthropological and ethnological missions to the colonies for the study of the respective populations from a bioethnic standpoint’ (Article 1). The objectives of the missions were: First, ‘the general recognition of the ethnic groups of each colony, their individuals, their systematization and definition of their conditions of vitality’; and, second, ‘the study of the traditional institutions of indigenous populations and their customary law’58 (Article 2). Each mission should consist of: ‘a leader (an anthropologist of recognized competence)’; one or more deputies and assistants; staff of the respective colony’s management and services; and ‘European or Indigenous personnel’ that the heads of the missions deemed necessary.59 On 11 November 1935, the Executive Committee of the National Education Board, later the IAC, dealt with scientific activity in the colonies, adopting a report prepared by Mendes Correia in which he stressed the urgency and national and scientific importance of the subject, the desirability of using the institutes and laboratories of the universities and schools in the metropolis, and the coordination of work in the colonies by an agency dependent on the entity in charge of stimulating and coordinating metropolitan scientific research (i.e. the National Education Board). He stressed that it was not ‘advisable to separate Portugal-metropolis from Portugal-colonies’ (1945a: 4). Subsequently, the first of the missions, to Mozambique, was created, with six campaigns in 1936, 1937‒38, 1945, 1946, 1948 and 1955‒56, all headed by IAUP collaborator, IAC and JMGIC scholarship holder Santos Júnior,60 who was also supervised by Mendes Correia. In addition to this mission, the following were undertaken: those to Guinea, headed by Amílcar de Magalhães Mateus, which took place in 1945, 1946 and 1947; others to Angola, headed by António de Almeida, which took place in 1948, 1950, 1952 and 1955; and others to Timor, also headed by António de Almeida, which took place in 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1974 and 1975. As a result of these missions, António de Almeida and Santos Júnior, for example, began to make a name for themselves with the publication of texts on colonized populations, especially in the field of physical anthropology, as seen in the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology (1934) and in the Congresses of the Portuguese World (1940). On 12 March 1941, Mendes Correia (1941c) drew up a six-year plan for colonial anthropological studies (anthropology, archaeology and ethnography) in response to a letter from the JMGIC addressed to the direction of the FCUP. He stated that the staff of the IAUP anthropological missions would take scientific and patriotic interest into account and would seek to merit the distinction of being chosen, and he emphasized that the task

216  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

would have a dual aspect: ‘pure science,61 disinterested scientific inquiry’ and ‘applications and practical utility … of improving the living conditions of the indigenous people and their collaboration in the prosperity of our Empire’.62 As for the ‘priority of scientific branches’, he noted that ‘physical anthropology studies occupy first place, as they seek to establish the somatic characteristics and psychophysical possibilities of different peoples’; in the field of ‘psychotechnics, the psychic characteristics, tendencies, vocations and capacities of these peoples will be investigated’; and ‘ethnography will emerge as a useful aid’. Archaeology was in third place, although not because its speculative interest was less, as archaeology and prehistory constituted an ‘essential basis for the knowledge of ethnic origins and the evolution of peoples’.63 Responding to the JMGIC letter about which of the colonies urgently needed to be studied under the three aspects (anthropology, archaeology and ethnography), Mendes Correia stated that they all had complex and peculiar problems, even the smaller ones, such as Timor or Guinea, but ‘from the point of view of national utility’, it was preferable to turn to Angola or Mozambique, as they had ‘broader prospects for demographic and economic development’. Priority would be given to Mozambique for the first of the six years and in the second year they would be organized for Guinea and Angola, where a study would have to be carried out on the Bushmen. A specific mission might need to be sent to that end, as he considered them to be endangered; for Timor, which was considered as ‘far away and with various problems’, he suggested that the campaign should be

Figure 4.2. Photograph taken before leaving for the 1946 anthropological mission in Mozambique with the entire team. Memory Center, Torre de Moncorvo

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  217

carried out in the fourth year and eventually extended to the fifth. The sixth year would be devoted to general coordination, definitive publications and possible complementary research.64 According to Mendes Correia’s guidelines, the personnel of the third campaign of the Mozambique mission should include the leader and two or three other deputies. In Mozambique the following would be added: António José de Liz Ferreira, doctor, health officer in Angónia (district of Tete) and assistant at the IAUP; and Luís dos Santos, chief of police in Tete, collaborator in the two previous campaigns and possessor of knowledge of the language and ‘the life of the indigenous people’65 (see Figure 4.2). This information is consistent with that provided to me by Norberto Santos Júnior (son of Santos Júnior) in an interview, in which he highlighted the role of the police chief as his assistant in carrying out measurements and recruiting people to ‘be measured’,66 which leads to the conclusion that these studies could not have been carried out without the cooperation of their Mozambican counterpart. Mendes Correia suggested adding another person to the mission to study ‘indigenous languages’ and proposed Armando Lacerda, director of the FLUC’s Experimental Phonetics Laboratory, to carry out the study or indicate who could do it. In the case of Zambezia, he suggested the Jesuit priest António Alves da Cruz, who was a missionary there and had knowledge of the languages of Zambezia and the Arabic language (he studied for four years at the Catholic University of Beirut), and could study the languages of the district of Tete and complete his study of the Nyungwe and Nsenga languages. His role as interpreter would be fundamental and he could undertake ‘ethnographic studies’ that would only be possible with ‘complete knowledge of the indigenous language’. Mendes Correia suggested that Silvestre Sérgio Alves, a colony official and former secretary of the Macanga district, could be added to the mission (since he had collected notes on the southern African languages) and could undertake two internships: one in the metropolis (in the Experimental Phonetics Laboratory at the FLUC and at the ESC) and another in Mozambique (at Cape Town University, with Professor Gerard Paul Lestrade, who spoke ‘seventeen languages, and among them a good dozen African languages of the Bantu branch’).67 As technical material, Mendes Correia suggested those indicated for works in physical anthropology, such as an anthropometric toolkit, scales to grade hair, eye and skin colour, and photographic material, all provided by the IAUP. In a letter dated 17 April 1943 and addressed to José Bacelar Bebiano, then President of the JMGIC, Mendes Correia suggested collaborators from the IAUP to be heads or assistants in the missions.68 Among them were: a graduate in biological sciences, Amílcar de Magalhães Mateus, then assistant in zoology and anthropology at the FCUP; his wife, Emília

218  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Duarte de Oliveira de Magalhães Mateus, who had a degree in natural-historical sciences; the FMUP physician and anatomy assistant Jorge Alberto Martins de Alte; former anthropology student Fernando Russell Cortez; Irene Garcia, a graduate in biological sciences; and other former UP students, some of whom had already worked with the people who came to be part of exhibitions.69 Correia thus revealed the purpose of directing his disciples and collaborators to the fieldwork, which, in his opinion, was a team activity. The member of the missions who maintained the most correspondence with Mendes Correia was Santos Júnior; in his letters, he reported on the collection of items (biological, cultural and archaeological) and the adverse conditions of the tropics: I was only able to study forty-four bargués, twenty-two men and twenty-two women. For the men, I made a description of their characteristics with more than thirty measurements of each one. For the women I took only fourteen measurements. I took a lot of photographs and made some drawings of tattoos, hands and feet, and some sketched notes of labial profiles and nostrils. In addition, dermopapillary prints (fingers, palms and soles) were taken in seventeen individuals, and I studied foot anomalies in four blacks. On 3 October we went to visit the ruins of Metalí and Molanda in Serra Chôa. Frobenius was in the latter and he carried out excavations there which are still open. We did thirty-five kilometres on foot. … It was a very hot day, and we were a little thirsty … On the way we discovered a lithic site of the Wilfon culture type … I was lucky enough to apprehend the pharmacopoeia of a Nhabézi who one night went to dig up the bones of Captain Rebelo who was the intendant of Tete and died two or three years ago in the Báruè … The Vila Gouveia physician was left to continue the study of those numerous ‘mancualas’ … I wanted to go to Milange, where some cave paintings await me, and I’m stuck here because the cursed truck didn’t arrive.70 We have had four days of exceptional heat. On the 13th the thermometer hit forty-four degrees in the shade. On that day we worked from 5 am to 8 pm. We studied thirty-three Dêmas, twenty-one men and as many women, and as for the descriptive characteristics and the meristic characteristics, thirty measures each. In a batch of thirty women we only made twelve measurements. There was no time for more. I studied twelve foot anomalies and took photographs and made drawings and dermo-papillary prints. On the journey there and back I found three more lithic sites.71

However, at no time did either Santos Júnior or Mendes Correia conclude that it might not be the number of measurements that provided a better understanding of populations. Despite this, it was in this area that the most investment seems to have been made. For Mendes Correia, the missions did not have a purely speculative aspect, but a practical interest in

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  219

investigating: ‘bio-ethnic characteristics’; ‘robustness and vitality’; ‘development and progress perspectives’; ‘customs’; ‘psychic qualities’; and capabilities and trends, especially from the point of view of work. It was thus of ‘national and economic interest, alongside its scientific interest’ ‒ statistical and demographic elements were indispensable (1945a: 8‒9). These options depict the anthropology that was undertaken on colonial terrain. The description of elements, such as skin colour, hair, the shape of the ears, nose and lips, and the use of measuring instruments, such as the calliper or the cephalometric square, was intended to remove the subjective nature of observations that could influence the achievement of results (Dias 1996: 33‒34). On the other hand, it was hoped that these elements could eventually be translated into economic benefit in colonial exploitation. However, Mendes Correia’s concerns extended to ‘ethnography’, which he considered to be ‘an authentic science, which had its working methods, its secure systematizations, principles, norms, integrity’; on the other hand, research into prehistoric antiquities72 was important to clarify ‘affinities, origins or antecedents of populations’ (1945a: 9). Most of the scientific campaigns took place after 1945, after the reform of the JMGIC; at that time, the main objectives set were to improve the living conditions of ‘indigenous people’ and settlers, the efficient exploration of territories and contributing to scientific knowledge, while starting to take a special interest in sociocultural issues. The work of the last campaigns of the anthropological mission in Mozambique describes more sociocultural aspects relating to food or material culture (housing, ornaments), although these elements are not systematized; on the other hand, at no point in the descriptions does the social structure emerge. These campaigns combined several assets: 1) archaeological73 (material from ninety-six stations in Mozambique from the Stone Age (92) and the Iron Age (4]); 2) ethnographic (musical instruments and ornaments, often photographed while in use (767 pieces)); 3) iconographic (films and photographs (with 2,733 images)); 4) documentary. In relation to photographs, despite the initial interest of the collections probably focusing more on physical anthropology, they provide an understanding of other concerns and an account of other elements – materials (clothes, ornaments), contexts (places, festivities, graves), everyday life (economic activities, boats, plant identification), cultural heritage (fabrics, masks, face painting) and built heritage (churches, bridges) (Roque 2010). After the Bandung Conference (1955), funding for the Mozambique anthropological mission was reduced, as there was a paradigm shift and investment moved to other areas. Some documents also show that there was not yet sufficient knowledge to carry out an ethnographic study. Furthermore, as Rui Pereira noted, ‘although the objective stated in the

220  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

original decree has been achieved, i.e. at the end of the six campaigns the mission had already drawn up an ethnological map of Mozambique with around eighty ethnonymic designations, the team members were mainly concerned with collecting anthropometric data’; ‘forty-four works were published on this mission, of which only fourteen were part of the purposes of ethnography’ (1986: 193). This is one of the reasons that led Mário Moutinho (1982) to consider that Portuguese colonial ethnology was based on explanations and justifications that, in essence, had a utilitarian character in relation to colonialism, supporting its ideological structure and therefore constituting an ‘anti-ethnology’. However, the mission brought together various materials that were kept by the IICT (and were recently integrated into the UL Museum of Natural History), although some may still be at the UP. Thus, despite the missions having been directed at other territories, there was a special investment in Mozambique; it was the one that had the longest time in the field and that resulted in most items being collected. It was also to Mozambique that Jorge Dias and his team came to carry out research through fieldwork; the research on the Makonde is an example of this, in which the method of study of communities which he argued is applied (Dias 1998 [1964]). Correia encouraged his collaborators to publish their work. In a letter dated 31 May 1947,74 addressed to the executive committee of the JMGIC, he mentioned that the study ‘Contributions to the Anthropology of Portuguese Guinea’ (440 pages, forty-nine photographs and a map) by Alfredo de Athayde and Hugo de Magalhães, for which observations were used from ninety-four individuals from Guinea who were part of the exhibitions in Porto (1934) and Lisbon (1940), should have been published, despite the fact that some years had passed and that a mission had been sent to Guinea in 1945. Although the series used in the exhibitions could be ‘limited and those of the Guinea mission broader, the materials collected in 1934 and 1940 had not lost their scientific interest’, as, he stressed,75 was also the case with the ‘observations made by Deniker and Laloy, at the Paris Exhibition of 1889’. Later, attention was given to Timor, with campaigns between 1953 and 1975. Two articles by Mendes Correia had been published on Timor (1916b, 1916c)76 based on Fonseca Cardoso’s notes. In addition to these, and despite other authors having published on Timor, the first major monograph published in Portugal that focused on that country was Timor Português: Contribuições para o seu estudo antropológico by Mendes Correia (1944a). It is a large (235 pages), pioneering text of the works of António de Almeida (1974) and Ruy Cinatti (1974). One of the characteristics of Timor is the diversity of human groupings and linguistic variety, with some languages belonging to the Austronesian family and others that are not Austronesian.

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  221

Mendes Correia knew the works of authors who had visited the island, such as the English naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (who linked physical differences to behavioural differences (1962 [1869]), the Scottish biologist Henry Forbes, and the Dutch physician and anthropologist Herman ten Kate.77 The book includes a description and measurements of the Timorese who were part of the exhibitions in Porto (1934) and Lisbon (1940), and hundreds of photographs of Timorese from various regions, commissioned by Colonel Álvaro da Fontoura, governor of Timor between 1937 and 1940; both this material and the publications produced were funded by the JMGIC. Timor Português (Mendes Correia 1944a) received national and international praise. Arthur Keith, for example, congratulated Mendes Correia on the work in a letter sent on 6 February 1945, in which he praised the use of photographs from Fontoura’s collection; according to Keith, ‘if you cannot diagnose a man’s race from his photograph, you will never succeed by callipers or mathematics’.78 In 1953 (between August and September), Mendes Correia was in Timor and later described his trip (1955). On some occasions, he was accompanied by António de Almeida (head of the anthropological mission in Timor) and by the agronomist Ruy Cinatti, a researcher at the JMGIU who had been working for years in Timor, where he headed the Agricultural Services. With this journey, Mendes Correia was able to get to know some aspects in the field that he had previously worked on from a distance; at the time, he investigated the conditions for setting up a ‘Local Study Centre and promoting appropriate work’;79 the research centre in Timor was created in 1953 and the research areas brought together physical anthropology, prehistory and the collection of varied elements – number of children, ethnic mutilations, languages, food and other cultural practices. According to Maria Johanna Schouten, the research on Timor (mainly by Mendes Correia and António de Almeida) lacked ‘an appreciation of traditional cultures’ and ‘a true and sincere implementation of a civilizing mission’; moreover, ‘the performance of the Portuguese during most of the period of contact with Timor was characterized by indifference, bloody military campaigns and economic exploitation’, and often in the view of colonial officials, ‘the most important thing was to teach them how to work’ (Schouten 2001: 167). However, despite the predominance of anthropometric studies and the scarcity of achievements regarding sociocultural domains, it was due to the creation of new bodies, such as the JMGIC, and the financing of these missions, that the work of several IAUP collaborators was recognized, as well as the exercise of anthropology as a professional area. Much of this funding was due to Mendes Correia, who repeatedly asked the government and the JMGIC for funds to enable

222  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

the missions. Practitioners of British social anthropology had more money, including American funds (Goody 1995) and so produced much more work. However, in Portugal there were no functionalists and even Jorge Dias’ anthropology was culturalist – an anthropology which was heir to the American tradition. On the other hand, the broad presence of anthropometric practices was due to a European trend that favoured the measurement of individuals in a search to ascertain racial types. It was Santos Júnior himself who stated that the missions, with their objective of a somatic assessment of the ‘tribes’, consisted of the observation of thousands of ‘indigenous people’ and resulted in the production of anthropological records, each with an average of twenty measurements; about 80,000 determinations were made in various indices, with which serializations were made and averages, standard deviations and probable errors were calculated (Júnior 1956) (see Figure 4.3). The usefulness of the inventory of these data lay in the fact that they made it possible to relate values and bodily measures, which would identify the most appropriate individuals for work, with a view to making the colonial exploitation profitable. However, the missions also allowed the collection of other elements, such as cave paintings, drawings, photographs and objects. In addition to publications, documentaries were made during the anthropological missions to Angola, Mozambique and Timor, deposited at the IICT and today included in the UL Natural History Museum.

Figure 4.3. Anthropological mission to Mozambique on 10 August 1948: time to fill in the forms with the collected data. Memory Center, Torre de Moncorvo

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  223

Mendes Correia’s Positions Held at the CEEP (1945‒56), the JMGIC (1946‒59), the ESC (1946‒58) and the SGL (1951‒60) The work of the anthropological missions was carried out at the same time as Mendes Correia held positions in institutions where anthropological studies were conducted (the CEEP, the JMGIC, the ESC and the SGL). Mendes Correia was involved with the CEEP between 1945 and 1956, where he was a member of the board and president. This centre, which also included the ethnological dimension, was created by him in Porto in 1945. He invited the anthropologist Jorge Dias (1907‒73)80 to organize the ethnography section of the CEEP. When he arrived in 1947, Dias began to put together a team (Margot Dias (1908–2001), Fernando Galhano (1904‒95), Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira (1910‒90) and Benjamim Enes Pereira [1928‒2020]), who worked with him to conduct research in the field of Portuguese ethnology and ethnography. Other – although less prominent – people joined this team: António Carreira (1905‒88), Fernando Rogado Quintino and Manuel Viegas Guerreiro (1912‒97). From 1949 onwards, the CEEP was divided into sections: prehistory (led by Mendes Correia), physical anthropology and human biology (led by Alfredo Athayde) and ethnography (led by Jorge Dias). Ethnological studies underwent a rebirth with Dias’ work, after the generation of Leite de Vasconcelos, Adolfo Coelho, Teófilo Braga, Consiglieri Pedroso and Rocha Peixoto, and gained a new lease of life, now as an independent discipline with its own methodology and practice (Pereira 1989: 66). At the CEEP, Dias created an ethnology that tended towards opposition to that of Mendes Correia, but never explicitly. While Mendes Correia was President of the CEEP, Dias was Secretary. Later, António de Almeida succeeded Correia in the presidency of the centre. Only on 18 May 1954, with the publication of Decree 14.886, was the CEEU created in Lisbon, with the support of the ISEU and the JMGIU, which already included the overseas aspect and stimulated non-exclusively ‘biological knowledge of the dominated populations’; however, ‘research of an eminently anthropobiological nature continued to be encouraged’ (Pereira 1986: 194). In 1956 Dias was invited by the ISEU to carry out anthropological research in the overseas context and to assume the chair of this speciality in 1957.81 In historiographical reviews of anthropology in Portugal, it is common to consider the work of Jorge Dias and his team in northern Mozambique as an inaugural landmark in anthropology in the colonies. In fact, until the mid-1950s, studies on colonies focused predominantly on anthropometric measurements and physical observations, to the detriment of sociocultural aspects (as was the case in French anthropology missions in the 1940s). In the 1950s, literature on physical anthropology continued to be produced in Portugal along old lines, whereas in France it had been abandoned during

224  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

the 1940s. According to João Leal, the work of Dias and his collaborators ‘recovers some of the theoretical updating and international insertion lost in the decades of the First Republic’ (2000: 38). However, in my opinion, both the defence of anthropology as a scientific discipline and the insertion of Portuguese anthropology into the international field were objectives that Mendes Correia had struggled with almost half a century earlier. Indeed, it is worth noting that Dias’ profile resulted in the participation of more than fifty foreign anthropologists in volumes produced in tribute to him, including Max Gluckman, M.G. Marwick and John Beattie (Leal 2000: 38). Thus, from my perspective, Mendes Correia’s invitation to Dias to organize the ethnography section of the CEEP was anything but insignificant. And, as Leal acknowledges, this section (and later the Centres for the Study of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, where Dias and his collaborators worked) constituted the first body specifically oriented towards anthropological research in Portugal (2000: 39). It is therefore to Mendes Correia’s merit that he created structures to carry out research, raise funds and bring together the right people; in the present day, this scope of vision would allow him to be considered a true human resources manager. Between 1946 and 1959, Mendes Correia was linked to the JMGIC, where he presided over the organization and directed its anthropological section,82 and it is this role, in terms of solving problems in cartography in Africa and scientific research, that I have been describing here. It was also from 1946 onwards that he joined the ESC,83 to which he was appointed director on 16 October 1946, and combined this position with that of professor between 1949 and 1958. Although the ESC administered knowledge about the colonies, it was not restricted to the anthropological domain. However, the Higher Colonial Course also had a course on colonial anthropology – attached to the subject of colonial ethnology and ethnography – led by António de Almeida. In 1946 the study plan was changed. With Decree-Law no. 35.885 of 30 September 1946, an innovation was proposed: the ‘investigation of scientific problems linked to promoting the value of overseas territories, the European settlement of Tropical Africa and the knowledge of native populations and their languages’. There were then two courses – a colonial administration course84 and the colonial high studies course85 – which after 1954 were designated the overseas administration course and the overseas high studies course. In 1961, they were renamed the overseas administration course and the complementary overseas studies course. It was only in 1968 that the complementary course in anthropological sciences was created. With the ESC’s curricular offer, a student of these courses could be the head of a post, a secretary or an administrator and could become governor.

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  225

As Mendes Correia was appointed director of the ESC in 1946, he was part of the reorganization of colonial higher education, contributed to the training of many colonial officials and influenced the country’s overseas policy. For him, no teaching was ‘more structurally national’ than that of the ESC (1951g: 12). As a deputy, he defended the status of ESC professors, praised the creation of its Institute of African and Oriental Languages, and hoped that the ESC would become a faculty of colonial studies and in the future could become a colonial university (12 March 1947 session); he argued that no university career surpassed that of the ESC and that, as it was ‘the most nationalist educational establishment in the country’,86 the government should support its reorganization (1 April 1948) (see Chapter 5). From 1951 to 1960 (when he died), he was also President of the SGL. Miscegenation and Issues Raised by the Colonial Situation At the beginning of the twentieth century, in addition to stimulating studies on colonized peoples, there was an urgency in instilling a motivation to emigrate to the colonies. In 1919 Mendes Correia lamented that ‘the Portuguese emigrate to foreign countries that they go to add value to, instead of emigrating to the colonies and adding value to their own land’ (1919b: 161). However, this emigration could pose problems, as it brought very different people into contact with each other. The issue of miscegenation87 in Portugal (Matos 2019) was related to the colonial situation88 and discussions on ‘race improvement’ and eugenics. The history of these discussions as regards race relations, as noted by Michael Banton, was marked by controversy (1996: 125). Some colonial governors, such as Norton de Matos and Vicente Ferreira, were not in favour of racial mixing, although they were in favour of the ‘social elevation of blacks and mulattos’, with the safeguard that they constituted ‘carefully separated groups’ (Ribeiro 1981: 155). In the scientific field, at the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology (1934), the physician Germano da Silva Correia criticized the settlement of the colonies by convicts, which was unacceptable in terms of ‘interethnic eugenics’, on the one hand, and argued for a colonial policy that was ‘extremely humanitarian and ravishingly liberal’ to appeal to the collaboration of the mestizos, on the other hand (1934: 329, 326). At this congress, in a different spirit, Tamagnini defended the effort to instil in the Portuguese the desire to emigrate to the colonies and settle there permanently, but warned of the dangers of miscegenation because, as noted by the German physician and eugenicist Ernst Rodenwaldt (1878‒1965), it constituted ‘a risk to all human societies’ and should be ‘discouraged’ (Tamagnini 1934: 63).

226  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

At the same congress, Mendes Correia suggested that miscegenation should be avoided (1934a). As it was difficult to fit mestizos into a specific human type, it was as if mestizos could not have a representation in a ‘modern’ world (Latour 1991) because they were impure, hybrid and their propagation could lead to degeneration (Mendes Correia 1940c). In 1934, when he visited Brazil, he spoke of what can be called selective miscegenation, which he considered to be ‘racial selection’, in which individuals chose phenotypically similar partners, with a purpose he called ‘anthropological affinity’. He considered that miscegenation was something that is naturally repudiated; in addition, he found that its results – the mestizos – did not occupy prominent places in the social life of Brazil. At the Inaugural Session of the CNPC, as part of the Congresses of the Portuguese World, Mendes Correia highlighted the importance of the ‘vigour’ and ‘germinal purity of the Race’ for the ‘historical continuity of the Nation’ (1940a: 20). At the Colonial Congress, which formed part of this series of congresses, Mendes Correia repudiated miscegenation as ‘a new pure racial line’ could not be expected from generalized miscegenation, but ‘a confused melting pot’; he also recalled that in his addresses in 1934 and 1935 in Rio de Janeiro, Porto and Lisbon, he stated that ‘the “first duty” of governments was not to prevent mestizos, but to improve their conditions, so that they can become useful’. However, in 1940, in the context of the Nazi heyday, he insisted on ‘the national expediency of restricting racial crossovers’; in addition, it was important to prevent the ‘social and political interference of mestizos in Portuguese life’ and the disfigurement of the ‘traditional physiognomy of the homeland’ (1940b: 121–22, 133–30). Also at the CNCP, Mendes Correia pointed out miscegenation as a possible degenerative factor; he defended the ‘purity of metropolitan Portuguese blood’ as an ‘essential condition for the historical and moral continuity of the Nation’, not because mestizos were necessarily inferior, but because the mixture of heterogeneous elements could result in unexpected and less than fortunate results (1940c).89 At the Luso-Brazilian History Congress that formed part of these congresses, he considered that Brazil was undergoing a process of ‘whitening’; although he recognized the existence of strong immigration, including people of African origin, and took into account the Amerindian element. He considered that ‘those of colour’ were not the ‘active majority – the socially, politically and economically dominant – of the population’ (1940d: 254). Mendes Correia (1940d) cited Oliveira Viana,90 Sílvio Romero,91 Roquette Pinto, Lôbo de Oliveira, Óscar Brown,92 Pedro Calmon, Euclides da Cunha, Alfredo Ellis Júnior and Gilberto Freyre, showing his knowledge of these authors. In these 1940 congresses, he ended by highlighting the unpredictability of miscegenation and not its scientific basis; for him, miscegenation would lead to the

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  227

dilution of characteristics (1940b), but the hypothesis of the degenerative factor appearing, or not, was only a possibility (1940c) and was not scientifically demonstrable.93 Four years later, he argued that: 1. The mestizos of our Empire must be given caring, humane, fraternal treatment, seeking to improve the situation of those who may have been disadvantaged by bad conditions … and to promote … their collaboration with the most helpful national values; 2. Large-scale miscegenation should not be considered as the basis of our colonial policy, as this would imply the destruction of a germinal heritage, which is the greatest guarantee of the historic continuity of the Homeland; 3. Miscegenation in areas of difficult acclimatization for Europeans, or due to the scarcity of settlers from the metropolis, is, however, a resource to be adopted for the exploration of some territories …; 4. In such a case, a eugenic selection of parents should be the aim …; 5. All legitimate possibilities must be opened to mestizos in the field of professional, economic, agricultural and industrial action, and even in that of local politics and administration. (1944c: 3‒4)

Miscegenation appeared here as a threat, as it would lead to the dissolution of specific Portuguese characteristics, whose existence several authors had tried to demonstrate; however, it also appears as an underlying means of maintaining and consolidating the empire, i.e. there was an updating of Mendes Correia’s ideas, attenuating the content of previous discourses. Mendes Correia had alluded to this idea at the Colonial Congress of 1940 when he referred to the process of formation of the former South American colony: The mixing of the Portuguese men with Brazilian Indian women from which, for example, the highly praised Mamluks of the São Paulo flags were born – and later with the rules introduced by slavery in the same country – generating mulattoes, etc. – was undeniably an inevitable process of settlement and formation of Brazil. (1940b: 123)

The 1944 excerpt also envisages the possibility of mestizos occupying political and administrative positions, a scenario that Mendes Correia had advised against previously (1940b: 132). In the context after the Second World War in 1950,94 he explicitly admitted that miscegenation was ‘one of the most powerful agents of Portuguese expansion’, which testified to ‘the absence of racial prejudice on the part of the Portuguese’ (1954a: 258‒59). The view of miscegenation as destabilizing is not unanimous. Several centuries earlier, Afonso de Albuquerque, governor of India, advocated a policy of mixed marriage and encouraged his men to marry women of Aryan origin who had converted to Christianity, although he did not want them to marry black women from Malabar; he thus sought to create a legitimate but

228  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

mixed Christian race through marriage to selected Hindu women (Boxer 1963); his political-military vision, from the perspective of an imperial idea, which was put into practice at the beginning of the sixteenth century, was inspiring for the ideas that were planned to be put into practice in the colonies after the 1940s. The appreciation of miscegenation also appears in Casa Grande & Senzala,95 in which Gilberto Freyre (1957 [1933]) (who was inspired by Franz Boas and other culturalist authors to value the contribution of African and Amerindian cultures to the formation of Brazil) argued that that Brazilian society was favoured by miscegenation during the colonial period; a country considered free from racial prejudice could serve as an example to the rest of the world. In addition to ‘racial democracy’, Freyre highlighted the predisposition of the Portuguese to fraternal contact with tropical populations, due to their ethnic and cultural background as an undefined people between Europe and Africa. Mendes Correia also reflected on the diversity of racial elements in Brazil and the existence of greater racial homogenization or heterogeneity, taking the Portuguese element into account (1944g). He criticized some authors who, inspired above all by the works of Franz Boas, attributed a ‘shaping action capable of generating new human types’ to the physical environment; for him, some modifications were more related to miscegenation than to the environment. With regard to the presence of the Portuguese element in Brazil’s demography, he considered that this ‘Aryanization’ would not necessarily represent a ‘re-Portuguesing process’, not least because the country had people from very different origins, but could constitute a ‘reintegration of the Portuguese germinal factor’ (1944f: 8‒9). Although some discourse praised the contributions of miscegenation, Freyre’s work did not receive a positive reception in Portugal in the 1930s and early 1940s. The idea of ‘rebirth of empire’ was still imbued with racist ideas, where there was no place for Freyre’s culturalist vision, or for praise of the mestizo. In addition, a certain specificity peculiar to the Portuguese (in biological and collective psychology terms) was also discussed, where there was no room for lending value to external elements. In the same way, Mendes Correia’s speeches seem, above all, to warn of the possible ills of miscegenation and lean towards the valorization of communities in which ‘those of colour’ are not the social, political and economic majority. Raças do Império: Differentiation, Classification and Power Mendes Correia produced several works on the colonial context (Timor Português (1944a), Uma jornada científica na Guiné portuguesa (1947), Ultramar Português I – Síntese de África (1949a) and Ultramar Português II – Ilhas de Cabo Verde (1954b)), but one of the most striking was Raças

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  229

do Império (1943a), as it was the first and most publicized and the one that former students of the anthropology subject at the FCUP best remember, as I learned in the interviews. For Mendes Correia, this work was intended to fill a gap, as although there were scientific materials, they were somewhat dispersed and there was a lack of ‘a joint, up-to-date work’, which summarized ‘accessibly for everyone, what is known and what needs to be known about the different populations of the Empire’; he specified that the work would be of great use to ‘colonialists, administrators, missionaries, educators, etc.’ (1943a: 6). The work was published between 1943 and 1945, in collectible instalments that were available to the general public, totalling 625 pages. It consisted of eight chapters and was the result of an effort to inventory and describe the various inhabitants of the territories then under Portuguese administration, including the metropolis and adjacent islands, which made up ‘twenty million Portuguese’. The book starts from the prehistory of Portugal and the origins of the Portuguese, and then deals with their expansion into other territories. For each territory, a description of origins is drawn up and its inhabitants are described. Included in the set Figure 4.4. Cover of Raças do Império (Mendes Correia 1943a)

230  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

are Portugal (with Madeira and the Azores), Cape Verde, Guinea, Angola and Congo, Mozambique and the so-called Portuguese Orient (territories in India, Macao and Timor), with a contextualization of physical and sociocultural anthropology in each chapter. The groups described included the metropolitan population in its varieties and the ‘people’ with whom the Portuguese were in contact over time, who according to Mendes Correia were in ‘very different states of civilization’, had ‘very varied psychological attitudes’ and constituted a ‘heterogeneity of types, languages and trends’ (1943a: 603). It is an extensive work, with details, descriptions, drawings and photographs. Some descriptions have features of geography, climatology, archaeology and prehistory. The investment in the work is linked to the setting in which it was produced, in which the dissemination of the empire was one of the great commitments of the Estado Novo.96 The hardcover features a relief of human figures representing the territories then administered by Portugal (see Figure 4.4). Under these, the shields are represented at the top; in the shields is the figure of the cross. The book collected and systematized some contents present in Mendes Correia’s previous works. As can be seen in Figure 4.5, the part referring to the ‘Metropolis and islands’ was the largest (in terms of the number of pages), followed by Angola and Congo and then Mozambique, perhaps because these were then the contexts best known by Mendes Correia and the researchers, and where the greatest investment was being made. However, if we join all the territories corresponding to the colonies, we find that they occupy a higher percentage (52%) than those of the metropolis and islands. In this analysis, I intend to look at the meaning that ‘race’ held in the book and the way in which it was associated with heterogeneity: Everyone knows that there is no homogeneity of race between the Portuguese population of the metropolis and that of the colonies, and even within each of these. It is also known or presumed that this heterogeneity, although today it does not affect the political and moral integrity of the Empire, the unity of the Nation, thanks to the laborious efforts of patriotic and far-seeing Men, corresponds to different customs, social organizations, psychological traits, of fulfilling potential, along with which the administration, promotion and economy of our territories should be taken into account. (1943a: 5)

In this quote, Mendes Correia recognized heterogeneity as also being due to differences in customs, social organizations and psychological tendencies, and not just biological aspects, although these are often used to form and support his classifications. Inspired by ideas of race and heterogeneity, Mendes Correia designed his inventory and classification, as he considered that ‘it would be wrong … to reduce the study of the human factor, the







  

  






  

   















Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  231

Figure 4.5. Proportion of the territories covered in Raças do Império (Mendes Correia 1943a)

232  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

value of brawn and intelligence, to the elaboration of mere statistics of individuals and of the population movement, that is to demographics’. In addition, the study of ‘indigenous populations’ and their ‘respective faculties’ should have the dual purpose of taking care of their well-being and making them ‘helpful collaborators in the task of aggrandizement and prosperity of the Nation’; this should involve issues of ‘racial composition, origins and crossings’ and those of ‘biosocial, moral and political conditionalism and the working regime of populations’ (1943a: 5). Mendes Correia reaffirmed that ‘the integral study of Man necessarily encompasses the physical and the psychological’; however, he recognized that science did not have sufficient means to equally intensify its research in both sectors (1943a: 10). Thus, unlike other authors, who considered culture to be a fundamental element in the study of humanity, Mendes Correia still attributed an important role (although not the only role) to ‘race’. In the study of human diversity, Mendes Correia continued to show appreciation for tasks that enabled better systematization; as discussed in the subject of anthropology at the FCUP (1915b), he emphasized the importance of descriptive and metric racial characteristics: a) those of outward morphology;97 b) anthropometric (height, cephalic index and nasal index); c) internal elements (visceral dimensions, differentiation of muscles, dimensions and morphology of the brain); d) elements of physiology 98 and ‘racial psychology’;99 and e) cultural characteristics (material life,100 psychological life101 and other aspects)102 (1943a: 18‒45). In theoretical terms, he referred to the predominant orientations in the study of cultural manifestations, such as the evolutionary school and the historical-cultural school (with Frobenius, Ankermann, Grabner and Schmidt, among others, as representatives). Later, Mendes Correia presented a history of Portugal that began in prehistory, referring to the human beings of the Mesolithic middens of Muge, with sedentary and peaceful habits, then approached the Lusitanist theses and finally the ‘Portuguese of today’, including physical elements (skin colour, hair and eye colour) and cultural, moral and psychological differences.103 As for the Portuguese ‘race’, he stated that ‘the noble universalism of the Portuguese would not permit them to reject any ancestry, whatever their parent race’ and that ‘the Portuguese have no racial animosities, no aversion to blacks or mulattoes’; however, despite the African elements having flowed into the Iberian Peninsula at various times, the Negroid influences ‘did not harm the fundamentally European or white character of the Portuguese population’ (1943a: 234‒35). The islands of the Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic archipelagos (Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe) and the fort of São João Batista de Ajudá are presented as having been the result of the action of the Portuguese. The

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  233

other territories, on the other hand, are given as having their own prehistory, and it was, as Omar Ribeiro Thomaz stated, ‘the Portuguese presence that places them in the same evolutionary current’ (2001: 68). Mendes Correia used archaeological data and historical sources, items collected in missions carried out in the 1930s and 1940s in Africa and Timor, and studies carried out with people who came to the exhibitions in Porto (1934) and Lisbon (1940).104 He recognized the ethnic and cultural diversity of these people and addressed some of their ‘uses and customs’, as well as aspects relating to beliefs and religion. Guineans were classified by groups and tribes, and groups were given qualifying adjectives; cultural practices such as initiation rites and funerals were also described. Although he favoured anthropobiological study over ethnographic analyses related to sociocultural elements, measurements did not seem to allow him to draw precise conclusions. According to him, this difficulty could also be related to migration and miscegenation: The ethnographic confusion in Zambezia, as in other regions of Mozambique, defies any attempt at firm systematization … There were … movements of peoples in opposite and varied directions and there were wars, crossings, slavery, revolts and conquests. (Mendes Correia 1943a: 519)

For Mendes Correia, it made sense to speak of a ‘broad and perfect national community, based simultaneously on history and politics and on a deep sense of universalist sympathy and understanding’ (1943a: 603‒4). As mentioned by Omar Ribeiro Thomaz, ‘the empire is not just a political entity, but an organic and solidary whole’ (2001: 67). As for the population policy linked to miscegenation, Mendes Correia stated that although it does occur in Cape Verde, for example, this should not be generalized throughout the ‘empire’ to prevent the Portuguese people from diluting its particularities; however, he considered that in ‘regions where the white woman is absent’, miscegenation was inevitable and recognized the existence of illustrious mestizos. He also argued that ‘all mestizos should be given … fair and humane treatment, opening up all possibilities’ in the professional, economic, local administration and, in special cases, politics (1943a: 620). Such affirmations attenuated the phrase that he uttered three years earlier at the Congresses of the Portuguese World: ‘never should they [the mestizos], nor naturalized foreigners, hold high positions in the general policy of the country, except in … very exceptional and unlikely cases’ (1940b: 132). The quantity and diversity of images, in photography and drawing, in black and white and in colour, are other notable elements in the book. However, the text does not always refer to the image that illustrates a

234  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

particular page. The images create an environment, reinforce exoticism, exemplify situations and serve to idealize whence the biological or cultural influences of a particular individual or group may have arisen; some are devoid of any contextualization or analysis. On the other hand, they may be intended to illustrate the physical strength of some individuals, or an idea whose origin may lie in the past, or to justify their presence in the present. The images were carefully selected to illustrate what was intended to be demonstrated: on the one hand, diversity seen as richness and, on the other hand, what certain specificities could imply. Furthermore, the placement of the images suggests that visualizing one individual would allow the idealization of the other individuals in the group. This refers to the idea of typification, according to which each individual is illustrative of the ‘type’ he or she represents. The placement of the images of the individuals that are represented in the book (both from the metropolis and overseas) led, in a way, to the invention105 and production of prejudice in relation to a particular group. In general, Mendes Correia’s work denoted a certain anachronism in relation to the theoretical currents that circulated in British social anthropology and in North American cultural anthropology, as well as in other countries, as pointed out by other authors (Pina-Cabral 1991). Unlike Franz Boas, for example, Mendes Correia did not find a balance between studies of a physical and cultural scope, and the idea of race ended up being fundamental and constantly present in his work. This may have been related to his convictions, but also to the fact that a job like this could play an important role in colonial administration policy. In addition, there was a desire to link biological and hereditary aspects of a human group to psychosocial behaviour. Although he criticized evolutionism in the first part and praised the cultural-historical school, he ended up organizing the work so as to denote evolutionary differences of societies at different stages of development. Cultural elements often appeared as illustrative of essentially anthropobiological analyses. Faced with the great human diversity to which he was exposed, Mendes Correia made an effort to inventory, systematize and classify. Appealing to the use of the racial factor as an explanation of human differentiation, he argued that cultures could be analysed based on the study of ‘races’. However, despite trying to be objective with regard to racial characteristics, he seemed to fail to find valid enough criteria to merit universal application. Furthermore, when proceeding with an ordering, he ended up placing the groups in a hierarchy, elevating some to the detriment of others. However, despite the diversity presented, the intention was to associate unity and solidarity with it, arising from a context in which the aim was to assert Portuguese sovereignty in various territories.

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  235

Bronislaw Malinowski (1914‒18) and Mendes Correia (1945‒46): Distinct Experiences; Sometimes Comparable Portrayals Anthropological fieldwork dates back, among other sources, to the advances of Bronislaw Malinowski (1884‒1942), who was born in Poland and studied there until he obtained his doctorate in 1908. At that time, observations made only from an office were the object of criticism and field experience was encouraged. However, in the case of Malinowski, whose endeavour was accompanied by G.C. Seligman, his stay in the Trobriands Islands might not have been so extended if the First World War had not provided him with isolation for such a long period. Malinowski was never far from the pearl merchants he was with when he found the company of islanders unbearable, often described in his diary as ‘niggers’ (1989 [1967]); however, he identified sufficiently with his interlocutors to assume a protective attitude towards them, as opposed to colonial officials, missionaries and commercial agents, who were determined to eradicate their way of life. Later, and also because of his experience, the functionalists, who were dominant in social anthropology from the 1920s to the 1960s, focused on the idiosyncratic cultures of isolated populations. On the other hand, the American Rockefeller Foundation, the most generous patron of the International African Institute (IAI), changed its policies so that Malinowski’s students were eligible for IAI scholarships (which is why many of them became Africanists). However, it cannot be said that Malinowski was an apologist for colonial regimes, and he argued that the colonial situation was founded on antagonism: all parties had deep-rooted personal interests that created irreconcilable differences between them. Later, in 1945, Mendes Correia travelled to Guinea with Amílcar de Magalhães Mateus to prepare the anthropological mission to was still then a Portuguese colony, to be headed the following year by the IAUP collaborator. Marcelo Caetano was the Minister of the Colonies and Sarmento Rodrigues was the governor of the territory. Mendes Correia produced three records of this trip: an official report addressed to the JMGIC, a field diary and a book (1947). Before arriving in Guinea, they went to Casablanca (Morocco), where Mendes Correia joined two of his former FLUP students (the Portuguese consul in Rabat and his wife). They then travelled to Dakar (Senegal) where they visited the IFAN, met with various professors and researchers, and started establishing connections and exchanging work. During his stay, between 26 December 1945 and 20 January 1946, Mendes Correia wrote down everything he saw and his experiences in a field diary (Figure 4.6), which was never published (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné (1945‒46)).

236  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Mendes Correia’s notes account for immediate impressions and spontaneous recordings and some of them were used for his book. Despite the superficiality of the visit, as it was about the preparation and not the mission itself and there was no prior resourcing, at the theoretical or linguistic level, some elements of both diaries are comparable. Although Correia did not do fieldwork for an extended period like Malinowski (his diary ran from 1914‒15 to 1917‒18), he also had no outbursts like the Polish anthropologist, who at one point seemed to have had enough: ‘this morning when I got up and saw that it was pouring, I had a wild desire to just sail away from there’ (Malinowski 1989 [1967]: 66). This apprehension of Malinowski’s was registered even before going to the field: ‘a strong fear of the tropics; abhorrence of heat and sultriness’ and ‘I felt I was taking leave of civilization’. After two weeks in the field (27 September 1914), he described how he felt and referred to the natives using the term ‘savages’, as he did again after three months (in December); on the other hand, he revealed discriminatory feelings towards the local population ‒ ‘I came back in the dark and once again frightened a little boy whom I call Monkey’ ‒ and he revealed his irritation with them (Malinowski 1989 [1967]: 5‒6, 13, 61, 63, 69).

Figure 4.6. Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné (1945‒46). Private collection

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  237

In addition to describing a certain laziness or lethargy of the natives, Malinowski used the terms ‘negroes’ or ‘niggers’, which are pejorative in the English language: ‘definition of a given ceremony, spontaneously formulated by the Negroes’; ‘talked with the niggers about “the positions” during sexual intercourse’; ‘I did not think of the niggers or of the work, I was still depressed by everything that had happened’; ‘I was so angry that I simply couldn’t look at the negroes’ (Malinowski 1989 [1967]: 217, 260‒61) and, most surprisingly, he referred to a young girl as an animal: At 5 went do Kaulaka. A pretty, finely built girl walked ahead of me. I watched the muscles of her back, her figure, her legs, and the beauty of the body so hidden to us, whites, fascinated me. Probably even with my own wife I’ll never have the opportunity to observe the play of back muscles for as long as with this little animal. At moments I was sorry I was not a savage and could not possess this pretty girl. (Malinowski 1989 [1967]: 255)

Conversely, Mendes Correia’s diary contains descriptions of enthusiasm and willingness to be on the spot and absorb as much information from it. Perhaps this was due to the fact that Mendes Correia had not long been in the field and that he knew from the start that he would not be there for long. In order to carry out in-depth research, he would need to stay more time to become familiar with the local way of life and the language, and would have to carry out his work at a distance, using interpreters and formal interviews. Malinowski was among the Melanesian Trobriands between 1914 and 1918; he would have been the first anthropologist to conduct research using the native language and to be aware of the need to stay for an extended period in order to do good work. In January 1915 he stated: Without doubt, if I could stay here for several more months – or years – I would get to know these people far better. But for a superficial short stay I have done as much as can be done. I am quite satisfied with what I have done under these poor circumstances. (1989 [1967]: 72)

Malinowski collected data on yam production, land rights, exchange of goods and conflicts; however, he did not contextualize the Trobriandian in historical terms or in relation to a comprehensive regional context, which was something that Mendes Correia always tried to do (1943a, 1944a, 1947, 1949a, 1953b, 1954b). Mendes Correia described the places where he had been, as well as the individuals he met, especially those with certain physical characteristics. In his notes, he employed terms mostly used in medicine, revealing of his training:

238  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

In the restaurant, a dark-skinned, Indigenous servant with cream-coloured eyes (Berber) walks with a child from the European family that she serves on her chest. She does not have her face covered, but has the characteristic vertical tattoos in the interciliary106 area and on the mentum.107 (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46)

Both on the way there and back, Mendes Correia and Magalhães Mateus spent part of their time at the IFAN, which he described as a ‘splendid installation of scientific research’ (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46), directed by Théodore Monod (1902‒2000) from the Natural History Museum from Paris. With Monod and Léon Pales (a disciple of Paul Rivet and author of a volume on paleopathology, who headed a scientific mission related to the IFAN and colonial health services), they visited the sections on ethnology, botany, zoology, anthropology and prehistory and the library. They were also with Georges Duchemin (the head of the ethnology section), the linguist Aimé Darot (a former student of Professor Homburger), who showed them graphs from a phonetic device which he had invented and suggested accompanying Magalhães Mateus to Guinea (an idea approved by Mendes Correia, with a Portuguese person going in turn to the IFAN, which Monod accepted) and J. Joire, a prehistorian and IFAN delegate from Conakry, French Guinea, who reported having consulted Raças do Império (Mendes Correia 1943a) and asked for more bibliographical information. In Dakar they consulted: the book Aethiopen des Nesteus by Bernatzik; the book Afrikafahrt by his wife, Emmy Bernatzik Kluge’s manuscript study of numeration in Africa; Homburger’s book and the study of the Susu by Father Lacan,108 as well as elements of Guinean geology. In the IFAN they also saw: Amédée Tardieu’s study of Senegambia and Guinea (1878), Cardinall’s Gold Coast bibliography (1931) with many Portuguese and foreign accounts about Guinea, a copy of the French translation of Álvares de Almada, with a preface by the Viscount of Santarém (1842), the African Memoranda of Captain Philip Beaver on the English occupation of the island of Bolama with many interesting ethnological indications (1805), John Barbot’s book A description of the coasts of north and south Guinea, and of Ethiopia inferior, vulgarly Angola (1732 ed.), and Am. Tardieu’s serials in La Perse about a journey on the coast of Senegambia. (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46)

In Senegal they also visited the School of Indigenous Medicine and the Institute of Anatomy, where there were many ‘black students’ dissecting ‘black corpses’ (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). Mendes Correia agreed with Monod to reinforce their mutual

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  239

collaboration and exchange of publications. Júlio Martinez de Santa-Olalla (an archaeologist from Madrid) suggested to Monod that the Portuguese participate in the International Conference of West Africanists (which the institute held in Dakar in January 1945 – the first of a series to be held in several colonies of West Africa to the north of the Congo and south of Mauritania) (Mendes Correia 1947: 32). Portugal did not participate that time, but Mendes Correia sent a communication on anthropological studies on the islands of Cape Verde and Guinea, and Judite dos Santos Pereira (an FCUP assistant) sent a study on the geology of Guinea. The scientists also exchanged views on the ‘centennial of the discovery of Guinea’ (to be held in 1946) and the possible collaboration of the IAUP and the International Conference of West Africanists in relation to this event. Throughout the visit, Mendes Correia tried to describe individuals according to their skin colour – more dark or less so. His descriptions of darker-skinned individuals are not as discriminatory as those of Malinowski, but they reveal paternalism. On the other hand, Mendes Correia wrote about psychological characteristics associated with certain groups, but these were transmitted to him above all by the interlocutors whom he encountered. He interacted, for example, with Bayots, Bainuks, Felupes and Papels. Both diaries (Malinowski’s and Mendes Correia’s) described aspects related to health and physical ailments that were common in the tropics. However, Mendes Correia gave a more detailed account (filariasis, leprosy, omphalocele,109 sleeping sickness, tuberculosis, yaws,110 goitre, smallpox, syphilis, elephantiasis and filaria), denoting his level of knowledge. Concerning health, he also visited the hospital in Bissau. In the field of physical anthropology, he observed about two dozen Felupes and concluded that they are leptosomes111 and thin, with the women being smaller. He took measurements of soldiers and recruits, while Magalhães Mateus copied the records of medical inspections of military recruitment; in Bissau they examined twenty-seven Fula, three Futa-Fula and one Futa forro; and in Bolama they observed ‘about twenty Nalus, twelve Biafadas and ten Bijagós’ in the barracks (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). Correia also took notes on various sociocultural practices. He referred to tabancas (Guinean villages) and to particular situations, which I have organized into groups: 1) Felupes (monogamy – where adultery is not allowed; ‘the great fighter of the colony’; they perform triangular mutilations of the upper incisors; circumcision every 30 years; use of the tantam as a sound telegraph in the village; five-year-old boys are still nursing; they had a chief for the men and a chief for the women; they respect women; they did not want to have a Cape Verdean, but a white man as the head of rank); 2)

240  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Balantas (they are hard workers, cultivators; they work on their many crops and graze cattle a lot); 3) Papels (they had a level of development he wasn’t expecting; hundreds of people work on the dam); 4) Biafadas (women ‘have an average of five to six children each, but many are stillborn’; fanado ‘takes place every year according to the Islamic rite’; ‘girls undergo clitoridectomy’; ‘it is a pity they are not hard-working); 5) Mandinkas (‘they are much more civilized than the others … both in clothing and in housing’; boatmen); 6) Fulas (‘the Fulas learn better at school than the Mandinkas’ [information obtained via the monitor of the missionary school, daughter of the administrator of Gabu]); 7) Bainuks (‘they don’t seem to have totem animals’; ‘they alternate rice, black corn, horse corn, bush meat’; sometimes seasoned with palm oil); 8) Manjaks (they have ‘five different dialects: calequisse, low coast, caio, pecixe and choro’); 9) Nalus and Bijagós (often have tattoos) (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). In Bolama Mendes Correia and Magalhães Mateus registered ‘words and numbering … and ascertained that the Nalu language is Bantu, the Biafada and the Bijagós dialects are not’; they visited ‘the villages of soldiers’, who all lived with one woman; and they saw (tattooed) Bijagós women, Nalus, Manjaks, Papels and Balantas, and found that there was no ‘divergence between them’ (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). Sometimes Correia systematized the data, which he put in tables (Table 4.1). As for the missionary activity, Mendes Correia stated that the only official schools in Guinea were in Bissau, Bolama, Farim, Bafatá and Canchungo: ‘others were closed and handed over to missionaries, under the Concordat’;112 however, he noted that there were no ‘missionary schools’, but ‘catechetical posts’ (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). When he dined with the governor in Bissau, he criticized the ‘lack of schools, the problem of the Concordat, Islamization, health care, distilanas and alcoholism’. At the end he wrote: I got a direct, clear impression of the ethnology of our Guinea and it was very beneficial, even from the point of view of our colonial policy, the contact with IFAN. Monod also offered me … the geological maps of Dakar that I asked him for, and his book on Morocco … He is going to Madrid in March. There was a benefit of taking him to Portugal. (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46)

From reading both diaries, it can be concluded that, in the case of Mendes Correia: 1) it was not regular fieldwork, as there was no prolonged stay; 2) the anthropologist did not go alone; 3) the visit was scheduled and it was known in advance who was going to meet them (heads of post and administrators, among others), but not in terms of the knowledge of the

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  241

populations they were going to visit; 4) visits to less urban places were often indicated by other people or accompanied by them; 5) the anthropologist behaved more from a voyeuristic perspective than trying to understand who the unknown individuals he met were and why they did what they did; 6) he did not contextualize certain situations chronologically and synchronically, but described them in the light of his Western prejudices, which were related to the fact that he was passing through and did not stay long in the place in question; 7) he wrote the stories told to him (true or not) and did not always have an opportunity to check their accuracy; 8) some conclusions were hasty and were not based on prolonged observation, but on occasional and brief contacts or reports (from heads of post, administrators, drivers, consuls, chiefs or other autochthonous individuals); 9) he did not question certain aspects of Portuguese colonialism; and 10) he seemed to want to give a broad picture and not reflect on just one group, one tabanca or one special aspect. However, as often happens in a field diary: 1) he recorded everything he saw, reported conversations, and noted names, local vocabulary and their meaning and designations in various languages; 2) he used the correct expressions to designate parts of the body and their diseases, with the advantage of his training in medicine; 3) he showed an Table 4.1. Guinean vocabulary (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46) Nalu

Susu

Landuman

Man

Lam’ tchele

Camé

Uruni

Men

Be-tchele

Camei

Aruni

Woman

Lam’dai

Guiné

urani

Women

Be-thai (a)

Guinei

arani

One

Dêndique

Quérem

tine

Two

Bilé

Ferim

maran

Three

Pate

Sagan

massasse

Four

Bine

Nane

manguelé

Five

Tedu

suli

cutchâmuto

Six

Tedu-dêndique

sene

cutchanti

Seven

Tedu-belé

Solo-fere

Cutchante-maran

Eight

Tedu t’pate

Solo-massagane

Cutchante-massase

Nine

Tedu t’bina

Solomannane

Cutchante-mangueli

Ten

Teble

fu

pu

Cow

Massumbé

ningué

ona

Cows

Bassumbé

ninguei

tschema

242  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

eagerness to want to know, understand and, at times, explain what he saw; 4) he visited various places and took pictures; 5) some of the interlocutors were recompensed, particularly with tobacco; 6) he demonstrated interest in people and their wellbeing; and 7) he did not deny the contributions of other sciences from the outset, as they can all be complementary to the study of humanity. However, Mendes Correia’s diary was not worked on or published, like Malinowski’s (although nor was there any idea of publishing it at the outset). Especially after this trip to Guinea, Mendes Correia rethought religion and entered into a rapprochement with Christianity; he started making a certain separation between the true religion, Catholic or Christian, and other religious practices, or so-called exotic religious practices, which he saw as ‘mystical epidemics’ where ‘animism, fetishism, magic and superstitions’ flourish. On the other hand, he criticized missionary practices in the colonies, he considered that the religious faith of a human being should not be destroyed, and he questioned whether the catechesis of children and missionary action in ‘indigenous populations’ was legitimate: ‘can it be legitimate to instil religious ideas or feelings in the malleable child’s soul or in the soul of the savage without giving them the opportunity for their developing reason to autonomously judge the virtues or defects of the doctrine taught?’ (1946b: 143, 150). He proclaimed the legitimacy of this catechesis as long as it did not constitute ‘a regrettable replacement of crude, obsessed and dangerous superstitions by others no less crude, obsessed and dangerous’; he doubted that all priests and educators lived up to their role; and he considered that, rather than having allegedly ‘indigenous’ Christians in whom the ‘superstitions of their previous fetishism’ remained, it might perhaps be preferable to leave them in their previous state (1946b: 151). On the other hand, Mendes Correia considered Islam to be a great religion: Catholic missionary activity had difficulty in confronting not the ‘fetishistic and uneducated populations’, but the populations of a large part of Guinea and northern Mozambique, i.e. the ‘peoples in whom there is an intense influence of great and powerful religions such as Islam’. In the case of Islam, he questioned whether it was worth making a ‘frontal attack’, as it was necessary to distinguish ‘the great religions, some of which have certain common moral principles or even affinities in certain dogmas and liturgical practices’ from other superstitions such as fetishism, animism and magic (1946b: 153). After his trip to Guinea, Mendes Correia stressed the importance of mastering native languages; knowing and speaking the ‘language of the natives’ was fundamental to understanding them, assessing their feelings and disseminating the stories of Christianity in the vernacular languages of the Brazilian Indians, the ‘African blacks’ and many Asian populations

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  243

(Mendes Correia 1956b: 228).113 With his support, the aforementioned Institute of African and Oriental Languages was created at the ESC, where Sanskrit, Arabic, Concanim (Goa), Kimbundu (Angola), Ronga (Mozambique) and Tetum (Timor), among others, were taught. In this text Mendes Correia quite naturally used the term ‘culture’ to say that ‘language is part and instrument of culture’ and that linguistics can be included in ethnology or cultural anthropology, though its connection with ‘race’ and physical anthropology was more distant (1956b: 232). For this reason, he claimed that ‘the blacks of the United States speak English, not the African languages of their ancestors’ and ‘with the English language they assimilated and adopted many customs, many attitudes, many ideas, which are no longer from Africa … but of Europe or of its descendants in the New World’ (1956b: 232). In 1948, Mendes Correia (1950) had already quoted Malinowski when he addressed the ‘dynamics of cultures’ at the third International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Brussels. He assumed, for example, the existence of a certain relativism in the symbolism and use of signs – although some ethnographers recorded whistles, drum beats or light signals for the transmission of thoughts at a distance in ‘backward peoples’ (the expression used), ‘civilized’ peoples also used acoustic or light signals, by means of a conventional code, to transmit information (1956b: 238). However, these formulations were written in the postwar period, which, as we shall see, gave rise to a new approach to the colonial terrain. The Postwar Period: Theoretical, Discursive and Legislative Revisions After the end of the Second World War in 1945, colonial systems began to decay. In Asia and Africa, nationalist and liberation movements emerged and those existing were reinforced. From the foundation of the United Nations (UN) on 24 October 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations, Portugal came under pressure due to the fact that it still maintained colonies. Although this occurred in the same decade, the break between before and after 1945 is notable. As a result of these pressures, when European countries had already granted independence or autonomy to the colonies, the Portuguese stance needed revising. There were first discursive and then official changes (a transformation of the imperial image common to France, England and Holland). Some countries opted to gradually grant autonomy to the colonies, which then led to decolonization. However, Portugal did not follow this strategy and preferred to incorporate the overseas territories into the Portuguese nation by designating them as ‘overseas provinces’114 of Portugal, like Minho or the Algarve, instead of ‘colonies’. The Ministry of Colonies was renamed the Ministry of Overseas and the Boletim Geral das

244  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Colónias becomes the Boletim Geral do Ultramar (although in 1951 both names were still being used). The expression ‘colonization’ was replaced with ‘integration’. However, the 1950 census indicated that only a tiny percentage of the colonies’ population held the statute of ‘civilized’ or ‘assimilated’ (Pereira 1986: 214). The 1951 Constitution maintained the Indigenous regime (indigenato) for natives of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea, as it was considered that they had not yet reached ‘the level of culture and social development of Europeans’, such as those in Cape Verde, Portuguese India and Macao (Santos 1955: 159). In order to validate the Portuguese colonial project, there was a commitment to the legitimization of its difference (disinterested colonization based on the transmission of Christian ideals and integration of colonized populations) before the (few) others still existing; a pluricontinental nation made up of Portuguese of all ‘races’ was argued; the discriminatory ideas of the Colonial Act began to be abandoned and the regime incorporated Freyre’s lusotropicalist theory115 (Cahen and Matos 2018); and the Indígena was now designated by neutral terms, although stereotypes continued to be used. In 1951 Freyre visited Portugal and its colonies in Africa and India116 at the invitation of the Minister of the Colonies Sarmento Rodrigues, so that he could prove his theory in situ; phenomena identical to Brazil’s success with racial ‘harmony’ (despite the conflicts that Freyre recognized) and a tolerant coexistence of different cultures and religions should be observed in other places under Portuguese rule and it was this similarity that he would try to prove. For example, in Guinea, Freyre found Islamized Fulas who collaborated with the Portuguese colonists; in Goa, Daman and Diu found that Catholics, Muslims, Hindus and Parsees coexisted simultaneously (Freyre 1954a, 1954b). However, in some cases the attitude was not exactly tolerant and perhaps it was poverty that brought some Portuguese settlers closer to the natives. At the Bandung Conference in Indonesia on 18 April 1955, the need to grant independence to colonized territories was reaffirmed. Asian peoples were well aware of their value and the need to show solidarity with Africans. However, the Portuguese regime only realized the real need for change when conflicts began in the colonies, and war broke out in Angola in 1961; a change then took place in the legislation on the abolition of compulsory cultures, forced labour and Indígena statute (abolished only in 1961). Lusotropicalist theses were then incorporated into the political discourse. This idea had long been the subject of scientific disrepute; however, it survived the post-independence period and, according to historians such as Valentim Alexandre (2000) and Cláudia Castelo (1998) and anthropologists such as Cristiana Bastos (1998) and Vale de Almeida (2004), seemed to fit with some ideas about Portuguese nationalism, national identity and

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  245

the adaptation of the Portuguese to different territories (Dias 1990 [1953]; Santos 1993). As a result of the change in the situation, there was also a change in Mendes Correia’s discourse, although at times he continued to show a certain paternalism towards Africans. When he visited Guinea between 1945 and 1946, he referred to the strikes carried out by some Africans in Dakar (in hotels, restaurants and other places): the natives then abandoned all domestic service in the homes of Europeans. In hotels and restaurants, black servants and cooks were absent from work. We make our own beds, we serve ourselves at the restaurant counter. This has a certain picturesque appeal, but … it is not reassuring. (Mendes Correia 1947: 27)

This social turmoil, which he observed close up, made him aware of the need for change in Portuguese overseas territories. While there was an attempt in Portugal to reinforce the colonial presence, in the French case there was progress towards the autonomy for the colonies: the strike hit several services and the minister soon resigned following the fall of Charles de Gaulle’s government. Another problem to overcome was that of language, as the Bantu natives of the Kikuya groups and others did not speak English, which was ‘another isolating factor’ that the English did not try to avoid (Mendes Correia 1951h: 13). When Mendes Correia visited Kenya in 1950 to participate in the inaugural meeting of the Scientific Council of Sub-Saharan Africa,117 he said that in Nairobi the Indians had ‘residences as luxurious and rich’ as the Europeans, but that there was a great segregation between one community and the other, and also in relation to native Africans; he added that in English East Africa, although there was no mention of communism, there was effervescent national or racial hubris (1951h: 13). In 1951 Mendes Correia spoke out against the Indígena statute, notably at the AN on 26 April 1951, arguing that all inhabitants of the Portuguese empire – metropolis and colonies – should be Portuguese citizens with no difference in status. In the same year he claimed that the examples of racial mixing found in the colonies were testament to the absence of racial prejudice among the Portuguese (1951e). This assertion was produced in a particular context, as I have said, but the idea that Portuguese colonization was different is found in the work of other authors, such as the Brazilian Gilberto Freyre (1957 [1933]) or the American Ruth Benedict (1983 [1942]). The latter, perhaps influenced by Freyre, stated that there was a difference in the attitudes of colonizers from different nations: the Spaniards, the Portuguese and the Dutch did not share the horror that the English had in

246  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

relation to miscegenation, nor did the French impose the strict distinctions of caste as the English did: The English dealt with natives as with a low, though sometimes useful, caste: they practiced a rigid separatism. Whereas in the French, the Spanish, and the Portuguese colonies marriage with native women was common and a mixed population sprang up, in English colonies intermarriage was the great exception and there was strong feeling against it. (Benedict 1983 [1942]: 109)

For Gerald Bender, both Portugal and Brazil tried to claim their splendour through lusotropicalism in the early 1930s. However, there was a difference in the way in which they saw the black population: Brazilians emphasized the symbolic nature of racial contact between the Portuguese and Africans, with each group benefiting from the culture of the other, while in Portugal, Africans were already characterized as inferior and Portuguese self-adulation on their civilizing mission depended on this inferiority (Bender 1980: 31). However, for Bender, the central point of the ideology of the two countries was the existence of a nonracist Portuguese colonialism that was completely sui generis (1980: 33). In the 1950s Mendes Correia recognized the mixtures present in the colonial context, especially in Portuguese architecture and ‘indigenous art’; he pointed out that ‘many failures of transculturation’ were the result of the ‘insufficient knowledge’ of the colonizers of ‘indigenous psychology and ethnography’, and of an ‘unfortunate technique’, which was evident in the ignorance of individuals who, though well intentioned, were unaware of some of the reactions of the ‘indigenous people’, which they should be able to recognize, as Vicente Ferreira had pointed out several years earlier (1954a: 251). However, Mendes Correia did not quote Race et Histoire by Claude Lévi-Strauss, published by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1952, the aim of which was to attack racism and promote cultural relativism. The qualities of Africans begin to be more valued in Mendes Correia’s discourse, as well as the need to treat them humanely; in a speech in the AN, he called for collaboration between the metropolis and overseas, and for the support of universities, the JMGIU and overseas local services for the success of ‘white colonization’ in Africa, noting that the ‘problem of colonization’ should take into account the ‘indigenous interests and rights’ (1952a: 20‒21). The change of focus in anthropological studies after Mendes Correia only came about as a result of the work of Jorge Dias, whose training was influenced by American cultural anthropology.118 In the 1950s, after undertaking fieldwork in Portugal, he directed scientific research in the colonies among the Makonde of Mozambique (1956‒60).119 However, despite the

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  247

split from physical anthropology studies, anthropobiology continued to develop in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1960s Dias still discussed ‘race’ in his texts, and the book Os Macondes de Moçambique (1964) has a chapter on anthropobiological elements (robustness indices, vitality coefficients and blood groups). Dias can be seen as an exception, as pointed out by Rui Pereira (1986: 231), as his work in the field of ethnology was serious, exhaustive and well-founded compared to previous works. However, it was not totally independent, as it was marked by the interests of colonial policy120 and by some anthropobiological work that was being undertaken. Even in 1961, Dias stated that the study of populations was the analysis of their somatic characteristics (1961). Only in the year of Mendes Correia’s death was the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples approved by a large majority on 15 December 1960, and only in 1961, the year of the outbreak of war in Angola (the beginning of all the colonial wars) were universities founded in Angola and Mozambique with links to Portuguese universities.

Conclusion Regarding the practical applications of anthropology, based on the analysis of Mendes Correia’s work, it can be concluded that his studies which were more strongly linked to criminal anthropology or population politics (social conditions, food or health) were mainly devoted to the population of the metropolis, while his anthropobiological studies (more dedicated to anthropometric practices and analysis of the risk of racial mixtures, including some ethnographic contextualization) took place mainly in colonial settings. Within the scope of the anthropology of the metropolis, Mendes Correia’s works favoured research on individuals and the specific character of Portugal’s history and population; within the scope of colonial anthropology, they favoured the study of the human ‘type’ as representative of a whole. Miscegenation, for example, was seen differently: in the case of the metropolis, although miscegenation was recognized, this was not a problem; in the case of the colonies, it was a possible threat and should be limited. However, the political regime did not promote miscegenation in the tropics and Mendes Correia showed his disapproval of it on several occasions. For João Leal, it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that the first more consistent signs of interest in non-European contexts emerged among Portuguese anthropologists (2006: 192) and he gives the example of the work of Jorge and Margot Dias in Mozambique. However, as I have explained in this chapter, the origins of this interest can be dated earlier. While there is no consistency in theoretical terms (or it is debatable), there

248  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

is motivation in terms of scope, defined as an area of research. In addition to publications from the 1910s, studies and anthropological missions were carried out in the colonies that, from the 1930s onwards, had state support from structures such as the IAC, universities and the SGL, the AGC and the JMGIC, which highlights the existence of an area of work and research. In the case of Germany, the science historian Robert Proctor (1988) considered that anthropology underlay the policies of a regime – the Nazis – and was politicized, the politicization being initiated by the anthropologists themselves. Regarding colonial domination, some authors have suggested that anthropology was behind the processes of colonial domination, although we might wonder about the interest or usefulness that some anthropological works would actually have had for the colonial administration (Asad 1991: 315). In the Portuguese case, I believe that anthropology was not exactly behind colonial domination, although it went hand in hand with that domination when some of its representatives shared the assumptions of civilizational and racial superiority of colonial projects. When it stopped sharing these assumptions, anthropology was at the fore in criticizing colonialism. Anthropology was not always the same, nor did anthropologists share the same opinions, even if they were coeval. For example, the anthropology practised by Franz Boas was not in aid of the colonial domination of the Indians of Northwest America. In Portugal, and in Mendes Correia’s understanding, the study of colonized populations from a physical point of view, but also the rescue of ‘primitive’ cultures, their ways of life and their artefacts, would be fundamental for future generations to know these examples of humanity almost on the brink of extinction. Mendes Correia was driven by a mission that motivated him to promote studies about different social ways of life. In comparison with the Coimbra School of Anthropology, it can be said that although its leader, Eusébio Tamagnini, carried out a study of the São Toméans (Santos 1996), its main interest was in the study of the Portuguese population in the biological and racial sense. On the contrary, Mendes Correia was one of the main drivers of research on colonial populations. However, in his case, studies on the social and cultural reality of the natives sometimes only served to contextualize the studies of physical anthropology. On the other hand, some of the works produced were related to the character of Portuguese colonialism and policies aimed at the colonies, especially during the Estado Novo. As Duro dos Santos points out, ‘the specific weaknesses of the Portuguese colonial project, its extension beyond decolonization … and its configuration in a totalitarian political regime would not have allowed the growth of a colonial anthropology as in other European nations’ (2005: 18). I believe that if in their forays into the history of anthropology in Portugal, scholars have omitted facts, figures and episodes, it is not because

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  249

of a lack of knowledge, but because of choice, or due to an incipient motivation to deal with certain issues, which became taboo in the postwar period and gave way to other priorities. In the 1940s the theme of ‘race’ was still on the rise, the mestizos of Brazil were under discussion and Nazism was at its height. In the postwar period, little by little, Mendes Correia ceded his place to Jorge Dias and the concept of culture replaced that of race. Understanding this situation and the fact that certain attitudes and prejudices were the result of ideological constructions, a dictatorial political context, inventions and a certain masked ethnocentrism may prove more productive.

Notes   1. An Italian criminalist who linked the physical aspect with behaviour, as well as with some people’s tendency for criminal activity.  2. http://digitarq.cpf.dgarq.gov.pt/details?id=39150, accessed December 2011.  3. http://www.redeconhecimentojustica.mj.pt/Category.aspx?id=78, accessed December 2011.  4. http://digitarq.cpf.dgarq.gov.pt/details?id=39150), accessed December 2011.  5. http://digitarq.cpf.dgarq.gov.pt/details?id=39150), accessed December 2011.   6. An article published in the Scientia journal (Milan) and summarily analysed in Natura (1932), volume 129.  7. A conference at Brussels Law Courts on 11 May 1931, under the auspices of the Belgian Union of Criminal Law and the Royal Belgian Society of Anthropology and Prehistory.   8. Only in 1973 were they withdrawn from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental illnesses.   9. The relationship between bodies and behaviour and between bones and other physical elements is explicitly suggested in Bones, Bodies, Behavior by Stocking Jr. (1988). On attempts to correlate morphological characters with behavioural parameters, particularly in the North American and French tradition during the nineteenth century, see Stocking Jr. (1968); Gould (1981); and Stepan (1982). On the Brazilian case, see Corrêa (2013) and Schwarcz (2007). 10. Enrico Ferri (1856‒1929), founder of modern criminology, attributed biological and social causes to crimes. 11. For example, ‘in the opening pages of the book, Voltaire appears amongst the men cited as being short in stature, and then as being large in stature!’ (Mendes Correia 1911: 77‒78). 12. Some advocates of moral therapy and asylum reform believed that changing the environment could lead to successful therapy. However, some cases dashed that hope and proved insurmountable. Some psychopathic traits seemed to be inherited, which led two French psychiatrists – Moreau de Tours (1804‒84), Esquirol’s student, and Benedict-Auguste Morel (1809‒73) – as well as the Englishman Henry Maudsley (1835‒1918) to systematize these observations in a degenerative model. Morel, a doctor

250  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

at several nursing homes, considered that hereditary degeneration was cumulative over generations and ended in imbecility and sterility. On the other hand, the physicians Paul Möbius (1854‒1907) and Max Nordau (1849‒1923) helped to popularize degenerationist thinking. Morel’s ideas were taken up in Italy by Lombroso, who saw criminals and psychiatric patients as degenerates, with evolutionary regressions that could be identified by physical stigmas such as low foreheads and protruding jaws (Porter 1999: 510‒11). 13. Mendes Correia’s interest in psychiatry and mental illness is contemporary with the work of eminent figures in medicine and psychiatry in Portugal, such as the nineteenth-century alienists and Miguel Bombarda, Júlio de Matos and José de Matos Sobral Cid. On the work of these doctors, see Quintais (2012). 14. Authors such as Claude Sigaud, Auguste Chaillou, Léon Mac-Aullife, Alfred Thooris, Ernest Kretschmer and Viktor Valerianovich Bunak contributed to this classification. 15. Also covered in Mendes Correia (1934c: 364‒66). 16. The Entreposto was formed by the Civil Governor of Porto, Major Guilherme de Azevedo, to combat the epidemic of typhoid fever. Mendes Correia was director of the Entreposto in the 1910s. 17. A professor at the University of Madrid and also an influence on Mendes Correia. 18. On his ideas, see, for example, Saldaña (1933). 19. The idealist school of criminal law called for the study of individual delinquents, but totally rejected the biomorphological elements and fixed its attention on criminal psychology and on the criminal’s soul. 20. Mendes Correia states that it was António Emílio de Vasconcelos, a fellow student and future doctor at the Porto military hospital, who, in around 1910, advised him to read this philosopher, whose Thus Spoke Zarathustra he had on his bedside table (1946b: 61). Although Mendes Correia searched for this work, he only found Twilight of the Idols, i.e. the philosopher’s penultimate work (1888) written shortly before his loss of lucidity and that, according to its author, constitutes a declaration of war on Christian morality, the misconceptions of philosophy and some ‘modern’ trends. 21. While the Refúgio was the place where minors were collected until the court decision, the detention centres (Tutoria) were where disadvantaged children who were considered criminals or at risk were examined. 22. On this institution between the 1930s and 1960s, i.e. after the publication of Mendes Correia’s main works on delinquency and criminality, see Lopes et al. (2001). 23. The youth detention centres were instituted by the Decree-Law of 27 May 1911. 24. As previously mentioned, studies on delinquent children were initiated by Ferreira Augusto and Luís Viegas. 25. It contains a chapter on an alleged attack by a youngster who shot a minister. 26. According to the Decree-Law of 27 May 1911, the ‘minors in moral danger’ were those who ‘had no fixed abode or means of subsistence (due to the absence of parents, guardians, relatives, etc., due to illness or imprisonment of the children themselves), those whose parents or guardians were recognized as incapable or powerless to fulfil their parental or guardian duties, as well as those who lived in the company of parents or guardians who “severely neglected their duties to watch over and educate their children”, who they had “notorious and scandalous behaviour”, who were “known as being habitually idle, beggars, strays, alcoholics, burglars, ruffians, prostitutes or other immoral beings”, who habitually deprived their children of food and other essential health care, physically abused them in a habitual or excessive manner, made them to “steal”, beg or prostitute themselves, were employed in “banned, dangerous

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  251

or inhuman” professions, and/or had been convicted for certain crimes’ (Bastos 1997: 201). 27. For Mendes Correia, this recognition in popular traditions is remarkable, above all because it far pre-dates ‘the collective psychology studies of Sighele, Le Bon, Durkheim, Tarde, etc.’, who considered crowds mentally and morally inferior to isolated individuals (1931a: 247‒48). 28. The first statistical study of criminality in Portugal, given its efforts in interpretation and its systematic character, is the ‘Statistical Study of Crime in Portugal from 1891 to 1895’, by A. Luís Lopes, which was prepared at the request of the organizing committee of the National Congress of Medicine in Lisbon in 1897 and published by the Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa (Fatela 1989: 26). 29. These aspects were later accounted for in the field of colonial anthropology. 30. On 24 October 1932, Kehl gave a lecture in Porto, invited by Mendes Correia. 31. One of the exponents of the new theory of biometrics was Karl Pearson (1857‒1936). 32. They advocated such measures not because they were Latins, but because they were mostly Catholic. 33. Tamagnini, founder of the Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies, did not have any article similar to Mendes Correia’s on the eugenics problem (1928a), but called for the study of questions about ‘race hygiene’ in a presentation to the Senate of the UC on 25 January 1933 (Tamagnini 1934‒35: 28). 34. Repeat offenders. According to the Decree-Law of 20 July 1912, which regulated vagrancy, a multiple offender could equally be a beggar, a homosexual, a ruffian or a vagrant. 35. A minister in Salazar’s government from 23 October 1934 to 18 January 1936 and professor of anthropology at the UC. On Tamagnini, see Santos (1996). 36. As comparisons, we can take: the German Society of Racial Hygiene (1905); the Society of Eugenic Education in England (1907); the French Eugenic Society (1912); and the Americana Eugenic Society (1921), which advised sterilization of a tenth of the American population to avoid ‘the suicide of the white race’. 37. Those present were mostly professors at the FMUC (Fernando Bissaya-Barreto, Alberto Rocha Brito, Anselmo Ferraz de Carvalho and Elísio de Moura). From Porto and Lisbon, where the sections of the society were directed by Mendes Correia and Henrique de Vilhena, respectively, the doctors Joaquim Pires de Lima, João de Almeida and José de Matos Sobral Cid participated. 38. In this context, Mendes Correia distinguished the prohibition of sexual relations that may be harmful to society from the legitimacy that the sexual act can have as pleasure: ‘preventing the sexual act from having harmful consequences for society, does not imply the recognition of the legitimacy of this act, seen as one of simple pleasure, without the high significance that it has under regular conditions before the moral and civil law’ (1934c: 353). 39. Mendes Correia was the representative of Porto at this congress. In this regard, he mentioned that the Congresses of Population Sciences had already started abroad, first in Rome and then in Berlin. He also recalled the Paris Conference on Population Problems, the International Conference on Emigration in Havana (1928), the World Population Conference in Geneva (1927) and the Commissions for the Study of Population Problems, such as the Italian Committee, with Corrado Gini as President (1884‒1965). 40. Mendes Correia also used this discourse as a political statement and took advantage of the context of national promotion of the Centenary Commemorations to praise Oliveira Salazar’s regime. He criticized the statement of Henri Decugis in the book

252  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Le Destin des Races Blanches (1936) about Portugal’s alleged decay, founded on the ‘infertility of ruling families’, on the ‘population of inferior elements’, the ‘bastard nature of the race by intense mixing with people of colour’, the ‘lowering of the intellectual level of the population’ and the ‘scarcity of individuals of choice, which three centuries ago would have barely allowed Portugal to participate in the prodigious intellectual movement in Europe’. For Mendes Correia, the very fact of holding this congress was ‘a protest against the assertion’ of those who considered the Portuguese to be diminished (1940a). 41. Months before, Mendes Correia had a polemic exchange with Reynold, who had criticized his transformism. 42. Reynold was also a professor of French literature in Bern. He published on Swiss cultural history, European history, and studies of Swiss and French literary history from a Catholic point of view. 43. This section presented a work by the Italian demographer and fascist Corrado Gini (1940) on birth and another on Portuguese population mortality (Sant’Ana 1940). 44. On his analysis of the causes of mortality in Portugal, see Loureiro (1945). On his life and work, see Mendes Correia (1949b). In 1948, as a member of the AN, Mendes Correia highlighted the importance of Loureiro’s work in the area of nutrition (see Chapter 5). 45. Some were notable figures not only in their own professional field, but also due to their connection to the republican movement, such as Miguel Bombarda and Júlio de Matos, the latter being involved in the Portuguese positivist movement, and Barahona Fernandes, an opponent of the Estado Novo. 46. One of the paradigms of the negative eugenics policy was the Mitra – a hostel for beggars where madmen, criminals, beggars, children and old people were locked away (Bastos 1997). 47. The SGL was a little late on the scene when we take into account the fact that, during the first half of the nineteenth century, geography societies had already been created in Paris, London, Berlin and St Petersburg, among others. 48. But already in 1853, the merchant Silva Porto had embarked on an expedition from Angola to Mozambique. 49. Goody’s book (1995) is a source for studying the directions taken by anthropology between the 1930s and 1960s, and how it was influenced by the institutions that supported it. However, British social anthropology is not always associated with colonial science. A symptomatic case is the fact that the extensive book After Tylor (Stocking Jr. 1995b), which analyses the period from 1888 to 1951, has only one chapter on the colonial context, i.e. sixty-one pages out of a total of 570. 50. Minister of the Colonies and War (1915), Governor (1912‒15) and High Commissioner of Angola (1921‒23). Before being a democrat, he was part of the monarchy party and later became part of the opposition to the Estado Novo. 51. Before and after Oliveira Salazar’s role as Minister of the Colonies, Eduardo Augusto Marques held that position; on Marques’ biography, see Matos (2015). 52. The indigenous peoples or Indígenas were, according to Article 2 of Decree-Law no. 16473 of 6 February 1929 of the Ministry of the Colonies, which regulated the Political, Civil and Criminal Statute of Indigenous Peoples, ‘individuals of the black race, or of black race descendants that, by their illustration and customs, are not distinguished from what is common in that race; and non-Indigenous, individuals of any race who are not within those conditions’. As a result of the constitutional revision, this statute was reformulated in 1954; an integrationist policy was then adopted and the colonies came to have the name and legal status of overseas provinces.

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  253

However, the statute continued to impose segregation. The statute approved in 1954 was definitively revoked in 1961. 53. Júlio Dantas was President of the Executive Committee for Centenaries and President of the Congresses of the Portuguese World. 54. This was a golden period in the life of Mendes Correia, who was at that time President of FCUP, member of the ACL and of the Portuguese Academy of History, advisor of the CC and President of the CMP. 55. An anthropologist and physiologist, and founder of the Cambridge School of Experimental Psychology; he administered psychological tests to Melanesians and developed a (genealogical) method for recording kinship data, which became one of the most important in this field. 56. The work of military anthropometry was not institutionalized in Portugal and was sporadic. 57. In addition to anthropology, the JMGIC sponsored research in geography, geodesy, hydrography, meteorology, astronomy, diplomatic and border matters, some of which took place simultaneously. 58. ‘Missões Antropológicas e Etnológicas às Colónias, Decreto-lei n.º 34.478’, 1951: 146‒47. 59. ‘Missões Antropológicas e Etnológicas às Colónias, Decreto-lei n.º 34.478’, 1951: 146‒47. 60. The list of publications on the Anthropological Missions of Mozambique can be found in Júnior (1956). 61. Emphasis in original. 62. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 1. 63. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 1. 64. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. nº 1. 65. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. n.º 1. 66. Norberto Santos Júnior followed several campaigns during his school holidays in Portugal; interview in August 2010 in Torre de Moncorvo. 67. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 1. 68. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 8. 69. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 8. 70. Letter from Santos Júnior to Mendes Correia, 9 October 1945, FCUP Natural History Museum. 71. Letter from Santos Júnior to Mendes Correia, 16 October 1946, FCUP Natural History Museum. 72. In 1936 a plan for the study of Mozambican prehistory was published showing the scarcity of works, despite the fact that several discoveries were already known in the South African Union; however, in 1938, Santos Júnior’s research revealed a ‘dozen prehistoric sites in Mozambique’ (Mendes Correia 1945a: 6). 73. In 1950 Santos Júnior made a Mozambican Prehistory Charter. 74. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 2, IICT, Doc. no. 132. 75. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 2, IICT, Doc. no. 132. 76. It contains an analysis of the observed anatomical and anthropometric characteristics of the Timorese. 77. With whom Mendes Correia corresponded (Mendes Correia 1932a). 78. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 1, IICT, Doc. no. 99. 79. Letter from Mendes Correia (President of the JMGIU), 16 July 1953, to the president of the executive committee of the JMGIU. Processo n.º 306 de António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vol. 2, IICT, Doc. no. 225.

254  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

80. A graduate in Germanic philology from the UC, who also held the Portuguese readership at the Universities of Rostock, Munich, Berlin, Santiago de Compostela and Madrid, from 1938 to 1947. He received his doctorate in ethnology from the University of Munich in 1944. 81. The CEEU was later replaced on 30 May 1962 by the Centre for Anthropobiology Studies, created at the JMGIU to work with the ISEU. 82. After Mendes Correia’s death, Dias took over as deputy director of the Centre for Political and Social Studies at the JMGIU. 83. The ESC was created in 1906 under the name Escola Colonial; when its curriculum was reorganized in 1919, the discipline of Colonial Ethnology became part of its programme. The school was renamed the ESC in 1927, until the academic year 1954‒55, when it changed to the ISEU. In 1961 it was renamed the ISCSPU. Since 1974, its name has been the ISCSP. Likewise, the name of the course was changed from the colonial course to the general colonial course (1919) and later to the higher colonial course (1927). 84. According to Decree-Law no. 35885/46, this ‘markedly professional’ course aimed to give an ‘important role to studies concerning native peoples, introducing the novelty of a subject aimed at teaching methods for indigenous education (starting, of course, from ethnopsychology) and especially of the organization and work processes of the religious missions with which the employee has to constantly deal and collaborate’. 85. According to the aforementioned Decree-Law, philological and linguistic studies on the languages and dialects spoken in the colonies were also encouraged, as was the creation of an Institute of African Languages. 86. Diário das Sessões of the AN (http://debates.parlamento.pt, accessed September 2010). 87. Racial mixing was also debated in Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina and Venezuela. The idea of miscegenation, seen as decay, had been argued, for example, by Gobineau, and its discussion was common both in Europe and in the United States, and in Central and South America. 88. I use Balandier’s expression (1951) to refer to the colonial context, which brought together different individuals in defined territories and led to power relations (domination versus subordination). 89. To support his arguments, he relied on Benedict-Auguste Morel, Valentin Magnan, Paul Maurice Legrain, Júlio de Matos, André Barbe, Afrânio Peixoto, Fernando Correia, Herman ten Kate and Eusébio Tamagnini. 90. Historian and contemporary of Roquette Pinto, Lôbo de Oliveira and Óscar Brown. Mendes Correia personally met Oliveira Viana in Brazil in 1934, but already had links with him through an exchange of letters and publications. He saw him again in Brazil in 1937. 91. A historian who saw Brazil as the product of three races: white European, black African and aboriginal Indian. 92. An anthropologist and biotypologist, and author of O normótipo brasileiro. 93. In these congresses, Gonçalo de Santa-Rita, a professor at the ESC, also declared himself against there being mestizos in the colonies (Santa-Rita 1940: 20‒21). In turn, Ayres de Azevedo called for the urgent definition of a demographic policy for the country and for the increase of the white population in the empire (Azevedo 1940a: 62‒63, 75). In keeping with the opposition to miscegenation, works were produced at this time with the aim of proving the purity of the Portuguese people (Mello 1936; Tamagnini 1939; Lima 1940; Azevedo 1940b) and the idea that, despite miscegenation, in the case of the Indo-Portuguese populations, for example, there

Practical Uses of Anthropology  •  255

was ‘neither degeneracy, nor racial diversification in the Luso-descendant flock’ (G. Correia 1940: 663 ff.). 94. The date on which the text was presented. 95. Freyre quoted Mendes Correia several times in this book (1913a, 1919b, 1924a, 1931a). 96. During this period, examples such as the JMGIC (1936), the SPN (1933‒44), the National Bureau for Information, Popular Culture and Tourism (SNI) (1944‒74), the Cinematic Mission to the African Colonies (MCCA) (1937), the cruises to the colonies, the Colony Weeks at the SGL, and various periodicals were responsible for disseminating knowledge about the Portuguese colonial empire (Matos 2013). 97. 1) Skin colour; 2) eye and hair colour; 3) shape of eyes; 4) development of the hair system; 5) breadth and slope of the forehead; 6) shape and prominence of the superciliary arches; 7) prominence of the cheekbones; 8) shape of the nose; 9) thickness and curling of the lips; 10) prominence of the mentum (chin); 11) shape of breasts in women; 12) lines of the palms and fingerprints; 13) steatopygia (protrusion of the buttocks); 14) conformation of the external genital organs; 15) big toe clearance, etc. (Mendes Correia 1943a: 18‒24). 98. Blood pressure, basal metabolism, visual sharpness, blood chemical composition and body odour. 99. For Mendes Correia, this was related to the functioning of the nervous system and psychological activities (sharpness of the senses (sight and taste), metric scales of intelligence). 100. Food, housing, clothing, hygiene, industry, transport, agriculture, hunting, fishing, domestication and animal husbandry, food preparation and preservation, meaning attributed to food, obtaining fire, pottery, basketry, narcotics, ritual practices, and use of paints and masks. 101. Ceremonies and rites, religion, superstitions, fighting diseases and spirits, and social hierarchy. 102. Here can be found the domains that would be studied in social anthropology: languages, means to transmit thought at a distance, writing, mnemonics, pictography, games and playgrounds, practice of sports, shows, dances, music, poetry, plastic arts, popular science, social organization, gender and family relations, education of children, property regime, political organization, law and justice, secret societies, war, currency and commerce. 103. Some of the impressions on the characteristics of Portuguese people from different regions were collected from authors such as Ramalho Ortigão, Oliveira Martins, Aquilino Ribeiro, Raul Proença, Raul Brandão and Afrânio Peixoto. 104. On the display of human groups in the exhibitions, see Matos (2014). 105. Edwards (1990) examined the role of photography in the anthropological method in the late nineteenth century in two projects at this time: one in England and the other in Germany. 106. The area between the eyebrows. 107. The chin. 108. ‘According to Father Lacan, the Susu are linguistically related to the Mandinka. Homburger argues the Egyptian origin of Black African languages and does not take Drexel seriously. He says that since 1912 he has affirmed the unity between Bantu and Sudanese, and that African linguistics is ‘a nascent science’ (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné 1945‒46). 109. Umbilical hernia. 110. An infectious tropical disease of the skin, bones and cartilage caused by the spirochete bacteria.

256  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

111. According to the classification by the psychiatrist Ernest Kretschmer, the leptosomes are thin, small and weak. 112. The Portuguese regime had signed the Concordat and Missionary Agreement with the Vatican in 1940, which reinforced Portugal’s overseas missionary activities. 113. Address on the Emissora Nacional (national broadcasting service) in the ‘Science at the Service of Humanity’ series in 1954. 114. This expression was already in use in the nineteenth century. The Estado Novo later instituted the name ‘colonies’ and in the 1950s the earlier expression was adopted. 115. However, Freyre’s lusotropicalist concepts were also criticized, mainly because racial discrimination and harsh colonial administrative practices had long existed and persisted. 116. Freyre did not visit Timor, as he was told that it was not worth visiting. 117. At that time, he visited the Great Rift Valley, accompanied by Francisco José Carrasqueiro Cambournac (professor at the Lisbon Institute of Tropical Medicine, director of the Institute of Malariology and member of the World Health Organization) and revived his interest in deposits with human remains from the Paleolithic. 118. Dias became familiar with this trend when he went to the United States; examples of this are Rio de Onor: comunitarismo agro-pastoril (Dias 1953), with an attempt to apply the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy (Benedict (1934), inspired by the opposition formulated by Nietzsche) and Vilarinho da Furna: uma aldeia comunitária (Dias 1981 [1948]) or Os Elementos Fundamentais da Cultura Portuguesa (Dias 1990 [1953]). 119. The Mission for the Study of Ethnic Minorities in Overseas Portugal (MEMEUP) was created for this purpose in 1957. Jorge Dias directed this mission, which included Manuel Viegas Guerreiro and Margot Dias. As a result, ‘campaign reports’ and four volumes of the monograph Os Macondes de Moçambique from 1961 to 1966 were produced. The first volume was reprinted (Dias 1998 [1964]). 120. However, despite being financed by the regime, Dias’ confidential reports are not laudatory of Portuguese colonial policy (Pereira 1998).

Chapter 5

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy

As well as creating organizations connected to the university, teaching and research, Mendes Correia promoted initiatives connected to culture and the dissemination of knowledge and the arts, in Porto and on a national level. He was first involved in Republican projects, such as the creation of the UP in 1911. Afterwards, in a political-administrative context, he was Mayor of Porto from 1936 to 1942 and advisor of the CC for two legislative periods from 1935 to 1938 and 1938 to 1942 respectively. Within the scope of his parliamentary activity, he was a deputy to the AN from 1945 to 1957. However, more than being involved in politics, he took a stand on specific issues and advocated causes that were dear to him. His action should be understood as those of a man whose life was guided by nationalism, which involved an improvement of the demographic situation (from the point of view of hygiene, nutrition and living conditions) of the Portuguese people. This nationalism would be served by science, in a positivist sense, as previously considered by medical doctors like Júlio de Matos, Miguel Bombarda and Egas Moniz, who were also involved in politics. For Mendes Correia, science would primarily allow the regeneration and greatness of the motherland, both in the metropolis and the colonies. His thinking was formed in this context of ‘national regeneration’ and was later connected, as mentioned above, to the movement ‘Renascença Portuguesa’ (Portuguese Renaissance), which arose in Porto in 1912, having launched some publications through its typography (Mendes Correia 1916a, 1916c, 1919b, 1925j). He also cooperated with its main body – the journal A Águia (Mendes Correia 1916d, 1924b) – to which individuals with diverse modes of thinking were connected, but who shared a common nationalist ideal. These circumstances explain his interest in archaeology and the historical legacy, ethnography,

258  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

art and music, as well as training and education. His political offices allowed him to be closer to the national decision-making centres in Lisbon. An analysis of these centres allows us to understand his concerns and assess which topics raised more debate or consensus.

A Mayor with Particular Concerns (1936‒42) One of the political offices held by Mendes Correia was that of Mayor of Porto. According to the Administrative Code related to the Decree-Law 27,424, dated 31 December 1936, the municipal councils had specific assignments: first, managing common and the municipality’s own assets; second, development; third, public provisioning; fourth, culture and support; fifth, public health; and, sixth, the police (Article 44, Diário do Govêrno 1936: 1780). In the use of its assignments regarding culture and support, the municipal councils had the power to decide, among other subjects, on ‘the management of exposed people and destitute or abandoned children’, the ‘confinement of alienated people and hospitalization of the sick in the municipality’ and the ‘extinction of mendicity’ (nos. 10, 11 and 12 of Article 48); in the use of assignments pertaining to public health, the municipal councils were able to decide, among other aspects, on ‘building affordable housing’ ( no. 15 of Article 49) (Diário do Govêrno 1936: 1781). Still according to the same Administrative Code, the mayors had a six-year renewable mandate (Article 72), but their work was only paid in the municipalities of Lisbon and Porto and were incompatible with other public offices paid by the state (Article 75). However, the officials who earned an income allocated by the state (as was the case for Mendes Correia, who was a professor at the UP) and who were appointed mayors in the municipalities of Lisbon and Porto were considered as being under an extraordinary public service commission and, therefore, were entitled to choose between their usual earnings or the earnings as mayors, and the municipality was responsible for its payment. According to Article 80, the mayor was also a police authority with several competences, such as guaranteeing the ‘maintenance of order and public peace’ (no. 1), ‘keeping watch on beggars, vagrant people, vagabonds, strolling musicians and minors under moral peril’ (no. 6), ‘deploying police activities regarding prostitutes’ (no. 9) and performing ‘the tasks of police investigation of public crimes and the capture of criminals’ (no. 11) (Diário do Govêrno 1936: 1784–785). However, during the Estado Novo, the municipal councils’ autonomy was reduced and all actions required the approval of the Minister of the Interior.

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  259

Social Regeneration Measures: Childcare and Appropriate Housing Mendes Correia’s concerns were first declared in his inauguration speech in the session in which he took office on 23 May 1936,1 when he highlighted the aspirations he meant to develop: ‘no one will take us amiss if we dedicate the upmost care to the problems most directly related to the living conditions of the immense and moving legion of the poor, the miserable, the unlucky’. According to him, ‘there cannot be a true municipal action without a very strong social action’ and this should include ‘the issues related to the workers’ housing, nutrition, hygiene, support, among the common people’. The care provided by the CMP regarding unprotected people included children and young people, an age group on which Mendes Correia reflected in the 1910s and 1920s, as well as the underprivileged social classes. He began carrying out his duties on 29 May 1936 and, according to minutes written the following month and dated 4 June 1936, the Municipal Orphanage2 (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2) and the College of Orphans3 were made to answer to the Department of Education. From 1938 to 1941, the President of the Support and Education Committee for the Orphanages was Ana José Guedes da Costa – the first woman to be included in a municipal office in the history of the CMP

Figure 5.1. Municipal Orphanage, female section, 1920s. Porto Municipal Archive

260  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

(Sousa et al. 2009: 480). She highlighted the need for repair works and improvements in the College of Orphans and in the Municipal Orphanage, and regretted that the CMP could not deploy greater sums in charity institutions (session dated 25 June 1938). Nonetheless, repairs were made at the College of Orphans and improvements were also introduced in relation to nutrition, clothing and medical care; the male pupils also received the uniforms of the Portuguese Youth (‘Relatório da Gerência Camarária no ano de 1938’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942: 17). The CMP was also responsible for the Shelter for Children (Abrigo dos Pequeninos) (see Figure 5.3), which supported, clothed and fed ‘children from a few days to five years old from poor working families’ (‘Relatório da Gerência Camarária no ano de 1938’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942: 16). These concerns, as I have previously shown, had been directly connected to Mendes Correia’s medical, sanitary and anthropological interests since the 1910s. To follow up on the idea of building housing for the poor, on 25 June 1936, a committee was named to draw up a plan. For Mendes Correia, ‘comfortable and healthy housing’ was ‘a pre-condition for the well-being of a population, of its activity, of its physical, moral and economic value’; the municipal councils took on a role ‘in matters of salubrious housing’; and the urbanization and hygiene measures were praiseworthy, such as the erection

Figure 5.2. Municipal Orphanage, male section, 1920s. Porto Municipal Archive

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  261

of affordable homes. There was therefore the need for a ‘plan for salubrious buildings that could house a large part of Porto’s population … living in the most deplorable hygiene, comfort, safety and even moral prophylaxis conditions’ (session dated 4 February 1937). The report lamented the toilets, as well as the hygiene and disease conditions (typhus, syphilis, tuberculosis) that these populational niches were facing. The committee entrusted with drawing up the plan estimated that more than ‘two hundred and fifty million escudos’ (a large sum at the time) was needed to appropriately house the ‘dozens of thousands of inhabitants’ that ‘unacceptably pile-up in foul islands4 and other ignoble attics’. Although the CMP did not possess this sum, it set out to take on a quarter of this value, obtaining it by way of serial loans. On 2 December 1937, Mendes Correia stated that the CMP could count on the permission to withdraw in 1938 ‘the amount of six million escudos, which corresponds to the first instalment of the loan’. On 30 December 1937,5 the Relato da actuação da Comissão Administrativa report was presented. In this document Mendes Correia recalled the actions developed by the Municipal Council throughout the year in order to improve the living conditions of the city’s population, but especially the ‘living conditions of the poor’, which were the subject of ‘the upmost determined and particular interest’. The process initiated by Mendes Correia – the construction of affordable-rent housing or of housing for the poor, paid for

Figure 5.3. Shelter for Children, 1938. Porto Municipal Archive

262  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

by the central and/or the municipal government – was extended throughout the following municipal council administrations. In 1944, for example, housing cooperatives were created in Porto and its surrounding area. But there was a difference in Mendes Correia’s term of office – while the state launched programmes for the erection of one- or two-storey houses, single-family dwellings, generally semi-detached and mainly aimed at certain social groups such as public officers, the CMP was creating conditions that enabled accommodation to be created for ‘more than 50,000 people living in extremely poor conditions’ (Sousa et al. 2009: 480). This happened in a context when, according to the 1940 census, Porto had a population of 259,000 inhabitants. Despite municipal councils possessing the competences to decide on the construction of affordable homes, Mendes Correia was the first mayor to show an interest in this problem (Sousa et al. 2009). The context of the Second World War6 made it impossible to materialize some ambitions, but ‘to safeguard the physical and moral health’ of Porto’s inhabitants was a pressing need (‘Plano da Actividade Municipal para 1942’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942: 35). Training and Education Mendes Correia’s concerns were also related to training and education. Within this scope, we find the measures taken by the CMP to support the cultural and scientific life. On 8 August 1936, the mayor stated that the CMP would support a Brazilian Study Group, created in Porto to intensify ‘the knowledge on the multiple and varied expressions of cultural activity in the great brother country’, with which there were ‘so many ethnical, spiritual and economic affinities’. Portuguese studies were also a concern for Mendes Correia. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the FLUP existed from 1919 to 1928 and only reopened, after its closure, in the school year 1962–63. Mendes Correia always regretted the absence of this faculty in the city. Perhaps for that reason, and leveraging his role at the CMP during the session that took place on 17 September 1936, he recalled the need for a humanities study centre in Porto; although he recognized that the Municipal Council’s competences did not include the organization of such a centre, he considered that the Crystal Palace7 could be used for that effect, thus becoming the ‘core of an intense cultural life’, where conferences and lectures could be held, as with the previous management committee, that might attract ‘cultured people’, but also the ‘less educated classes’. He thought it was necessary to focus ‘the public attention on national problems, so that Portuguese people know well the land where they were born, their roots and the past of their nationality, the current living conditions in Portugal and the prospects for the future’. However, he cautioned that ‘although we must bear in

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  263

mind the universality of science and the feelings of brotherhood that bind the peoples, without prejudice to their national individualities’, there was a ‘clear advantage in restricting this first endeavour to Portuguese studies, precisely upon which the unmistakable personality, the marked spiritual and material physiognomy of our Motherland, is based’. He therefore proposed the following: 1) ‘in addition to the courses in the history of Portugal and the history of civilization’, one should organize, ‘with a sense of continuity, other courses, lectures and conferences on Portuguese topics, from language, literature and national history’, the ‘Portuguese fine arts and folklore, up to the natural and economic history of the metropolis and its colonies – thus creating a pedagogical and cultural centre that, due to the lack of concern regarding diplomas or strict curriculums, exams, etc., will be called Free Faculty for Portuguese Studies’; 2) ‘to obtain the selfless collaboration of individualities that, due to their specialized skills, civic sense and teaching qualities, may offer … a pedagogical activity’; 3) ‘teaching based, not only in classes which number and frequency will be established with the respective professors … but also on lectures or conferences’; 4) ‘for the regular courses, free and gratuitous enrolment; lectures and conferences should be public, possibly … with several education levels, from high culture to elementary vulgarization’. Correia therefore sought to democratize access to knowledge. The ‘Free Faculty for Portuguese Studies’, under the responsibility of the municipality, began to operate at the Crystal Palace from November 1936, and was directed by António Almeida Costa, town councillor for education. The courses that made up the new teaching core were the following: Portuguese language, history of Portuguese literature, history of civilization, history of the Discoveries, history of Porto, history of science in Portugal, history of visual arts in Portugal, history of music in Portugal, geology and physiography in Portugal and the colonies, flora in Portugal and the colonies, fauna in Portugal and the colonies, anthropology in Portugal and the colonies, Portuguese folklore, national economy, agriculture in Portugal, oenology, corporate organization, Portuguese-Brazilian studies and Galician-Portuguese studies. Its lecturers and speakers would be Mendes Correia himself and people he knew from various domains: science (Ezequiel de Campos; Bethencourt Ferreira; and Pereira Salgado), medicine (Alberto Brochado; Américo Pires de Lima; Joaquim Alberto Pires de Lima; and Luiz de Pina), the humanities and history (Magalhães Basto; Aarão Soeiro Moreira de Lacerda; Damião Peres; Antero de Figueiredo; Basílio de Vasconcelos; and José Júlio Rodrigues), ethnography (Álvaro de Las Casas and Augusto César Pires de Lima), law (Joaquim Costa; Simeão Pinto de Mesquita; and Abrantes Tavares), architecture (Carlos Ramos) and the cultural environment (Armando Leça), among others.

264  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

On 19 September 1936, Mendes Correia proposed that the designation ‘Free Faculty for Portuguese Studies’ be replaced with ‘Portuguese Studies’, since the initial designation might ‘suggest imprecise interpretations on the structure and the function of that organism, which does not present the organization and the goals of an official university-level school, and had the sole propose of promoting the interest in national subjects’. In 1947 the ‘studies’ would become the Centre for Humanities Studies, which was integrated into the UP. On 9 December 1937, Mendes Correia proposed that the CMP congratulate and pay tribute, by means of the ‘Portuguese Studies’, to some personalities ‘of the high culture in Germany and Brazil’ who ‘were part of the delegations from these two countries present at the celebrations of the Fourth Centennial of the establishment of the university in Coimbra’; some of these personalities were awarded the distinction of a honorary doctoral degree at this university. Among these figures that would visit Porto could be found Camões specialist and writer Afrânio Peixoto, historian and scholar Pedro Calmon, anthropologist Eugen Fisher, geographer Hermann Lautensach, folklore specialist and philologist Fritz Otto Krüger, and art historian Gertrud Richert. According to Mendes Correia, almost all had written works on ‘Portuguese matters’ ‒ for example, Afrânio Peixoto, in his travel reports in Portugal, and Hermann Lautensach, in his volumes on the country’s geography, ‘particularly extol Porto’s features’. In the school year 1937‒38, the ‘Portuguese Studies’ promoted ‘around 30 conferences … on … subjects pertaining to nationalist culture’ by personalities such as: Gertrud Richert from the Iberian-American Institute in Hamburg; Hermann Lautensach from the University of Greifswald; Pedro Calmon, a Brazilian scholar and author, and Pierre Hourcade from the French Institute in Portugal (‘Relatório da Gerência Camarária no ano de 1938’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942: 19). In the following school year (1938‒39), they promoted twenty-one conferences on political and military history, literature, peninsular archaeology and art, law, Portuguese ethnography and national economic life (‘Relatório da Gerência de 1939’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942: 26). Protection of Heritage and Memory Mendes Correia was also motivated by the issues related to the protection of heritage and memory. One of the first issues he raised, on 16 June 1936, pertained to the term ‘cividade’ for the concept of a city. This subject was related to the fact that the settling of the area of Porto dated back ‘much further in the past that first imagined’8 and that it would be appropriate that Porto’s toponomy should include all designations that might be related to ‘the more ancient history of this population settlement’. The term ‘cividade’,

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  265

a name given to the ‘hill, covered by modern housing’, had fallen into disuse since the sixteenth century. He stated that the studies by Martins Sarmento, Alberto Sampaio, Leite de Vasconcelos, Rui de Serpa Pinto and Don Florentino López Cuevillas, for example, indicated the existence of a relationship between the term ‘cividade’ (as well as the names ‘citânia’ (preRoman settlement) and ‘castro’ (pre-Roman fortified settlement), among others) and the ‘existence of old indigenous villages previous to the Roman occupation’. The president proposed the creation of the square ‘Largo da Cividade’ by integrating it into the toponomy ‘as one of the most expressive titles of Porto’s ancient past’. This discussion within the Municipal Council was said to have been stimulated by the reflections Mendes Correia previously published on the origins of the city of Porto (1935b). Mendes Correia was also connected to the renovation works of the Cathedral of Porto between 1936 and 1938. The historic area of which it was part benefited from several circumstantial aspects: Duarte Pacheco, as Minister for Public Works, the Centennial Celebrations in 1940 and the creation of the General-Directorate for National Buildings and Monuments9 (Direcção Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais (DGEMN)). Within the scope of the preservation and diffusion of historic and cultural heritage, we can also mention the creation of the History Department of the City of Porto following the decision of the Municipal Council on 11 June 1936. This department operated at the newly created medieval tower, by the cathedral, on the Terreiro de D. Afonso Henriques, and its purpose was to ‘promote the research and the knowledge of historical facts’ relating to Porto, from a material, political, economic, social, cultural and religious point of view, among others.10 This department continued the publication of the Corpus Codicum Latinorum, started in 1899; it published studies in the collection Documentos e Memórias para a História do Porto (Documents and Memories for the History of Porto); it promoted the analysis and description of the most relevant manuscript and printed document estates of the Portuguese and, if possible, foreign archives and libraries; it promoted the creation and the awarding of prizes to scientific, literary and artistic works related to Porto; it encouraged the organization of conferences on the history of Porto, included in the ‘Portuguese Studies’, exhibitions and other cultural events,11 and from 1938 onwards it published the Boletim Cultural da Câmara (Municipal Cultural Newsletter), separately from the Boletim Municipal (Municipal Newsletter). Following this memory-based logic and in the effort to revive the past, Mendes Correia also proposed the end of the building works for the ‘Penisular War’s commemorative monument’12 (6 August 1936). He also revealed his interest in museums and their precarious state when he arrived at the CMP. On 15 July 1937, he proposed that the minutes should ‘record

266  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

a vote of heartfelt salute at the news of the promulgation of the decreelaw that allows the state to acquire the Palace of Carrancas, so that the Soares dos Reis National Museum might find there worthy conditions’;13 this museum would then incorporate the municipality’s collections, safeguarding the municipal estate. He also contributed to the inauguration of the House-Museum Guerra Junqueiro, the Museum of Ethnography and History, and the idealization of the Porto City Museum (heir of the Porto Municipal Museum, formerly the João Allen Museum). The CMP’s initiatives also included homages to local or national figures, such as the poet António Nobre in 1940. The Centennial Celebrations (1940) In the session of 30 April 1938, Mendes Correia expressed to the prime minister in Lisbon his wish that Porto, having played an ‘important role … in National History’, would benefit from significant improvements. Mendes Correia, delegate to the Executive Committee of the Centennial Celebrations and coordinator of the events pertaining to this national initiative in Porto, took the opportunity to undertake municipal and regional works. In 1940 the city should look tidy and clean and, therefore, the façades and the walls that were visible to the public would be repaired. Duarte Pacheco, the Minister of Public Works, would therefore advance some works in the city and grant the Municipal Council the financial means for other improvements (‘Relatório da Gerência de 1939’, Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1938–1942). The government decided that the municipality should draw up an urbanization plan until the end of 1939. In that sense, Italian urban architect Marcello Piacentini, and his collaborators, who were also Italian, were engaged.14 In 1940 Piacentini was replaced by the urban architect Giovanni Muzio, another Italian. Within the scope of these works, and with the cooperation of the CMP, the following were built: a teaching hospital (Hospital de São João); a female secondary school (Liceu Carolina Michaëlis) and other schools; the main post and telegraph office; new affordable housing neighbourhoods; a stadium and an airfield; and setting up the Soares dos Reis National Museum at the Palace of Carrancas in 1942 (Sousa et al. 2009: 480). Other nationalist expressions were: a flag-raising ceremony celebrating the founding of the nation (4 June); a ‘Medieval Act’ at the Terreiro de Afonso Henriques and at the cathedral; the inauguration, at the UP, of the First Congress of the Congresses of the Portuguese World (Pre- and Protohistory) (4 July); National Labour Parade (8 July); the inauguration, at the UP, of the Congress for Population Sciences (12 September); the inauguration, at the Crystal Palace, of the Douro Litoral Ethnographic Exhibition

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  267

and of the Second Harvest Fair (15 September); and a ‘patriotic session’ at that same Palace, promoted by the National Union, in cooperation with the SPN and the CMP (30 November). On some occasions, notable personages were present, such as: a person representing the head of state; members of the government; the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon; Júlio Dantas (President of the Centennial Executive Committee); a representative of the Embassy of Brazil; the President of the Reale Accademia d’Italia (Luigi Federzoni); national and foreign scientists; and former African colonists, among others (Relatório da Gerência Camarária de 1940: 9‒10). Some initiatives by the CMP were publicized in the periodical press. For example, on 16 September 1937, the Diário de Notícias published a news piece on the front page,15 continued in the inside pages, on the issues with which the team coordinated by Mendes Correia was dealing. On 30 November 1941,16 the team for the four-year term from 1942 to 1945 was elected. However, Mendes Correia did not complete this term. When he left the CMP, he was replaced by the vice-president. Although he did not take on any further political office for a while, he later became deputy to the AN from 1945 to 1956. The Office of Advisor of the Corporate Chamber (1935‒38 and 1938‒42) Mendes Correia was advisor of the Corporate Chamber (CC) during the first (1935‒38) and the second (1938‒42) legislative periods. During that time, he took on the office of Mayor of Porto. The CC, which existed from 1935 to 1974, played a consultative role and had no decision-making power. It was composed of groups representing local and socioeconomic interests; these groups elaborated opinions on the laws, and other issues, before they were discussed at the AN; the sessions took place in specialized groups and were private. The 1933 Constitution defined the state as a ‘unitary and corporative Republic, according to which the structural elements of the Nation interfered in the creation of laws (Article 5)’ (Ferreira 2009: 2). When creating new legislation, the corporations and the municipalities could intervene by means of the CC (Articles 18 and 19). However, the CC only possessed consultative powers and was not considered an organ with sovereign power (Article 71): ‘the legislative powers were guaranteed by the AN, elected by the citizens … and by the government, whose members were named by the president of the Republic, elected, until 1959, by means of the same system’ (Ferreira 2009: 2). As the CC worked in small groups, its activity was very clearly centred on its president and its reporter. The president chose the person who would produce statements and coordinated the meetings where the opinions were written. The reporter, on the other hand, a role that was sometimes fulfilled

268  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

by the president, was a specialist in the matters proposed for debate and deliberation: he wrote the assessment of the projects and submitted the preliminary designs for approval by the remaining members, selected by the president, of the specific instances. Among the CC’s members, the majority were university professors (and in the offices of president and vice-president there were also mainly university professors, with five out of seven and fifteen out of nineteen, respectively) from 1935 to 1974. However, two of the longest presidential mandates were held by individuals with no such academic qualifications, as was the case for the military officer Eduardo Augusto Marques (Matos 2015) and the politician Luís Supico Pinto. At the CC, Mendes Correia was the only reporter who did not belong to the Sections of Administrative Interests (Ferreira 2009: 459). Within this organ, he took part in the section called Local Administration, the twenty-third section of the first legislative period (1935‒38), and in the Local Governments section, which had this name from the second to the fifth legislative periods (1938‒53), representing the CMP in both instances. The CC’s coordinating president during Mendes Correia’s term as advisor was General Eduardo Augusto Marques (1935‒44), who was later replaced by the royalist Domingos Fezas Vital (1944‒46). During the first legislative period (1935‒38), Mendes Correia was the reporter of an opinion on Amendments to the Constitution (Diário das Sessões da Câmara Corporativa, no. 185, 13 April 1938), based on an initiative by deputy Querubim do Vale Guimarães (presented on the Diário das Sessões da Câmara Corporativa, no. 155, 16 December 1937). Querubim Guimarães defended the organization in districts instead of provinces. The opinion reported by Mendes Correia, which is described below, did not approve the elimination of administrative provinces in favour of districts (13 April 1938). By means of sections 18 (Politics and General Administration) and 23 (Local Administration), Mendes Correia issued the opinion (13 April 1938) on the government bill no. 192, which proposed changing two articles in the Constitution by eliminating the administrative division ‘province’ and restoring the ‘district’ with its former features, and allowing ‘the federation of districts’. The report that preceded the bill under debate mentioned that ‘the provincial entity is not incorporated in any of the country’s traditions’ and that, on the contrary, the district ‘is a tradition with over a hundred years’. To substantiate the counterargument, revealing his more global nationalism, Mendes Correia used data from biology, geography and the Administrative Code. According to him, particularly considering the Portuguese case, the province has a ‘greater population and area and deeper historical roots than the district’. Therefore, the ‘ancient division into provinces’ was ‘the true division’ and had been adopted a long time ago; it best complied with the ‘natural conditions, not only geographical,

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  269

geological and climatic, but also agrarian and social; these circumstances influenced cultures, agrarian processes, uses, customs and the inhabitants’ character, in social relationships, in setting up property, in its various possession forms, contracts, etc.’. By comparing European provinces, Mendes Correia quoted Síntesis Fisiográfica y Geológica de España (1932) by Eduardo Hernández Pacheco (on Spain), La géographie de l’ histoire, géographie de la paix et de la guerre sur terre et sur mer (1921) by Jean Brunhes and Camille Vallaux (on France) and Portugal: Auf Grund eigener Reisen und der Literatur, by Hermann Lautensach (1937, volume 2) on Portugal. He also mentioned Portuguese geographers Silva Teles and Amorim Girão. At the end of the debate, the CC approved the province and not the district as an administrative division, and expressed its disagreement with government bill no. 192.

His Role as a Deputy to the National Assembly (1945‒57) From 1945 to 1956, Mendes Correia was deputy to the AN during the fourth (1945‒49), fifth (1949‒53) and sixth (1953‒57) legislative periods, always representing the constituency of Porto, and belonged to the Committee for National Education, Popular Culture and Spiritual and Moral Interests. During his mandate, there were no political parties, but rather a single party, named the National Union. Parties and associations opposed to the regime were made illegal. With the 1933 Constitution, powers were gradually concentrated in the president of the Council of Ministers. During his time in office, Mendes Correia issued speeches on subjects as diverse as agriculture, wages and pensions of public officers, the crisis of municipalities, praise of the action of the SNI, cinema, cultural agreements between Portugal and Brazil, the IAC (of which he was a member) and overseas provinces. Since Mendes Correia first held offices as a deputy, he always believed in the power of debating and legislating that this role would offer him. In the solemn inaugural session of the fourth legislative period on 30 November 1945, he reacted to the message by the president of the Republic by mentioning one of his readings as a young student that caused him the greatest impression: The Man versus the State (1884) by Herbert Spencer, which advocated an extreme form of individualism and was considered to be his most ‘positive’ work. Mendes Correia recalled the chapter on the sins of the legislators and one of the main ideas of the book – ‘the function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings’ and ‘the function of Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments’. He considered that the AN was open

270  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

to all ‘just and patriotic’ aspirations and states: ‘here we shall hear appeals by people from all corners of the Empire, without distinction of colour, class, political or religious belief ’ and he said that he did not distinguish between ‘Portuguese of metropolitan or native origin,17 because both were magnificent during these very cruel years’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 27 January 1948, he defended once again the independent attitude that, he said, was characteristic of him. He mentioned that ‘concord does not mean systematic agreement’ and that his independence was ‘within fidelity, loyalty, dedication to superior principles in defending the national cause and to no-less sacred principles in defending the less-privileged classes’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). He also said that he was pleased with the impartial debates and recalled the Minister of the Interior,18 who declared the existence of numerous ideologies within the situation.19 He was seeking to highlight that, despite the existence of a single party, the voices were not univocal. In several interventions, we can see how Mendes Correia’s nationalist principles influenced his proposals. On 15 December 1945, for example, he stressed the ‘essentially nationalist formation’ of his mind, mentioning that: In books published in 191920 and in 192421 I stated … my belief in the existence of the very deep and sacred roots of our nationality. I therefore am a nationalist, by doctrine, but a nationalist in this quite Portuguese sense, which does not mean an exclusivist, egoistical, narrow and aggressive nationalism, but rather a nationalism seen from the high concept of fraternal, friendly, universalist and humane understanding – the sense of Portuguese nationalist throughout history. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

This nationalist mindset was extended to areas such as: the defence of the Portuguese language; the maintenance of good relations with Brazil and the diffusion of Portuguese books in that territory; safeguarding historical, architectural and cultural heritage; the need for ethnographic knowledge and on Portuguese popular traditions; the electoral registration process and the extension of voting rights to women; national artistic expressions, such as fine arts, cinema and music; and praise of great personalities who stood out in the country’s history and scientific endeavours. On the other hand, these principles would also apply to social regeneration measures, as well as to the incentive of initiatives that promoted the development of science and research. Since Portugal was understood in this context as an organic whole to which the colonies belonged, Mendes Correia dealt with issues relating to the overseas context, namely education, the expansion of knowledge and several administrative and legislative issues.

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  271

Language, Heritage, Popular Traditions, Votes for Women and the National Arts On 15 December 1945, Mendes Correia suggested the defence of the Portuguese language as a complement to that ‘noteworthy diplomatic instrument, the Portuguese-Brazilian Spelling Accord’. He considered the defence of Portuguese books to be useful, as they were in ‘great danger of being subverted by books and publications from other countries’ and suggested a ‘wide reform of education’ – primary, technical and higher education. This reform should be put forward with the aim of ‘simplifying …, with no excessive degrees which are not truly necessary, nor fictitious specializations’, which the country was not able to offer. On 28 February 1946, he argued for the diffusion of the ‘Portuguese language and books’ in the Portuguese colonies, a matter he considered as important for ‘national prestige’ and due to the fact that the country was a ‘colonizing nation’. However, he also found it odd that Portuguese books returned from the colonies to the metropolis (due to the lack of buyers) were submitted to import duties, mainly because this would not happen to the Brazilian books that were returned to Portugal. He mentioned that the Minister of the Colonies had solved the problem ‘by exempting from the payment of import duties the books entering the colonies’, but it was inadmissible that ‘import duties were applied’ to the books that were returned to Portugal, since work was being done to spread the Portuguese language and literature. The need to protect Portuguese books was raised once more on 19 March 1947. Mendes Correia considered that a ‘wave of foreign literature’ easily invaded national bookshops and libraries, and that there was no reciprocal treatment regarding Portuguese books. He supported the creation of a National Book Institute that would cooperate with entities, such as academies, the SNI, the IAC and the Inspectorate of Libraries and Archives, so as to safeguard Portuguese books. In a country still with very few library-goers, the need was felt to promote ‘the publication and the distribution of the good Portuguese book’, but also to ‘increase the number of schools, so that … there are people who can read them’. On 10 March 1948 he drew attention to the campaign under way in favour of Portuguese books, particularly by the O Ocidente journal, and sent the President of the AN the following words: ‘a country that does not seek to develop cultural values … that, instead of stimulating and cherishing his artists, its Men of science and of letters, its thinkers, and, on the contrary, despises or forgets them, is not a civilized country’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). In the scope of Portuguese‒Brazilian relationships, he praised the cultural agreement signed between the two countries, which specified: grants to professors, scholars, members of other organs, graduates and technicians; the

272  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

organization of courses and conferences by individuals from one country in the other; the exchange of books and works; and the creation, in both countries, of the Álvares Cabral Prize for recognition of the most noteworthy works published in one country on the other (7 February 1949). He recalled episodes from the two countries’ common history and the simultaneous creation in 1934 of the Brazilian-Portuguese Institute for High Culture in Brazil and in Portugal, whose first public acts were his conferences in Rio de Janeiro and in São Paulo, and recalled his participation in the First Centennial of the Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro in 1937 (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). In the diplomatic domain, he highlighted the importance of the Portuguese-Brazilian Colloquium in Washington DC and the presence of the Portuguese cultural mission at the groups of Portuguese emigrants in North America (14 December 1950) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). In the session of 7 December 1954, he mentioned the Friendship and Consultation Treaty between Portugal and Brazil, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 16 November 1953, and praised the convenience of establishing a Portuguese-Brazilian community. We must remember that this exchange included the participation of Brazil in the 1940 Centennial Celebrations and the inclusion of Portugal in the Centennial Celebrations of the Restoration of Pernambuco and of the Foundation of the City of São Paulo in 1954 (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: VI Legislatura [1953‒57]). On 18 April 1950, Mendes Correia praised the role played by architect Raul Lino ‘in giving modern houses a Portuguese character … by defending our materials and traditional types’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). He also discussed the situation of museums, palaces and national monuments (3 February 1956). Regarding the defence of a better knowledge of popular traditions, he mentioned the Congress of Ethnography and Folklore, held in Braga,22 with two hundred lectures on the Portuguese people, its traditions and art (29 June 1956). In this congress, he praised the hospitality of the people of that region and contrasted the popular culture expressions of the ‘Viana folk dancers’23 with a ‘depressing fado’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: VI Legislatura [1953‒57]).24 The electoral registration process and the extension of voting rights to women were approached during the fourth legislative period (1945‒49). One of the topics discussed was Decree-Law no. 35,426, dated 31 December 1945, on the registration process for the election of the president of the Republic and of the AN. The debate focused, for example, on the issue of women’s right to vote. Salazar’s regime was ‘the first to grant some women the right to vote for the AN and to open the doors of Parliament to a minority of women’ (Pimentel 2011: 38). In 1934, the three first female

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  273

deputies to the AN were elected – Maria Guardiola (a maths teacher), Domitília de Carvalho (a physician) and Maria Cândida Parreira (a lawyer). On 22 February 1946, Mendes Correia advocated the possibility of the vote for women, as largely as possible, as well as for all legally able persons, even if an education action might be necessary to perfect their ‘political ability’. He considered that in some ‘exotic countries’ where, for example, polygamy existed, that extension could offer some danger, since the family might be underrepresented in the election. He recalled that in French Africa, the right to vote was granted to the ‘Indigenous woman’. However, according to him, in Portugal the matter of representativity was not an issue, since this was ‘a civilization, a Christian civilization, where women are duly taken into account’; therefore, there was no reason for ‘the slightest fear’, but rather for the ‘greatest satisfaction’ in having women voting under the same conditions as men. For him, the extension of voting rights to women was ‘a matter of social usefulness and an expression of respect and tribute towards women’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 23 March 1946 he argued that the subject was therefore limited to the: Acknowledgement that women, just like men, are human, thinking beings. They should have equal rights in all matters of great social interest, and also one must concede them the highest role, both from a moral, political and economic point of view, and also … from the widest social point of view. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

In Mendes Correia’s opinion, married women would vote in consonance with their husbands, and that would mean two votes, instead of one, for each family unit. However, this matter was not consensual, since the proposal discussed at the AN did not include the vote for married women. For that reason, deputy Maria van Zeller declared her disagreement with the fact that married women should be ‘inhibited from declaring their political beliefs’ since ‘the vote of married women should be of a greater interest for the state than the vote of single women, because … considering their more defined personality and their heavier duties, they will cast their vote with a greater sense of assurance, conscience and reflection’; the ‘political disagreements between husband and wife’ should not be ‘important factors in the disharmony of the home’, since that would be ‘a sad confirmation that the unity of the home was affected’; and ‘the right to vote granted to single women’ should not be taken away when they married (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). Mendes Correia also focused on several means of artistic expression. When referring to the cult of art in Portugal, he mentioned the setting-up

274  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

and the reconstitution of some museums in the country and the 736 shows performed at the Teatro do Povo from 1936 to 1946 in 363 towns, with an audience of 1,920,000 people (30 January 1947). He considered that, despite the work carried out by the SNI, only a quarter of the Portuguese population was able to attend these shows in a ten-year period. He praised the creation of the School of Choreography, but considered that the IAC was not protecting artistic activities enough and that it offered only very few grants. As to music, on 18 December 1946, he sent a request that the Ministry of National Education take note of the ‘measures taken by the Board of the S. Carlos National Theatre to assure the participation of Portuguese artists in the next opera season’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). He resumed this matter on 30 January 1947, when he received the reply to his request and was informed that: Four Portuguese lyrical artists and a Portuguese conductor [were] hired – the distinguished Pedro de Freitas Branco – with the cooperation of the National Symphony Orchestra, the choirs being organized within the Theatre itself, with the cooperation of the dance group Verde-Gaio and of the Choreography Initiation Circle, and also numerous workers and technicians, but that, this season, by virtue of the National Symphony Orchestra not being free at that time, it will not be possible to fulfil the long-standing desire to accomplish a Portuguese opera, which can only happen by late 1947. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

On 10 March 1948, Mendes Correia expressed his satisfaction with the organization of a Portuguese opera and with the resolutions pertaining to the ‘mandatory inclusion of a certain number of Portuguese artists in concerts and light music orchestras and in variety shows’. A year later, on 9 March 1949, he called for the cooperation of Portuguese artists in the casts of the lyrical seasons in the São Carlos Theatre and argued for a local ‘permanent national cast, except in case of a shortage that should be temporarily made up with foreigners’. He insisted on the usefulness of a ‘specific organization, as national as possible’ for the São Carlos Theatre, and pointed out that other countries gave precedence to their national artists, while Portugal practised a different policy for the arts (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 16 January 1952, he praised the Coliseu’s initiative to present opera shows that did not demand a ‘dress code’ (a demand that he considered incomprehensible, mainly for people ‘of good taste, but modest in means’). He criticized the fact that part of the public present in that room, a theatre belonging to the state, showed a certain ‘snobbism’, ‘anti-patriotically in favour of foreign singers, often inferior in category to many Portuguese singers’. According to him, the Coliseu should play a ‘pedagogical and national role’ rather than contributing to the

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  275

‘false legend of the Portuguese’s inability to be opera singers, leaving them only with fado as a sad musical aptitude qualification’. He also referred that valued national artists earned ‘in two or three performances enough money to starve to death if they did not count on resources other than their art’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). He also fought a battle for support for Portuguese cinema. On 8 January 1947, together with other deputies,25 he requested that Decree-Law no. 36,062, dated 27 December 1946, regarding the protection of Portuguese cinema be submitted to ratification by the AN. He insisted on this matter on 20 February 1947, stating that this Decree-Law needed profound extensions and modifications, and that the ‘cinema problem’ was greater than it seemed. Besides recalling some moments in the history of cinema, he stressed that ‘its action is enormous: it imposes ideas, customs, types and fashions’ and that cinema is an ‘education agent’, an ‘artistic expression’, ‘entertainment’ and ‘an element that breaks the isolation of peoples … without destroying the admissible, balanced nationalisms’. For him, the allocation of the matter of cinematographic activities exclusively to the authority of the SNI, as established in Decree-Law no. 36,062, should be restricted by creating a national cinema council, in which national entities were represented, such as the Ministry of National Education and the Ministry of Economy. Conditions had to be created to allow more Portuguese people to go to the cinema and that cinematographic equipment might also encompass teaching institutions – schools and universities. Moreover, under the pretext of ‘preserving the Portuguese spirit, tradition and character’, one should not lower the horizons through a ‘compressive, monotonous, sterilizing and distressing uniformization’. On 25 February 1947, he mentioned that cinema, as an industry, was mainly dependent on foreign countries and, on 4 December 1947, he argued the pertinence of ensuring a minimum contingent of national films in theatres. On 2 December 1947, he suggested adding a delegate from the Ministry of the Colonies to the national cinema council (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). Law no. 2,027 on the protection of national cinema was promulgated on 18 February 1948. According to Article 1, the national cinema fund was created ‘to protect, coordinate and stimulate the national cinema production and considering its social and educational role, as well as its artistic and cultural components’. However, several projects were not supported and no structure was created to guarantee the expansion and dissemination of the national cinema within the internal market. Furthermore, the legal obligation of exhibiting a minimum of one week of national films for each five weeks of foreign films was not realistic. And when the law was discussed at the AN, Salazar had already sanctioned it; the deputies’ role was simply to approve it. As described by film club member Henrique Alves Costa:

276  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Then something unexpected happened. A new deputy, Prof. Mendes Correia, thinking that a Law presented for the consideration of the AN would still be submitted to analysis, discussion and rectification, gathered information and consulted several people connected to cinematographic arts, and came to S. Bento with his remarks and presented some of his doubts on several items of the diploma. On that same day, or the following day, somebody (A. Lopes Ribeiro26 knows who it was…) immediately sought out this professor at his brother’s27 home, where he was staying, with the task of (first) convincing him of the qualities and advantages of the law and (as a last resort) to warn him that ‘Salazar wanted the law quickly approved and it would be best if the Professor did not make waves’. (Costa 1978: 89)

Issue no. 16 of the Cinema journal (1946‒47) depicts the debate of the above-mentioned decree and highlights the intervention of Manuel Múrias at the AN, asking for the immediate approval of the law, unamended; the article also included excerpts of the intervention of Mendes Correia, who, ‘isolated from the remaining Parliament, proposed some … amendments’ (Costa 1978: 125). Portugal was in a dictatorship, but Mendes Correia took on political offices believing he could contribute to change. Mendes Correia also discussed the bill on the reorganization of the teaching of fine arts: ‘Art, I said in 192528 at a conference at the University of Coimbra (and in 1931 in another conference at the Sorbonne), regarding its relationship with anthropology, is science’s sister, and both are sweet companions of Man on his incessant journey’ (18 April 1950). The deputy stated that ‘scientific professions have risen more rapidly in the social hierarchy: usefulness, the salvation of existence, fighting pain’, but ‘Art’s place, in its highest meaning, is not an inferior one’. On 20 April 1950, he considered that the sculpture and painting courses should be integrated in higher education, despite access to them being allowed to ‘students who completed the fifth grade in secondary school, or even others who did not’. As such, he proposed that, for these courses, with a six-year duration divided into three cycles, the first cycle should last two years rather than one (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). We can then conclude the importance that Mendes Correia attributed to art and its relationships with science, most specifically anthropology, therefore calling for longer and more meticulous training for artists. Social Regeneration Measures: Food, Housing and Demography The need to support specific social groups, considering their living conditions, was a further concern for Mendes Correia. On 15 December 1945, he advocated the protection of the assets of underprivileged families in matters of inheritance tax and mentioned that, in the diploma presented to

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  277

the AN, the analysis should not be a referred to, but rather the immediate approval of measures; as with other taxes, it should be possible for this one to be paid in instalments, as one needs ‘to be human towards the taxpayer’. He further stressed the economists’ statement that ‘colossal sums can be saved by fighting disease and mortality’. According to Mendes Correia, an important factor lay in the conditions of nutrition and the IAUP, which he himself directed, had organized a survey on the matter, ‘following more or less the model of another survey performed in Italy’ by Italian physiologist Filippo Bottazzi29 (1867‒1941); however, this survey was cancelled since, during the war, the food supply conditions could not be considered frequent. Mendes Correia also underlined the adverse conditions the Portuguese were exposed to regarding their levels of activity, as they were considered ‘apathetic’, ‘with intermittences of impulsivity’ and ‘lazy’. He asked the following question: ‘is this a biological problem, is it caused by climate, race, nutrition or education?’ His feeling was ‘it is a problem that we must fight’. He then quoted the 1940 census: ‘for 6,057,290 individuals above ten years of age’, 139,621 unemployed (2.1%), 83,458 invalid (l.5%) and 624,491 inactive (13%) were recorded, out of a total of 847,570 ‒ that is, ‘14% of the individuals do nothing useful because they cannot or will not’. This meant that around a million individuals did not work.30 It was therefore necessary to ‘defend and reinforce the greatest national asset: human beings’. On 27 January 1948, he mentioned once again the matter of nutrition and referred to the works by João Avelar Maia de Loureiro (a medical doctor), and Ferreira Dias31 and Ezequiel de Campos (both engineers), among other ‘personal reports beyond suspicion of political partiality’. Conversely, deputy Jorge Botelho Moniz (a military officer and entrepreneur) mentioned that: ‘one eats what one likes’; the Portuguese were ‘among the best-fed workers in Europe’; the ‘living conditions of the Portuguese worker’ were ‘better than in the rest of Europe’; and to say otherwise was ‘demagoguery or communist propaganda’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). Unfortunately, Portuguese demographic data contradicted these statements and, despite being called a communist, Mendes Correia, based on nutrition physiology studies, stressed the following: I must say I am deeply worried about this undernourishment that, unfortunately, is not a present-day problem, as it has been going on for centuries; and this is bound to affect the physical and psychological condition of the Portuguese people. It is my understanding that, without wages that guarantee good nutrition, one cannot rightly demand from the worker everything one would be able to demand under different conditions. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

278  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Later (on 29 January 1948), Mendes Correia mentioned that he used elements by Professor Maia de Loureiro, ‘not knowing that, from those materials, arguments had been extracted for political campaign purposes’, but, as he was his colleague at the universities and they were in contact at the Centre for Demographic Studies, he considered that both in his book on health, as well as in his monograph on the Portuguese people’s nutrition conditions, there were only ‘purely objective scientific elements’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). The subject of housing was tackled by Mendes Correia in several sessions. On 14 April 1948, he quoted the German historian Oswald Spengler, author of The Decline of the West, who compared the home to a ‘mollusc shell, so closely is it connected, in its form and function, to the very existence of human beings’. He also quoted anthropogeographer Jean Brunhes, who listed three fundamental classes of geographical facts that matched the primary vital needs (food, clothing and housing), and Henry Bordeaux, a lawyer and writer, who advocated that the ‘issue of housing is perhaps the foremost social issue’. For Mendes Correia, ‘the home is the best school of domestic virtues and adequate lodging is the best guarantee of a people’s happiness and civilization’. This interest in housing dated back to his student years, when he took part in a research on the health conditions in the ‘islands’ of the city of Porto and he collected dozens of samples of the air breathed by the residents: ‘the bacteriologic analyses of the air breathed in those attics produced higher microbe proportions than the ones determined in the sewers of Paris’. In 1939, and as Mayor of Porto, Mendes Correia promoted a survey on the health conditions in the islands, which concluded that in 13,000 of the houses where ‘more than forty thousand human beings’ lived, only 3% benefitted from ‘regular health conditions’. Under his initiative, two municipal neighbourhoods were built with affordable housing and a block with 115 family houses, named ‘Karl Marx Block’, as it resembled a housing block with the same name in Vienna that was famous during the Second World War (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 25, 26 and 28 April 1948, when the bill for the tenancy law proposed by deputy Sá Carneiro and the government bill on related issues were discussed, Mendes Correia stated that the desire by cooperative societies to build single-family housing, to be owned by their members, should be attended to, as well as ‘the support of official entities in the granting of credit facilities to those societies’. According to him, ‘the members of those cooperatives are humble, modest people, worthy of our entire protection and support’. He also found that ‘the percentage that the house rent represented in the global costs of families’ was blatant. However, he regretted having been the ‘target, following several statements’ he had issued on the matter, of

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  279

‘various accusations, be it … in private conversations or even in a minority of the vast correspondence’ received, being called a bolshevist and Béla Kun32 (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 11 March 1952, he discussed the warning issued by Armando Cândido33 on the demographic excess relating to colonization and emigration and to the fate of that surplus.34 Despite implying an advantage of an increase in human population, he recalled the parallel need to find resources for those large population masses. Although he did not mean to embark on ‘a [long] dissertation on the Malthusian and selectionist, or Darwinist, errors as regards the human being’, he stressed that ‘the use of mathematics in the study of the population problem led many scientists … to the belief that population growth in civilized countries operated according to a logistic curve that, as forecast by Quételet,35 would tend to a stationary state, and therefore it would not be possible for the population to grow beyond a certain limit’. In the case of the Portuguese population, Armando Cândido had already described ‘the extremely difficult circumstances’ under which most of the population was living, mainly in the adjacent islands (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]).36 According to Mendes Correia: The panorama is deeply sad and demands a solution, as effectively and readily as possible. But it does not differ much from the situation in other places in the country and overseas … I have personally seen, in Porto, that many children go to school without a meal and that there are often children whose sole meal during the entire day is the one given to them in school canteens. In Cape Verde the consequences for the population of long droughts, the lack of work and the insignificance of many wages are tragically evident. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

The demographic surplus could be reduced, both by emigration and colonization, but Mendes Correia found it essential for emigrants to take from their homeland a good level of knowledge and an adequate general and technical preparedness. The discrimination in some hosting countries was partly due to the carefree Portuguese attitude for many years as to the ‘qualifications and skills of the emigrants’. Therefore, the ‘national demographic problem’, as well as the colonization problem, was ‘rather qualitative than quantitative’ and colonists should have different occupations, in diverse skills, including cultural ones. However, he eventually praised the Colonization Fund, created by Marcelo Caetano, Minister of the Colonies in 1945, and expressed his wish that the demographic problem be considered by the Centre for Demographic Studies of the INE, mainly from a qualitative point of view (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]).

280  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Development of Teaching, Science and Research In several sessions, Mendes Correia argued for the creation of teaching and research institutions, both in the metropolis and the colonies; also he called for better pay for the professionals in these areas, he defended the re-establishment of the FLUP and he proposed a new hospital organization that supported research. On 15 December 1945, he praised the support given by the Estado Novo to scientific research, highlighting the creation of institutions such as the IAC, the JMGIC (by Francisco Vieira Machado, Minister of the Colonies [1936–1944]) and the Centres for Demographic and Economic Studies of the INE. He argued that the number of universities and students should grow. Although many might not finish their courses, the fact that they attended university would allow for a greater dissemination of culture and science: ‘we should not fear … the creation of a large intellectual proletariat; if we have no competent people, this country will know a quite precarious fate and these people’s preparedness depends fundamentally on the way we organize cultural institutions’ (28 February 1946). Despite all these efforts, some adjustments were necessary, namely regarding wages in teaching and research. According to him: ‘what good is the amount of 500 or 550 escudos given to a grant holder for a person who brilliantly finishes the degree and only gets an assistant professor position, being paid 1200 escudos per month?’; ‘any person engaging in the practical life with a similar diploma and inferior marks will immediately earn much more, even in other roles such as that of public official’; it was necessary to ‘create research awards … pay the articles, memoirs and books that are written’; ‘it is not right that, in Portugal, intelligent work is mostly done for free’; ‘the greatest national source of income’ is the ‘human element’ (28 February 1946). It was necessary to ‘multiply the grants, create full-time employment, create awards, duly pay the intellectual work’, ‘improve the wages of naturalists, support staff and … minor staff, since a janitor or a lab helper possessed, sometimes, a ‘special technical skill that should be justly rewarded and conveniently stimulated’ (20 March 1946). Regarding research, he considered that ‘both in the case of national or international grants, it would be beneficial … for the funds granted to be considerably increased’ (20 March 1946) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 28 January 1946, Mendes Correia discussed the hospital organization proposal, noting that he would speak as a trained doctor and a university professor, not as a clinician. He considered that the proposal was a piece ‘of a much wider frame’ – general assistance to the Portuguese people – and underlined the pedagogical role of teaching hospitals. He also criticized the fact that the proposal did not include scientific research. He also stressed the need to consider the fact that the population was growing and therefore

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  281

there was a growing number of people who needed support. He believed that the ‘health of the Portuguese people is a fundamental condition of its own existence’. As he saw it, the charities called the ‘misericórdias’ could play an autonomous role in hospital management and, in this case, as in others, he amplified the interest of the debates at hand by saying that this was not ‘politics for a class, sect or party’, but rather ‘politics for the Nation’. According to him, first, the ‘review of the hospital issue’ would be ‘a partial resolution for the problem of public health’ – ‘the improvement of the [population’s] health conditions’ depended on the ‘elevation of the standard of living, and also on a great effort in preventive medicine’ and ‘disease prophylaxis’, and, second, if this support plan was executed, better professional conditions would be obtained for hospital technical staff (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 20 March 1946, Mendes Correia issued his opinion on the need to re-establish the FLUP and Porto’s Higher Trade Institute. According to him, it would be beneficial to incorporate the higher education in trade, finance, the economy and administration in the university curriculum and it would be convenient to incorporate ‘the teaching of colonial sciences and administration’ in universities. He extolled the JMGIC, which, regarding the colonies, had the same working goal as the IAC. He also declared his opinion on private education (25 March 1949) and children’s education (3 March 1949), for children aged four to seven, recalling that, in large urban centres, without these schools, many children would fall into ‘complete abandonment’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). On 18 January 1951, Mendes Correia discussed the situation of a large number of recently graduated students who were not able to obtain a professional position that was compatible with the supposed social category to which they were expected to ascend. He particularly referred to the situation of ‘highly specialized intellectuals who, called by the state for equally highly specialized roles, come across, among other people’s indifference or even resentment, the greatest instability … in their working contracts’. Besides, young researchers were ‘treated as wage earners, having to comply with the whims of their superiors or with any change in the government’s intentions’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). In a speech that seems applicable to current times, except for the part regarding the overseas territories, he mentioned: While all the progress of nations is based mainly on culture and research, we sometimes are led to think that … everything – officers, the milieu – is hostile to these, despite being so necessary … both in the metropolis and in a wide, magnificent overseas, of which so many natural and human riches are still unknown to us! And the sad part is that foreign researchers have been engaged

282  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

for several research projects, while the country did not lack national researchers with at least the same competence for the intended task. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

Mendes Correia also defended the status of the sciences that were most dear to him, such as geology. He requested the creation of a new geological chart of the country (4 December 1950) and observed that although the degree in geological sciences can be obtained in three faculties of sciences (Lisbon, Porto and Coimbra), there was no single geologist on the staff 37 of the Geological Services, and rather ‘only geologists employed on contract by the Civil Engineering Laboratory’; he asked why there were three degrees in geology if, when the time came to use the services of the graduates, they were not engaged38 (2 April 1952) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). He discussed the bill on the legal status of soil and subsoil in the continental plateaux, quoting the German geographer Ratzel and the French geographer Vallaux (12 January 1956), and analysing the scientific expressions used in that bill (17 January 1956). At the university level, he also argued for the re-establishment of the University of Évora and the transfer of the Évora library from Manizola (municipality of Évora) to the FLUL (27 January 1954) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: VI Legislatura [1953‒57]). ‘Portugal Was Also the Overseas Territories’ At the inaugural session of the fourth legislative period (1945‒49), Mendes Correia paid homage to the ‘Indigenous chieftain of Timor, Don Aleixo da Costa,39 who … died heroically’ fighting for Portuguese sovereignty and referred to the Portuguese colonial policy’s orientation so that it promoted emigration to the colonies: Loyal to our brotherly tradition of universalist understanding, we have always been, in the words of a Brazilian author,40 the most humane among the colonizers. Indigenous populations are invited to our affectionate company and consider us responsible for their fates and their well-being. If … a fortunate population policy is implemented in the metropolis and at the colonies, combined with the indispensable appreciation of national resources, from the twenty million inhabitants esteemed nowadays in the Empire, in some generations we will have more than five times as many … I repeat what I have said many times over: we, the Portuguese, are still few; we need to be more and – if possible – better! (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

The colonial issues were part of Mendes Correia’s concerns during his three legislative periods at the AN. The overseas territories were seen as a

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  283

part of Portugal and good relationships with them were fostered by him, as well as ideas regarding the ‘universalism of the Portuguese culture’. For example, on 27 April 1951, he referred to the ‘national and spiritual significance’ of the message sent by the Archbishop of Calcutta, Monsignor Périer, to the Patriarch of the Indian Territories, Don José da Costa Nunes. This included the motion approved at the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the Hindustan Peninsula, during which homage was paid to the spiritual and missionary action of the Portuguese priests in India. He also highlighted the success of a festival organized by the Choral and Folklore Society of the Bombay Goans, founded in 1941, and noted their hard work. According to him, ‘the vice-rector of the University of Bombay, Mr. Wadia, wrote that the folk melodies and chants he heard reminded him of different national origins and that they promote a unification of cultures in the sense of a “common universal culture”’. For him, ‘the universalism of the Portuguese culture is expressed’ in: the Konkani songs and dances shown by that praiseworthy group, which, while preserving in the female clothing many elements of the traditional Indian woman, such as the sari, exhibits mainly in the male clothing and in the musical instruments the clearest traits of Portuguese influence. Similarly to Macao, this action is peacefully reflected in the establishment of prolific bonds of affection, psychology and culture between the West and the East. No exclusivism, no oppression, no exploitation. Only a noble solidarity, a warm friendliness, the common wish towards human progress. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

Mendes Correia’s concerns with health and sanitary issues also included the colonies. Following a proposal made by the JMGIC, he was chosen to lead a scientific mission to French West Africa and Portuguese Guinea. When he returned, he said: After seeing noteworthy expressions of vitality in that colony of ours, after observing the beneficial outcomes of the Government’s action that was developed in that territory and after being in contact with different peoples, with different physical and mental structure, I concluded that the main problem regarding the Indigenous population’s fate in Guinea lies precisely in the existence of an effective medical assistance to the Indigenous people. Guinea has a staff of thirteen doctors. This number is absolutely insufficient for the area of a colony that is one third of continental Portugal and it must be noted that some of these doctors are grouped in the capital, Bissau … Although I certainly did not observe any regression nor biologic decadence in any of these populations, it is, however, certain that quite serious diseases are unfortunately abundant in the territory. (28 January 1946) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

284  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

On 3 March 1949, Mendes Correia criticized the fact that a medical mission, aimed at the hospital centres of Angola and Mozambique, was composed of young people who ‘fully or mostly did not complete the course of tropical medicine, unaware of the colonial environment and of the specific aspects of medicine in those regions’. He therefore regretted ‘not seeing among the members of that mission any elements from the medical schools or the Tropical Medicine Institute’. On the other hand, he exposed the fact that ‘certain scientific research projects in some Portuguese colonies are delivered into the hands of foreigners’, when there were Portuguese specialists in those subjects (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). Teaching in the Colonies In relation to teaching the Indígenas, Mendes Correia mentioned on 28 February 1946 the knowledge of the local inhabitants of Guinea. According to him, one should not be interested ‘only in the physical health of the Indígenas’ and it was ‘necessary to attend to their moral and spiritual health’ and ‘their identification as perfectly as possible’ with the Portuguese culture and mentality. During his journey in Guinea, the Portuguese pedagogical action ‘on the Indígenas’ seemed ‘very limited’ to him and he saw few schools for them.41 However, Guinea had long been the target of propaganda for the defence of the Portuguese language and, for example, ‘measures [had been taken] against the immense diffusion of Creole’. Although he understood that the use of Creole expressed ‘a natural phenomenon’ that could not be completely avoided, this could only be countered with ‘an intense and well-thought-out propaganda in favour of the pure Portuguese language’. He praised the creation of the Arts and Crafts School in Bolama, since it represented ‘the satisfaction of a fundamental need for that teaching in Guinea’, and he recalled that during Major Vaz Monteiro’s government, ‘eighty basic education schools for the Indígenas’ were created, although the approval of the Missionary Statute had transferred to the missions all ‘basic education’ that was directed to them. According to Mendes Correia, ‘from six basic education missionary schools in 1940‒41 we then had eleven in 1941‒42, 24 in 1942‒43 and 37 in 1943‒44’, with ‘seven European and thirty-three Indigenous teachers, with 1,927 pupils registered and having made thirty-two exams for first grade and fourteen for the second’.42 He said that he was not startled by the ‘low performance in the exams in these schools’, since it was important to ‘disseminate the Portuguese language and culture and not the widespread distribution of diplomas’ – ‘a way of generating a larger number of candidates for public officials’. He therefore defended the extension of education to the people of Guinea, although he

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  285

overvalued the teaching of the Portuguese language and the manual and technical crafts (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). In ‘primary education’ – not directed at the Indígenas, but rather at the European or assimilated population – in the official schools in 1943‒44, ‘thirty-four whites, 112 mixed and 214 blacks [were registered], and 61 first grade and twenty-three second grade exams were performed, with eight teachers and three vacancies’. For Mendes Correia, these numbers showed the progress of the schooling action (both missionary and nonmissionary) in Guinea. However, these were not decisive, since the Islamic influence was ‘powerful’ and this was a ‘problem’, as, according to him, in all villages in Guinea, the Arabic language and the Quran were being taught. Nevertheless, as there was also an ‘intense educational missionary action’ in the neighbouring French West Africa, he requested more support, resources and staff for the missions. Mendes Correia’s relationship to Catholicism, analysed above, allows us to conclude that he only moved closer to this religion in around 1946, after returning from Guinea and when he held his office as deputy. We cannot state for certain that this journey was the only stimulus in this regard since, regardless of his beliefs, Mendes Correia defended the colonizing project and this included the role of Catholic missions. It is based on this that we should interpret his defence of the ‘need and convenience of an intimate and incessant cooperation between the missions and the administrations’, seen as a means of controlling education and ‘conveying a Portuguese character to the Indígenas’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]).43 His reasoning still held when on 14 December 1950, he praised the study mission of the Quimbundo teacher of the African and Eastern Languages Institute of ESC to the Angolan territory, since these facts did not counter ‘the traditional Portuguese policy for the dissemination … of the Portuguese language throughout the World’ and were in agreement ‘with the missionary orientation of a good knowledge of the indigenous languages for an efficient spiritual and civilizing action among the populations’; at the same time, they served the scientific purpose of linguistic research that all ‘civilized countries’ were adopting (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). Increasing Knowledge of the Colonies As to the colonies, what will mark our presence will not be historical rights that only few respect abroad, but rather what we do for the protection against the dangers that threaten them and the valorization of the natural resources in overseas territories. This protection and valorization can have only one secure

286  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

basis: the one offered by scientific culture and research at the service of a great spiritual, human and national ideal. (Mendes Correia at the AN session of 28 February 1946)

The fact that Mendes Correia was named director of the ESC by a governmental order dated 16 October 1946 was fundamental in increasing knowledge of the colonies. According to the law, this office should be held by a full professor selected among other higher education schools. This nomination was freely chosen by the minister, although his income was not raised: as he was not an ordinary professor at the ESC, he would not earn any remuneration from the board. This nomination was a service commission, since Article 21 of Decree-Law no. 35,885, dated 30 September 1946, determined that the ESC directors were named under commission; Mendes Correia, as a full professor at the UP, was transferred to the office of ESC director without being released from the UP. Later, by order of the Minister of the Colonies, he was entrusted with a work on the colonies. As director of the ESC and President of the JMGIC (an office to which he was elected after being named director of the ESC), he was given the task of writing a work on a colonial subject in exchange for a remuneration defined by means of an order (which he considered as royalties). On 12 March 1947, Mendes Correia argued that the ESC should be converted into a Faculty for Colonial Studies and praised the recent creation (1946) of the African and Western Languages Institute, an institution that accompanied the traditions of the ‘missionaries and explorers of the past, who diligently studied the indigenous languages’, in order to establish a ‘more intimate and beneficial contact with the populations’ souls’. Furthermore, he expressed the wish that one day a ‘true Colonial University’ might exist. On 4 March 1949, he defended the need to create overseas ‘research centres on several matters, such as the study of soils and erosion, so important in Africa … in parallel to other existing centres in the colonies of other countries’. He stressed the importance of inhabitants of the metropolis getting to know the overseas and vice versa. He criticized the fact that some children of Portuguese colonists graduated in South Africa, and not in the metropolis, as they felt that the former were superior and because they held erroneous beliefs regarding the metropolis (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). Mendes Correia’s colonial project also defended the knowledge and the preservation of the existing overseas heritage. According to him, despite the ‘scattered and modestly presented collections at SGL, the University of Coimbra, and IAUP’, it was necessary to have a museum worthy of a ‘colonizing and civilized nation’. In that sense, the overseas art and heritage should be valued. On 3 March 1949, he praised Rocha Paris, author of

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  287

the government bill on the protection and preservation of monument and artistic values in the municipalities of Portugal. Nevertheless, it was his understanding that the protection measures applied to monuments and archaeologic relics with a historic or national interest should be also applied to the remaining territories under the Portuguese flag: ‘the Indígenas have their traditions, they have their art, and we need – and this is included in our Colonial Act – to respect them, as long as … they do not collide with our sovereignty, with moral principles and humanity’. According to him, it was necessary to create ‘both in the metropolis and in the colonies themselves, following the example of other civilized nations, museums for art and indigenous traditions’. The scientific missions to the colonies were already dealing with this matter, as was the case in Mozambique, led by Santos Júnior, with an analysis of the documents on cave art and ‘Zimbabwe-type44 [the walled sites] of the South-African Union’, which were being studied by archaeologists from several countries. He reinforced the idea that Portugal should have a decent colonial museum and praised the Belgian government for not only applying measures as to the artistic component, but also as to ‘ethnographic expressions’ and the ‘study of indigenous languages’. He also listed some of the ‘black art’ museums that had already been created, ‘like the art museums in Western civilization’: the one at Abidjan, in Ivory Coast; the one at Lagos, in British Nigeria; the one of the Institut français d’Afrique noire (IFAN), in Dakar; and several in Belgian Congo. Besides the latter, metropolitan museums for colonial matters had been created, such as in the Belgian Congo Museum in Tervuren, the Museé de L’Homme in Paris and the St John Lateran Ethnological Missionary Museum (Rome), in which the most recent Popes showed great interest in the ‘development of religious missions … the study of indigenous linguistics, art and ethnography’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49]). In order to put his proposals in an international context, he recalled the regimes created by the Colonial Office for the British colonies in order to comply with the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts (27 February 1951). He stated that these included considerable funds for research, even in subjects that did not seem to bear a direct economic interest, such as ‘indigenous languages, social sciences, anthropology, etc.’. He added that the Portuguese should not be left behind ‘when in all civilized countries one observes a grand movement towards an intensification of research activity’. For him, research did not necessarily have to be related to a company, as was the case with the Angola Diamonds Company, which in ‘programming its cultural services [did not forget] natural history, ethnology, prehistory, even the musical folklore of Lunda’s populations’ and ‘created a museum in Dundo’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]).

288  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

At the session of 12 December 1952, Mendes Correia suggested that for Cape Verde, considering the ‘economy of the sea in the archipelago’, the following should be stimulated: ‘schools of seamanship and fishing arts’; a ‘scientific mission focusing on a wider-range marine biology’; ‘inter-insular navigation’ and ‘long-distance navigation’; the ‘organization and promotion of fishing activities’ in neighbouring and distant seas; and ‘economically viable enterprises related to fishing’. For Timor, he suggested investment in agriculture and that Timorese students who left missionary schools, when they came of age, could receive training in agriculture. He suggested the foundation of an institute for the study of the problems in the fishing activity in Macao. And he believed it vital to establish the presence of Portuguese researchers at the marine biology station of Inhaca in Lourenço Marques (formerly Maputo) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). On 23 March 1954, Mendes Correia mentioned the provinces of Timor,45 where he stayed for a month, and Macao, where he stayed for two weeks, from which he returned in October 1953. In his opinion, both territories were part of the ‘troubled Eastern world’. In relation to Timor, he said that he had visited ‘good public buildings’, he had observed ‘excellent and dedicated efforts in the scope of public social assistance and health’ and he had admired ‘apostolate or educational missionary works’, as well as ‘successful aspects of exploration by the natives themselves, whether in agriculture or in fishing’. From his stay in Macao, he highlighted his visits with the Bishop of Macao (then apostolic administrator of the diocese), Don João de Deus Ramalho; the ‘numerous and important social assistance and educational institutions’; and the various Catholic missions operating there. He was further pleased with the recent creation of a Centre for Studies in Timor and with the existence of a Cultural Group and of a Musical Culture Group in Macao. He expressed his wish that ‘with the adequate facilities, material and co-operations, new scientific missions can be established in Timor and Macao’. On 20 March 1957, he expressed his satisfaction with the promulgation of Decree-Law no. 41,029 approving the Regulation of the Institutes for Scientific Research in Angola and Mozambique. This decree had been signed by Raul Ventura, the Minister of the Overseas, and the two institutes were initially created by Sarmento Rodrigues, then deputy to the AN. Mendes Correia considered that the success of the new institutes and of other recently created centres was a core condition for the success of the overseas action, allowing the Portuguese ‘an even more favourable climate … in the conscience and friendliness of the populations and the concept of a civilized world’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: VI Legislatura [1953‒57]). These formulations are typical in the 1950s, when it was supposed to guarantee

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  289

Portugal’s presence overseas, precisely based on increasing knowledge of those territories and their populations. Mendes Correia also shared his thoughts on the colonial administration. On 1 April 1949, he discussed the notice given by Henrique Galvão, independent deputy representing Angola at the AN. In 1947, Galvão had already reported the conditions of the ‘indigenous work’, stating in a report presented to the AN that only the dead were not forced to work.46 On that occasion (1 April 1949), Mendes Correia said he did not intend to discuss people – who, for him, were above any suspicion, whether connected to the Angolan government or to the Ministry of the Colonies – but rather specific problems. He defended the idea that talking about them does not ‘imply anyone’s condemnation’, nor does it ‘represent any danger, by means of its biased external disclosure’ for the Portuguese sovereignty, despite these being ‘delicate’ matters. He reinforced his argument, recalling the common practice in other countries that consists of criticizing the ignorance of some high public officials regarding African realities, even in the presence of foreign individuals, as had happened in France, or of the general governors themselves exposing the shortcomings and the dangers of the territory that was, or had been, under their administration, as had happened in Belgium, without anyone feeling ‘offended or diminished by the fact that disagreements were expressed’:47 In the report on a recent parliamentary mission to the Belgian Congo, the senators said things like this on the black people’s sanitary conditions: ‘The Indigenous are underfed and are therefore less resistant to endemic diseases: malaria, tuberculosis, lepra, sleeping sickness. The medical staff is too disperse and most of the official hospitals are inadequate, etc.’. This is stated on p. 135 of Tome LXII (1948) of the Bulletin of the Royal Geographic Society of Antwerp. And the governor, instead of taking offence, replied by listing the solutions he intended to implement: ‘To intensify agriculture and cattle breeding, mainly favouring the Indigenous farmers and rural cooperatives; fauna preservation measures and missions (actually ongoing) for the study of pisciculture; the introduction of large quantities of new drugs, such as penicillin and pentamidine; the increase of medical staff, medical-surgical training in rural areas and dispensaries.’ The governor himself says so! (4 April 1949) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

Therefore, Mendes Correia sought to emphasize not the criticisms regarding what had been done, but rather the great amount of work still to be done, linking in a way the administration’s success to a better knowledge of the overseas at all levels: Much has been done and I – mainly regarding ethnology, human biology, demography, etc. – have striven to justly describe our efforts at the London

290  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

and Paris meetings of the International African Institute, at the International Conference of Western Africanists (in Bissau),48 at the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Brussels, in articles in national and foreign scientific journals, on official reports, etc. But there is still a lot to be done … It should not be possible to tell us, with some reason, like Prof. Lestrade, of the University of Cape Town, that Bantu linguistics in our African territories is a ‘almost virgin territory’. There must be anthropologists at the service of the colonies, as seen in English colonies, to study problems related to nutrition, human biology, acculturation, the mechanisms and effects of cultural contacts. Just as Olbrechts and Griaule have proclaimed the interest of the true black art – not jazz nor Europe’s imitation – Possoz and others are studying the law of Indigenous societies, Father Tempels describes a ‘Bantu philosophy’, etc. We must do something for real in Angola in those fields, and not with a mere speculative interest … For executing the grand task at hand, we need, not only equipment, but also staff, staff, staff. Capable and well-paid staff. (1 April 1949) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

Regarding cultural contacts and external influences, he considered the following: People in urban centres or in their proximity have already lost much of their indigenous condition. But I also cannot agree with the statements by Deputy António de Almeida as to the conversion of the Cuanhamas from shepherds to fishermen … In metropolitan Portugal, with all its civilizing resources, I wonder if it would be easy to convert Póvoa de Varzim’s fishermen into shepherds in Serra da Estrela and vice-versa. (1 April 1949) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura [1945‒49])

Mendes Correia regarded with some scepticism the idea that colonization could substantially change the ways of living of some groups, since the surrounding geographical environment would play a decisive role. Furthermore, he thought it necessary to know the population’s numbers and people’s existence conditions. On 15 December 1949, he requested data on the population census in the various overseas territories, detailing ‘the classification used for population groups (in particular, Indigenous and non-Indigenous and, within both ethnic and linguistic groups)’. The data he requested, via the Ministry of the Colonies, from the governments of Guinea, Macao and Timor were debated on 12 April 1950. According to him, this assessment should be as rigorous as possible and the involved staff should be duly trained. He complemented the idea saying that ‘overseas, both the demography of colonists and civilized people and of non-civilized populations matter’ and that the ‘duties to the latter are not in any way

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  291

inferior’ to the duties to the former (4 April 1950) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). Legislative Matters: Revision of the Constitution and of the Colonial Act (1951) and Overseas Organic Law (1953) On 4 April 1951, Mendes Correia discussed the law for the revision of the Constitution and of the Colonial Act. He stated that it would be appropriate to include the Colonial Act in the Constitution and, without renouncing to the ‘traditional orientation of the overseas policy’, to seek to bring up to date its provisions so that they matched the trends in world opinion on the colonies: I applaud the trend to integrate Cape Verde into the metropolitan administration, but I would think it adequate, in the spirit of unification that encourages us all, to implement as of now … that same trend for all overseas territories, mainly in the cultural, technical and economic domains. I also do not think it will be enough to suppress the word colonies to comply with the aspirations and susceptibilities of overseas populations. I understand that it would be pure and dangerous idealism to replace as of now the Indígena statute by the citizenship statute. But the latter must be held before the eyes of the Indígena that wish it, as a viable and even near goal. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

This suggestion to integrate Cape Verde into the metropolitan administration proves the privileged status that this territory and its citizens had, as they were never given, for example, the Indígena statute. On the other hand, while Correia recalled the ‘Portuguese indigenous policy’ of the past, praising its positive aspects, he also criticized the action of colonial administrators who very often focused on obtaining ‘indigenous’ labour: ‘something must be done to avoid that, although always acknowledging the Indígena’s duty to work, the action of the administrators can never be confounded with the task of a recruiter or a recruiting agent’. The bill for the Colonial Act was discussed once again on 26 April 1951, and Mendes Correia presented a suggestion for its Article 7 B: ‘considering the evolution status of the several populations in the overseas territories, there will, whenever necessary, be special statuses that, under the Portuguese public and private law, establish legal regimes for them according to their uses and customs and that are not incompatible with the morality, the principles of humanity or the free exercise of Portuguese sovereignty’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). In this case he proposed replacing the word ‘natives’ with ‘populations’, which was accepted. As to the Indígena statute, he stated the following:

292  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

I don’t know, and don’t care to know, if the words I am going to say will please or displease the audience. I even presume that they will not be pleasant to many that, naturally seeing themselves as civilized, understand that, by safeguarding in a way the duties of support to the backward populations overseas, their legal and political category should be fundamentally based on practical conveniences of a mainly political and economic character. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

He stated that two years earlier (1949), in a lecture at the Antwerp Colonial University (in which, besides Belgians and Portuguese, there were also English, French and Dutch participants), he outlined ‘The General Aspects of the Portuguese Policy Regarding the Indigenous People’ and proclaimed ‘how Portugal was proud of a traditional policy, simultaneously inspired by the principles of fraternity and by the knowledge of the realities at hand’. However: The Government meanwhile realized … that the moment of a review of the Constitution would be an opportunity to clarify Portugal’s position towards that colonialism so often under attack nowadays by former colonies all over the world and that, generally speaking, are actually states founded by ancient colonists or by their descendants and that, often enough, count among them native populations in an ‘indigenous’ regime. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

According to Mendes Correia: Therefore, as article 15 itself would define, the Indígena statute was designated as a transition and several provisions, including in the integration of the former Colonial Act in the Constitution, stated more clearly what had already been our policy’s traditional concept: a true union between the metropolis and the overseas territories in a whole unit, in which any race or category discrimination will disappear, as to the rights and duties, by means of a smooth, tolerant, gradual action that is respectful of all ethnic groups of Portuguese nationality. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

However, as he then observed, ‘words were replaced, ideas were clarified, but no fundamental principle was altered’. He therefore raised ‘serious objections to the terms of the proposal for article 15 and Chapter III itself, or of a large part of it, in the revised Constitution’. The issue that should be raised was whether, in the circumstances of the world and the country at the time, the constitutional statute should include ‘for a large part of the overseas population, a generic condition different from citizenship’, which would be ‘the sole rule applied to the metropolis and for some overseas provinces’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). And he asked:

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  293

Considering that Article 7 B defines a general possibility for a special status for certain less-evolved populations, should the Constitution encompass all modalities of the said regime in the generic expression ‘Indígena statute’ and call Indigenous people all individuals encompassed by such regime? In my modest opinion, I think not. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

He added further arguments to those against the Indígena statute, such as international anticolonialism. As to the terms ‘Indígena’ and ‘Indígena statute’, he stated that there was no need to ‘standardize them under the same legal designation, which many find unpleasant and which is susceptible of malevolent exploitations, even among the interested parties themselves, the overseas population groups to which the provisions of Article 7 B of the Government’s proposal apply’. Therefore, ‘each special status’ should be applied to ‘restricted groups’ defined ‘according to the needs in each case, and not by means of an arbitrary standardization of the provisions’ for heterogeneous groups. He added that ‘distinguishing two blocks or castes of Portuguese in the Constitution’, citizens and Indígenas, was ‘contrary to the precepts of Christian fraternity’, to the Portuguese ‘spiritual traditions’ and to the task to which the government and the AN were committed – to unify the metropolis and the overseas territories. For him, ‘the definition of citizenship given by the Constitution and by the Civil Code’ was ‘as susceptible to be applied to a Portuguese from the metropolis as to anyone coming from the overseas provinces’, which complied with the conditions defined in Article 18 of the Civil Code (according to which only citizens can fully benefit from all rights) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). He therefore defended the following: If nobody denies … an individual with an Indígena statute the possibility, if duly civilized and assimilated, of reaching the citizen category, if the socalled Indígena statute is provisional, except maybe for some special cases of resistance to evolution, why should we not accept that such an Indigenous individual becomes a Portuguese citizen when, in truth, this statute is given to a newborn child, a weak-spirited person, an illiterate, an invalid, an unable person, as long as they were born in metropolitan territory, to Portuguese parents, or otherwise comply with the conditions defined in the Civil Code? … To safeguard the rights and guarantees of the so-called Indigenous people … Article 7 B, the special statuses it provides and more legislation are sufficient. (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

In relation to Chapter III, in the aspects pertaining to labour and the state’s responsibilities in protecting the populations, Mendes Correia considered it to be appropriate ‘to add the right to representation in government

294  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

councils, under the terms and with the magnitude provided by the law’. Nevertheless, he argued that ‘all references to the terms Indígena and Indígena statute should be deleted from Article 15 and the entire chapter’, as well as ‘colony’, and he added: ‘let other people use the legal designations native, African, etc.’. The Constitution should solely mention ‘Portuguese, brothers of ours, souls, human beings like us, collaborators in a Christian, human and universalist mission’. He concluded by saying that he would be pleased if citizenship would be granted to the ‘overseas brothers, with no distinction of race, colour or custom’. And when the bill related to the Promotion Plan was discussed, he defended the idea that the ‘legitimate interests and the rights of the so-called Indigenous people [should not be sacrificed] to the illegitimate precedence of the civilized people’s interests’, since they were all Portuguese (10 December 1952) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]). However, his proposals were not adopted. Despite the Colonial Act being revoked with the 1951 Constitution and the term ‘colonies’ being gradually replaced by ‘overseas’, the Indígena statute remained until 1961. On 29 January 1953, Mendes Correia took part in the broad discussion of the Organic Law on the Overseas Territories (which would replace the former Organic Charter of the Portuguese Colonial Empire). He mentioned two aspects – ‘the formation of legislative councils for matters of election and the almost total lack of references to the policy regarding the Indigenous people and the Indígena statute’ – to say that they were not ‘risky modifications’ of the overseas policy, in the sense of ‘the transition towards self-government, so appreciated by the British’, since the outcome of that policy was now ‘evident’. He considered that Portugal should not abandon ‘its principles of sovereignty, nor deviate from ‘its policy trend towards unification and assimilation’. But he suggested the existence of ‘provincial councils with certain legislative and deliberative powers … and the convenience of the expression of local opinions’. That is, for him, the existence of local representatives of overseas populations was important. Despite the proposal he defended in 1951 – ‘generalization of citizenship to all Portuguese populations … overseas’ and ‘suppression of a generic indigenous condition and of the legal expression “indigenous” itself ’ – not being adopted, he was pleased to see that the government bill for the organic law had as its fundamental formula the possible ‘unification of the civilized, metropolitan standard’. Despite the existence of ‘constitutional provisions regarding the Indigenous people and special statuses’, he was able to see that this regime was starting to be considered as a ‘period of transition and of transient adaptation’ (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53]).

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  295

Conclusion The political offices that Mendes Correia held did not distance him from the interests of his home region or of his paternal grandfather. In some conversations with Querubim Guimarães (collaborator of the weekly paper Litoral in Aveiro) when they met during the sessions of the AN, to which they both belonged, he is said to have told Guimarães that he maintained his connection to the life and the future of the Aveiro region. On the other hand, despite being associated with the Estado Novo’s political action, we can conclude that he was not a politician in the true sense of the word and it was not his aim to rise to a government position. Following his death, Guimarães described his path as a man connected to science and politics, almost always submerged ‘in his studies on anthropology, history, preand proto-history’ and in the study of overseas populations, a man who ‘observed in loco’, but who also held a place at the AN, discussing ‘the issues most related to his area of expertise’ (Guimarães 1960). During his career in politics, Mendes Correia did not actually play a scientific role with political aspirations, but mainly political roles based and substantiated on the knowledge and experience he gathered in science. He was not a politician, but rather an individual who used politics to activate or complement his interests or motivations. Within this scope, he criticized the actions of some individuals at the AN who eventually turned out to be more politicians than scientists: The synoptic letters regarding the Far East weather forecast inexplicably and regretfully lack weather observations from China. Is there also a ‘bamboo curtain’49 regarding a generally useful science from a country in which, as Needham described recently in a British scientific journal, a well-developed research network is said to exist in various domains of human knowledge? Or should we accept that this is … a mere matter of appearance, as the institutes and the laboratories are directed by individuals (many of which known by the said individual), by individuals – I repeat – that are more politicians than scientists? (23 March 1954) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: VI Legislatura [1953‒57])

Mendes Correia’s political interventions mainly reflected his scientific and nationalist interests. Some of his speeches highlighted his most common concerns – the origin and the antiquity of places, national memory and heritage, and specific social groups. His knowledge, namely from anthropology, made him more aware of some social matters and topics of scientific interest. His scientific practice helped him raise several questions and elaborate his critical arguments. As head of the CMP, his term in office was marked by a great social and cultural component, as he was the first Mayor

296  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

of Porto to raise awareness to the social conditions of the underprivileged populations (Sousa et al. 2009). Based on his skills at the CMP, but also on his more or less specific interests, we can find a certain coherence in the human groups regarding which he expressed his concerns – the poor or the authors of small thefts or petty crimes, who were the subject of his attention in that they were entitled to better living and subsistence conditions. As he stated in 1913 in Os Criminosos Portugueses, a substantial part of the petty crimes was related to the social conditions of its perpetrators. In that sense, the administration he presided over was effectively determined to deploy a ‘social and hygienic policy’, as it is occasionally referred to, and acted with the purpose of demolishing foul shacks and building new housing. During that period, we can also highlight the actions in the scope of urbanization, as well as the setting-up of the Historical Archive. As part of the Centennial Celebrations in 1940, the CMP was responsible for organizing the Medieval Act and the Harvest Fair, and collaborated in the Labour Parade and the Ethnographic Exhibition. In parallel, when he was advisor of the CC, he did not play a very active role, but he wrote an opinion on the administrative division of the country, which was largely under debate. Mendes Correia’s interventions at the AN were varied and enriched by his knowledge and university experience, and also his political experience gained from his previous roles. On several occasions, he recalled his travels abroad, specifically to the overseas territories, and the visits to European countries (Spain, France, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria) and those in other continents (North America, Brazil, Egypt,50 Kenya and South Africa). His nationalist principles led him to speak up for the need to preserve and disseminate the Portuguese language, as well as other national pieces of heritage, such as architectural monuments or ethnographical expressions, including Portuguese folk traditions. In the context of promoting good relationships with spaces outside of Portugal, he praised and stimulated Portuguese‒Brazilian relationships. Another aspect that, according to him, might benefit the nation was the extension of voting rights to women, as well as the support to several artistic domains, such as the fine arts, cinema and music. This sensitivity to the artistic universe, in particular to music, may have been motivated by the fact that his second wife was connected to music, as a pianist and daughter of a piano teacher. On the other hand, Mendes Correia considered that the scientific mission teams sent to the colonies should include more Portuguese scientists. Furthermore, his emphatic praise of national figures who stood out within Portuguese society contributed to highlighting his patriotic vision. Besides, both the living conditions and the nutrition of the Portuguese people and the issues related to demography and emigration were always present in his reflections. Also in this domain, he intervened

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  297

in debates concerning problems connected to lack of social equality and economic injustice. Among these was the need to build housing and to increase the wages of various professional classes. His commitment to improving the conditions of those who were teaching or performing scientific research at universities was also noteworthy. However, regarding to wage increase he himself did not benefit from it, since in 1959, when the government approved it, he had already retired. Mendes Correia’s vision for Portugal included the overseas territories. For that reason, a large part of his proposals was related to the need to improve the sanitary and health conditions for the overseas populations, to promote education in the colonies and to increase knowledge of them, in line with the fundamental role he played at the ESC and the JMGIC. He sometimes designated the populations under colonial administration as being ‘backward’ compared to the population in the metropolis and Europe. However, in 1951, he proposed the eradication of the ‘Indígena statute’ from the Constitution; it was his understanding that the populations to which this statute was applied should not be seen merely from a political and economic point of view and should have the possibility of obtaining citizenship if they so wished and if it was possible for them to do so. This statute remained in force until after his death. Generally speaking, Mendes Correia sought to be duly prepared for the debates at the AN and stimulated discussion. He presented several proposals and faced opposition from several quarters. Sometimes it was implied that he had communist or Bolshevist ideas. His innovative speech in 1951, when he proposed the abolition of the ‘Indígena statute’, shows how his ideas evolved over time. This example, among others, enabled me to realize that drawing up a history of Mendes Correia’s ideas is a way of analysing several topics that were present during the first half of the twentieth century. On the other hand, his thinking evolved over time and adapted to circumstances and international pressures. Despite acting in a very particular political context, with no formal opposition to the government, on several occasions he tried to negotiate and sought approval for his proposals. Perhaps he saw politics as a more effective and quicker way to fulfil some of his wishes that might otherwise remain only on paper or the fulfilment of which might take somewhat longer. On a deeper level, we can recognize a logical continuity between his concerns as a scientist and the positions he defended as a politician. Some topics are present in all his interventions: nationalist ideas, teaching and research, and colonization.

298  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Notes  1. Boletim Cultural 13, 1950: 206.  2. Created by the District’s General Board, it was handed over to the Municipal Council’s administration by a decision dated 23 December 1897. It was meant to ‘shelter and educate destitute or abandoned children, from seven to ten years old, male, born in Porto (decision of 7 August 1920), allowing them to receive the literary and professional education that qualifies them to honestly and freely earn a living’ (Anuário da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1923: 190).   3. In 1651, Father Baltazar Guedes founded a College for Orphans and Forsaken Boys, both from Porto and from his diocese. When the founder passed away in 1693, the college’s management was handed over to the Municipal Council. In 1903, the college was set up in the former seminar building. The pupils were admitted by the Municipal Council, with the ‘requirement of being orphans … being seven to ten years old, strong enough and with no contagious disease or organic defect that prevents them to follow any of the careers provided by the College, being born in Porto’s diocese and with a proven status of poverty’ (Anuário da Câmara Municipal do Porto 1923: 195).   4. Poor neighbourhoods that arose in Porto during the industrial development during the nineteenth century.  5. From this date onwards, I looked up the Boletim Municipal da CMP, which is typewritten and freely accessible.  6. Context of the food crisis related to rationing and hardship that raged across the country in 1943.   7. The palace and its gardens were bought by the CMP (minutes dated 18 June 1936) and this space – that harboured the successful First Portuguese Colonial Exhibition (1934) – was chosen for several initiatives organized by the Municipal Council.   8. According to Mendes Correia, the foundation of Porto dated back to the Bronze Age and, if Guimarães was the national cradle, Porto would be inside it (1935b).   9. The DGEMN was connected to improvement measures in urban areas and monuments representative of the nationality’s foundation; its actions contributed to the Estado Novo regime’s propaganda. 10. Boletim da Câmara Municipal do Porto 116, 25 June 1938: 578. 11. Boletim da Câmara Municipal do Porto 116, 25 June 1938. 12. This took place from 1807 to 1814 between France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal for the control of the Iberian Peninsula during the Napoleonic Wars. 13. It had existed since 1833 as the Museu Portuense, although it was legalized only in 1836; however, the unworthy conditions of the São Lázaro building led to the acquisition of the Palace of Carrancas by the state in 1937, with the purpose of setting up the museum. 14. While Porto welcomed a group of Italian architects, Lisbon welcomed a group of German architects. 15. News title: ‘As Nossas Iniciativas, Interesses do Porto: O Sr. Prof. Dr. Mendes Correia, ilustre presidente da comissão administrativa … aborda os problemas citadinos de mais flagrante actualidade’ [Our Initiatives, Porto’s Interests: Prof. Dr. Mendes Correia, the illustrious president of the management committee … faces the city’s most current issues]. 16. Boletim Cultural 13 1950: 207. 17. He was referring to the people from the colonies.

Mendes Correia’s Political Legacy  •  299

18. He was probably referring to Cancela de Abreu, Minister of the Interior from 4 February 1947 to 2 August 1950. 19. An expression used to refer to the regime in order to distinguish it from the Opposition. 20. Mendes Correia 1919b. 21. Mendes Correia 1924a. 22. A city in northern Portugal. 23. Viana do Castelo, a city in northern Portugal. 24. The opposition between both is probably related to the fact that the former includes joyful songs and dances, interpreted by people with colourful clothing, and the latter includes sad topics (yearning, heartbreak) interpreted by people in sober, dark clothing. 25. All trained in different areas: António de Almeida and João Antunes Guimarães (medicine), Francisco Eusébio Fernandes Prieto (natural sciences) and Fernão Couceiro da Costa (mathematical sciences). 26. One of the most important film directors during the Estado Novo period. 27. Humberto Mendes Correia, who was living in Lisbon at the time. 28. Mendes Correia 1925j. 29. A member of the Comissione dell’alimentazione, which was created to solve problems of malnutrition due to the sanctions imposed on Italy since 1926. Despite his scientific contribution, his Nobel Prize nomination in 1941 (and he had also been previously nominated) was withdrawn and he was not acknowledged by his peers due to his antiSemitism and his connection to fascist politics. 30. Neither worked nor studied, and in this period what is now considered child labour was not a problem. 31. The engineer José do Nascimento Ferreira Dias Júnior was Undersecretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1940, and acknowledged that Portuguese workers did not earn enough to feed themselves and their families. 32. A Hungarian communist and bolshevist revolutionary who led the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. 33. A magistrate and politician, and an advocate of the Estado Novo’s anti-democratic values. 34. The speech on this intervention was published in Anuário da ESC (Correia 1952a). 35. Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quételet was a mathematician and a sociologist. 36. Insular regions of the country: the Azores and Madeira. 37. Only in 1957 were geologists allowed to be part of the full staff of the Geological Services (by means of orders dated 17 May 1957 and 17 June 1957) ‒ that is, a century after the creation of this institution. 38. On this occasion, he listed some special skills of the geologist, possibly based on his experience as geology professor at the FCUP. 39. He was referring to Francisco da Costa Aleixo, the Chief of Suco, who took part in the Portuguese World Exhibition in 1940 (Matos 2013). 40. He was probably referring to Gilberto Freyre and his ideas (1957 [1933]). 41. In the Portuguese colonial system, there were schools for colonists and schools for the Indigenous, the latter being under the care of Catholic missionaries (Matos 2013). 42. These statistics were sent to him by the general manager for Colonial Education, Braga Paixão, and are included in the July 1943 edition of the Missões Franciscanas journal. 43. During his journey to Guinea, he observed that Muslims taught the Arabic language and the Quran everywhere. Further, he saw only a few Portuguese schools in operation and only two Portuguese priests, one in Bissau and the other in Bolama. In the capital, he saw the Sisters Hospitallers in the hospital and at the cathedral, and a

300  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

44. 45. 46.

47.

48.

49. 50.

church in Bafatá. According to him, it was therefore a ‘difficult problem’ in which the ‘Indigenous’ that did not accept the Portuguese priests, due to their religion, might not receive an education in Portuguese, taught by Portuguese teachers (Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné; Correia 1946b: 155). He was referring to the Great Zimbabwe ruins. When he visited Timor, he met agronomist Ruy Cinatti, who showed him some places. ‘Relatório sobre os problemas dos nativos nas colónias portuguesas apresentado por H. Galvão à Assembleia Nacional em sessão secreta’ (1947), published in the book O Assalto ao Santa Maria (Galvão 1974) under democracy, despite having been published in English in 1961. The contents of Henrique Galvão’s interventions at the AN started to be disseminated within and outside of the country. The fact that he resolutely named some of the problems in the colonial territories led to his exclusion from the National Union lists in 1949 for the deputies’ election. In 1952, he was arrested for supporting Manuel Quintão Meireles’ 1951 candidacy to the presidential election. Later he escaped prison and was exiled abroad, where he organized the assault on the Santa Maria ship in January 1961 (Pimenta 2008: 193). The session of 1 January 1948 recalled that Mendes Correia was responsible for taking the initiative in organizing the Second Conference in Bissau; on the other hand, the organization and execution of the congress was also possible as a result of Mendes Correia’s collaborators and the financial support from the Ministry of the Colonies. He was probably referring to the Iron Curtain that, during the Cold War period, made the circulation of scientific knowledge difficult. In Cairo, which had three universities, Mendes Correia visited the Egyptian Museum and lamented the fact that Portugal did not have a tradition of Arab studies, despite the Muslim occupation that took place in Portugal, the Arab principalities that existed in the Algarve, and the existence of Arabs and Muslims overseas (1951h: 22).

Conclusion The Legacy of Mendes Correia and of the Porto School of Anthropology

Studies do build on other studies, not in the sense that they take up where the others leave off, but in the sense that, better informed and better conceptualized, they plunge more deeply into the same things. Every serious cultural analysis starts from a sheer beginning and ends where it manages to get before exhausting its intellectual impulse. — Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures

The lives of anthropologists can only be understood in the context of the cultures in which they took part. As Steven Shapin reminds us, science, despite being the institution that bears the highest credibility, should be seen as an activity performed by human beings in certain contexts (1996). In this book I aimed to present an overview of the history of anthropology in Portugal by focusing on the Porto School of Anthropology in a specific context (1870‒1960), and on the figure of Mendes Correia, who is central for understanding the strategies in the path of anthropology and the way in which several strands of knowledge were intertwined, both in Portugal and abroad. As noted by Adam Kuper: The reliable histories of science, as is the case of good ethnographies, must encompass the practices of its actors, institutional structures, social networks, intellectual and material resources, as well as its relationships to other disciplines and foreign schools or to official entities … We must not merely question the topics that anthropologists talk about, but also with whom they talk and the ones they exclude. (2005: 225)1

302  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

In Portugal, masters like Teófilo Braga, Adolfo Coelho and José Leite de Vasconcelos, and other contemporaneous eclectic men were the ones who contributed to the first histories of anthropology. Mendes Correia emerged at a time when ethnological and archaeological studies were beginning to establish themselves and was part of the second generation, following Teófilo Braga and Consiglieri Pedroso, concerning ethnological descriptions, and following António Aurélio da Costa Ferreira and Fonseca Cardoso, concerning physical anthropology. He lived in the post-Berlin Conference (1884‒85) period and was still young at the time of the English Ultimatum (1890) and of the scramble for Africa. He was contemporaneous with the period when the colonies started to become profitable. The son of a medical doctor who also engaged in politics, he possessed a relevant social and family legacy, which was one of the reasons that led him to obtain a degree in medicine and to hold political offices, such as Mayor of Porto and deputy to the AN. However, he eventually did not devote himself to medicine and turned his focus to other passions. His activity was mainly connected to the UP, which was founded in 1911 following the change in the political system (from monarchy to republic) and after the Polytechnic Academy and the Medical and Surgical School, both in Porto. While following his path, he was always somewhere between the so-called ‘letters’ and ‘sciences’. The general studies he performed in high school combined both areas and only afterwards were they separated. Later on, he taught at both the FCUP and the FLUP. The SPAE itself, which he created, joined several areas of knowledge – some more connected to ‘letters’ and others to ‘sciences’. He started his career as a professor and a scientist very early on; he was moved by great curiosity, mainly concerning the Portuguese people and their origins, biological constitution, habits, traditions and behaviours. He sought to give archaeology and anthropology autonomy and scientific respect in Portugal. For that reason, he sought to always be informed on the work done elsewhere in Europe and in the Americas. He was responsible, along with some of his collaborators such as Rui de Serpa Pinto, Alfredo Athayde and Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos Júnior, for the foundation of the Porto School of Anthropology – a place for the innovation, creation and production of knowledge. He established contacts between people from different countries, and promoted the exchange of works, research and ideas. Unlike other people, and other national contexts, such as the American one, which developed interesting ethnographic and language research outside the limits of academia (Price 2008), his work was not developed on the margins, outside academia or independently of financing institutions. In his context, research and travels were politically controlled and he had to obtain specific permissions, which were limited to certain criteria.

Conclusion • 303

As mentioned by Mendes Correia, despite an ancient tradition in anthropological studies in Porto, only in 1911 was the anthropology discipline first taught at the FCUP; it arose in the following year as ‘one of the disciplines of the section for historic and natural sciences and … an anthropological museum and laboratory, as well as a criminal anthropology station, are created’ (1941a: 15). The museum and the laboratory were converted into an institute in 1923. The interest in both physical anthropology and ethnology already existed at the time of the Polytechnic Academy, at least from the students that founded the Carlos Ribeiro Society, and the Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais and Portugália journals, despite the fact that this society had ended its activity by the time the anthropological museum and laboratory were created. However, some of the members of this society later cooperated in the IAUP’s activities. Ricardo Severo, for example, was a member of the SPAE2 and the work by Fonseca Cardoso has contributed with new research data and objects3 that enlarged the museum’s collection. One of the main legacies of Mendes Correia was, in fact, the creation of the SPAE and of the TAE, which continues to be published.4 He was also responsible for other parallel achievements, such as the IAUP, the museum, the library and the collaborators he managed to gather at the FCUP, as well as the promotion of scientific exchange. Besides the organization of the laboratory and of the museum, the work of the IAUP was reflected in research, scientific missions, surveys, the participation in conferences in Portugal both abroad and in the colonies, and the publication of hundreds of books and articles. The Museum of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology, founded in 1912, gathered prehistoric, protohistoric and Luso-Roman archaeology, ethnography and physical anthropology, and comprised small rooms on the FCUP’s upper floor. According to Mendes Correia, that space ‘gathered, for years, the collected materials and there one worked under the worst conditions’5 (1941a: 16). When the members of the International Congress of Anthropology of 1930 visited the museum, they still found these facilities, but this situation changed from 1935 onwards, when the IAUP, the museum and the laboratory were transferred ‘to the facilities on the building’s ground floor and mezzanine’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 16). At the time of restructuring, the three sections (anthropology, archaeology and ethnography) were organized ‘into two large rooms, with galleries, one dedicated to general and metropolitan anthropology, the other to colonial anthropology’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 34). In the first room could be found the collection of Alpiarça, the Bronze Age collection and the collection of Mesolithic shell midden of Muge (the result of the explorations in 1930, 1931, 1933 and 1937). The second room contained ‘the prehistoric Lithic industries discovered by Santos Júnior in Mozambique … specimens of rock engravings

304  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

from that same province … craniological series from Guinea, Angola and India, a … set of gorilla skeletons, collected and offered by Dr. Liz Ferreira’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 35), among other elements originating from São Tomé and Príncipe, Macao and India. Over time, the museum’s collection was enriched with material from donations and research developed6 in the scope of archaeological excavations, some of them coordinated by Mendes Correia, and of anthropological missions (see Figure 6.1). The diversity of the museum’s estate illustrated the history of the IAUP and Mendes Correia’s comprehensive perspective of anthropology, as well as his diversified interests. The estate included the only collection originating from the South Seas existing in Portugal, which was taken to the Lisbon Museum of Ethnology in 1983 to be studied by anthropologists Mary Bouquet and Jorge de Freitas Branco, and was included in the exhibition ‘Melanesian Artefacts, Post-modernist Reflections’ that was held in the museum in 1988. Several objects, such as ornaments, utensils, masks and sculptures – from Sepik (New Guinea), Solomon Islands, New Ireland, New Britain and the Admiralty Islands – were collected by German scientific missions in the late nineteenth century, came to Portugal in January 1927 and were received at the UP by Mendes Correia. The colonial room was closed in April 1974 after the fire that damaged the building section that then belonged to the FCUP. Nowadays, the estate that belonged to the ‘Mendes Corrêa Museum of Anthropology and Prehistory’ is called the ‘Mendes Corrêa Centre for

Figure 6.1. The Museum of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology. FCUP Natural History Museum, 1940s

Conclusion • 305

Anthropology and Prehistory’, and is still in the former building of the FCUP, where the UP’s rectorship is headquartered, and was part of the FCUP’s Museum of Natural History. It includes archaeological collections and pieces from prehistory to the Romanization period. In the 1970s, the estate was reorganized by Huet Bacelar (former advanced technician at the museum) and the archaeological artefacts were highlighted, probably as a result of his training in geological sciences, of the existing space constraints and of the fact that the technician gave priority to the objects that he knew best and/or that interested him the most. However, the museum also possesses, in reserves that cannot be visited, collections from Portugal and abroad, a numismatic collection and a photo and documental estate. However, the current presentation, by particularly highlighting archaeology and human evolution,7 might not be the one imagined by Mendes Correia for a museum of anthropology that would include several aspects, as he imagined this discipline, and would be all-inclusive from a time and geographical perspective. Due not only to the diversity found at the museum, but also to the works produced at the Porto School of Anthropology, we are able to infer the orientation that was adopted at this school. It was, according to its mentor, anthropology ‘understood in a broad sense’ (Mendes Correia 1941a: 35). Following the work performed at the SPAE, this school’s scientific production also mirrored the will to study the human being not only from the perspective of physical anthropology, but also from an ethnographic point of view. Mendes Correia describes his integrating vision as follows: Anthropology arises as a compared integral study of man and human groups, therefore encompassing zoological anthropology, ethnic physical anthropology (‘ethnology’, according to the Broca school), psychic and cultural anthropology (‘ethnology’ in other schools; ethnography in the common sense), prehistory, etc. (1941a: 35‒36)

According to Mendes Correia, the orientation, or ‘adopted concept’, originated ‘from the pioneers of Portugalia’ and was ‘simultaneously broad and precise’: Broad, because it is not limited to external morphology nor craniology, nor to psychosocial aspects of human life. Precise, because, while encompassing morphology, biology and psychology, and its object being simultaneously static and dynamic … in its scope it does not reach beyond comparative concerns – or systematic – and concerns regarding the origins – or genealogic. (1941a: 36)

This anthropology was neither too ambitious nor too sceptical:

306  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Long gone are the times when, holding a compass in hand, one assumed the ability to discriminate … the anthropological composition of peoples and even psychological trends in groups or individuals. However, if this unconditional optimism came to an end, there is no place for … an absolute negation. One perseveres, one tries new research paths. It is an elementary duty of science. (1941a: 36)

The performance of several studies on physical anthropology, namely the measurement of skulls or other body parts, and on blood groups to give just two examples, was very important, even if only to be able to afterwards reach the conclusion (as was the case on most occasions) that no significant differences between the individuals inhabiting different latitudes exist, or that the differences did not justify the existence of human races, whether the differentiations were obtained by skull measurements, facial form or different blood types. However, by referring that he, and his collaborators, had ‘adopted’ certain anthropological studies, Mendes Correia also told us that there were other contemporaneous orientations, or concepts, that were not adopted or were less valued. Both within the scope of the anthropology discipline he taught and in the research context, he encouraged his students to research new subjects; he emphasized the need for practical works, inside and outside of the laboratory, sought to procure the logistical means for its execution and followed up on these works. He also argued the need to travel to the sites. This was not anthropological fieldwork in the classical sense of the expression, but rather the need to develop studies that involved and included visits and data surveys in situ. Beyond his work, he encouraged and supported several field campaigns, such as during the archaeological campaigns in the shell midden of Muge and the anthropological missions in Guinea and Timor.

Mendes Correia’s Scientific Work Mendes Correia understood anthropology as a broad science, able to study everything connected to the human being, concerning both the past and the present. Although the areas in which he worked are nowadays independent disciplines, such as geology, archaeology, biological anthropology, cultural anthropology and primatology, Mendes Correia saw them as part of the same and only discipline – anthropology. He sought a dialogue between the different areas and to promote an exchange between several specialists, including at an international level. His perspective was to join, not to divide. This spirit often led him to try and establish agreements and promote consensus between people whose interests were seemingly irreconcilable.

Conclusion • 307

When writing this intellectual biography, I forcibly had to select and exclude, first of all because Mendes Correia’s work is very diverse. But there are aspects in his research that allow us to reach some conclusions. First, his work reveals a technical and scientific character, which is reflected in the formal style of his texts and in the bibliographical review of the topics, with national and foreign authors. In the lengthier works, such as books, which aimed at (or the titles of which specifically referred to) the study of a population, it is common that the texts present a sequence like the following: location, physical geography, archaeology and prehistory of the territory, climate, economy and livelihood, and description of the population (physical characters, material culture and ‘usages and customs’). In relation to the technical characteristics, the articles often include numerical data (statistical or not), rates, metric characters and tables. The numbers and the mathematical and statistical analyses were intended to support the presentation of the studies and corroborate the assessment and the conclusions. In other words, measurements and anthropometric data sought to give more credibility to the analyses and therefore make them more scientific. Mendes Correia often compared his data to those of other authors. With this attitude, he meant to incorporate and locate his work within a network and in the scientific community that worked on the same subjects. For Mendes Correia, the scientist could not ‘be indifferent or neutral’ in matters of morality and religion and should cultivate ‘the love to the Homeland and of Humanity’ (1957: 147). Furthermore, he or she should practise what he called ‘scientific nationalism’ (1946b). As well as topics such as the origin of human beings and of the Portuguese nationality, or the figures who stood out in the national context, other topics related to instruction and education underlay his nationalist ideals. His works almost always present an ethnopsychological approach and although the analyses are supported by historical and/or cultural data, the explanations always have a biological basis, or are related with the physical nature, that may be used to sustain other formulations. From his early work on mental patients (Mendes Correia 1911), he performed a type classification, often associated with physical or easily observable features, which he subsequently related to behavioural evidence assessed based on his own morality and suiting his own prejudices. The list of authors quoted by him allows us to analyse with whom he had more intellectual and scientific affinities. Among these, we note a clear influence of authors from the French school of physical anthropology and some from the Italian school, but also Spanish authors (mainly those working in archaeology and prehistory). I also noted that in his lengthier books (300 pages on average), he incorporated texts, in chapter form, that had been previously published in articles for scientific journals.

308  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

One of the main theoretical influences of Mendes Correia’s work was evolutionism, which prevailed in Portugal, but also in Europe, at the turn of the twentieth century. He created an artificial model into which he forcedly fitted humanity, ordered according to a continuous and progressive evolution. Not only the colonies’ ethnical groups, but also some individuals representing the underprivileged – children in youth detention centres, individuals whose behaviour was considered deviant or criminal, and beggars, among others – were seen by him as examples of stages of humanity prior to the civilization where he thought he belonged – and considered superior. When he described other human groups (from the metropolis or from the colonies), he betrayed the fact that he valued his own culture and social status compared to the individuals he analysed. We can see this not only in the description of ‘usages and customs’, but also of behaviours and their relationship with morality, and in the description of objects and religious practices, among other examples. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the work both by Mendes Correia and other members of the Porto School of Anthropology underwent a change regarding the studies in physical anthropology. The main subject no longer focused as intensely on physical and morphological aspects (skeletons) and rather on blood groups and genetic factors (Mendes Correia 1927a, 1931b, 1931c, 1941b; Júnior 1937) or on human reproduction (Teixeira 1936c; Mendes Correia 1946a). Besides, this is the period when research in the colonial context was most promoted. However, for decades, Mendes Correia continued to write on the subjects to which he had devoted time before, but he adapted, adjusted and diversified them. On the other hand, he reinforced some of his ideas in some cases and mitigated them in others. In the 1930s and 1940s, during the height of racism in Europe, he reinforced some of the ideas on ‘race’ and mixed-race individuals in the Portuguese colonies that were not quite as explicit in the texts he wrote during the 1910s and 1920s. Besides the belief in the existence of human ‘races’, he advocated the possibility of their improvement. In that sense, he proposed eugenics measures such as a prenuptial examination, birth control among individuals with diseases and the control of miscegenation in the colonies. Generally, Mendes Correia’s texts on specific subjects, or where he sought the resolution for a specific issue, departed from a general perspective towards a particular one. In the general perspective, he sought to make an inventory of differences and to highlight that his study was important for a better knowledge of humanity. However, he almost always concluded that the dissimilarities were not as significant after all and that the quantitative data did not allow for significant conclusions.8 In other words, his works reveal a certain path from diversity to homogeneity. He mentioned that Porto’s anthropological laboratory used the ‘current methods in craniography and

Conclusion • 309

craniometry, osteometry, anthropometric and descriptive study in vivo’, as well as the ‘identification methods, the ethnic haematology, the research on basal metabolism’ and ‘some works in experimental psychology’ (1941a: 34). He developed this type of studies, mainly using observation and quantitative measurement data, influenced by contemporaneous works, and by his peers. Individuals trained in medicine, like Mendes Correia, were used to observing bodies and were particularly skilled in performing anthropometric studies. These first efforts also gave rise to an approach to anthropological knowledge, although in the bioanthropological rather than the sociocultural area. British social anthropology and American cultural anthropology did not influence the Porto School of Anthropology, where the study of somatic features was overestimated, that is, a study rather in the scope of an anthropobiology. However, the physical anthropology developed by Mendes Correia did not distance him from his interests in prehistory, medicine, natural sciences, history and ethnology. Yet, in some of his research, the ethnographic elements were merely a complement to the anthropobiological data he described and systematized. Usually, his analyses first presented the anthropological part (that is, mainly physical) and then the ethnographical part (that is, regarding sociocultural aspects), as well as folklore, popular medicine and material culture. He eventually published works of great magnitude, richly illustrated with maps, photographs, drawings, descriptive texts about the land, geography and geological aspects, which gained the support of the university and were subsidized by the state. Mendes Correia was considered an expert in several matters relating to history in general, and specifically Portugal’s history, as well as archaeology and anthropology. Some of the aspects that may have contributed to his credibility are the following: his degree in medicine (1911), his doctorate in natural-historical sciences (1921) and his humanities doctorate in the area of geographical sciences (1925). This means he had the acknowledged scientific authority to write and publish, and issue opinions or views. However, he did not do so as a specialized medical doctor writing opinions. He did not take part in international congresses on Pasteur’s medicine, where we could find, for example, characters such as Ricardo de Almeida Jorge. Mendes Correia mainly participated in generalist congresses and less so in specialized events. Despite having published in medical journals, nowadays this would not have been possible due to the system of scientific peer review. In this area, his activity consisted predominantly in using natural sciences to issue individual, social and historic opinions, sometimes seeking to find an origin and a characterization for the Portuguese. Although he was not a specialist in medicine, his work was seen as an authorized way

310  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

of dealing with the nation’s history, of writing on the Portuguese people and its ancestors, and the so-called criminals or the native populations of the colonies. He received this credibility on a national level, translated in his publications and in the offices he held, and also at an international level. His works were published in some renamed periodicals of his time, in scientific society newsletters and in the minutes of national and foreign congresses. He collaborated with the A Águia journal, writing about a dozen articles, and he was involved in Dionysos, Primeiro de Janeiro, Universidade, the first Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto (where he was a member of the editorial committee, along with Leonardo Coimbra and Hernâni Cidade), the Revista de Estudos Históricos and other scientific journals. Mendes Correia’s work had an international impact, which is not common for contemporaneous authors and even for others who followed him. The award of the honorary doctoral degree by universities in Europe and South Africa (Johannesburg) arose from this international recognition and of his role as an official anthropologist. Around 1924 references to his works were made, signed by the Frenchman Georges-Henri Luquet in the Parisian journal L’Année Psychologique (AAVV 1935). He was quoted by authors such as the prehistorian Henri de Breuil, the German geographer Hermann Lautensach, the anthropologist Renato Biasutti, the geographers Hugo Obermaier and Eduardo Hernández Pacheco, the geologist Raymond Furon, the criminologist Quintiliano Saldaña and the Brazilian writer Afrânio Peixoto. He represented Portugal, being present at the International Committee of the CIAO (International Conference of Western Africanists), an organization that assembled in January 1945 in Dakar under the initiative of the Institut Français d’Afrique Noire, directed by Théodore Monod, and that included naturalists, ethologists and geographers from the African Northwest with representations in France, Portugal, Spain and Great Britain and their colonies (Mendes Correia 1945a). On another occasion, he travelled to Bukavu (the former Belgian Congo, today the Democratic Republic of Congo) along with Adriano Moreira. His opinion was sought, and his knowledge on specific subjects was requested, in Portugal and abroad, as I was able to confirm in his personal correspondence. Mendes Correia reached his peak during the Centennial Celebrations (1940) and with the publication of his monumental work Raças do Império (1943a). Following this phase, he held offices of power that show his relationship to the Estado Novo, such as deputy to the AN and chairman of the SGL. In the 1940s, social Darwinism was still influential in Portugal. In this context, miscegenation was seen as a threat by some of the most relevant figures connected to the Porto School of Anthropology, including Mendes Correia, but also by some at the Coimbra School of Anthropology, such as Eusébio Tamagnini. However, Mendes Correia’s thinking evolved

Conclusion • 311

over time and some of his most hostile statements from the 1920s to the 1940s somewhat subsided from the middle of the 1940s and particularly in the 1950s. In the 1940s, and regarding the ‘empire’, the most positive examples in respect to population, according to him, were present in Cape Verde. The people comprising this country, due to being mainly miscegenated, were also considered more ‘civilized’ than the remaining populations that inhabited the African spaces under Portugal’s administration. Generally, the books he produced during the first years of his production (in the 1910s and 1920s) are more interesting than his later works (in the 1940s and 1950s), with rare exceptions, since some include some reveries and excessive descriptions, as well as political discourses and eulogies to Salazar when referring to very general matters. The naturalist and racialist tradition of anthropology, as manifested in the domain of physical anthropology, had a strong presence in universities until the middle of the twentieth century in Portugal, influenced by Mendes Correia, but also by others. After 1945, certain studies in physical anthropology, as well as studies connected to colonial anthropology, started to be heavily questioned in Western societies, including those with colonial empires, and a shift was observed in theoretical paradigms, with further changes during the 1950s and 1960s. As a science, physical anthropology evolved in different directions: human genetics studies, nutrition, palaeontology, animal ecology and behavioural biology, among others. The association of the Porto School of Anthropology with works with racialist (and even racist) and colonialist content contributed to the pejorative connotation it gained later on. This might have been one of the reasons for Mendes Correia being ignored for such a long time. The analysis of the work by Mendes Correia allows us to confirm that his ideas on some matters, such as the origins of the human being, ‘race’ and the natives of the colonies, changed according to national and international circumstances. This attitude was not merely strategic, but also necessary and urgent after the Second World War. What changed in the author’s discourse was mainly his depiction of the state and the societies it controlled: instead of an empire with a dominant white ‘race’, a pluricontinental and multiracial nation began to be valued. The way in which Mendes Correia defined ‘race’, as presented in Chapter 3, is more restrictive than the one presented in Chapter 4, which assumes the existence, both in the metropolis and in the colonies, of a greater heterogeneity (1943a: 5). However, although Mendes Correia recognized this heterogeneity, he considered that biological conditionalism should not be abandoned (1943a: 9). In the late 1940s and when faced with the changes in the global geopolitical order, changes in science were also introduced and the anthropological discourse was rebuilt and reformulated. However, in a way, the topics

312  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

selected by Mendes Correia, such as ‘race’ and miscegenation, seeing the people of mixed race as a threat, and the emphasis he placed on physical anthropological studies, seem to have contributed to the criticism towards the anthropology produced in Porto, and specifically by Mendes Correia. This notion has endured to this today. While traditional physical anthropology evolved rather in the scope of old-school anthropometric, craniometric, archaeological and criminal anthropological studies, the studies of the new physical anthropology became a means, and not the end itself, of the research on human evolution and the mechanisms responsible for variation and adaptation. According to S.L. Washburn (1951), the study of the ‘race’ should not continue to exist, since there were no scientific bases to justify such distinction between human beings, and the new physical anthropology, or the recent biological anthropology, should be based on the study of genetic parameters and markers and on the genetic evolution of the populations. The term ‘biological anthropology’ became to designate a new paradigm that includes areas such as primatology, genetics, human ecology and evolution (Washburn 1951). However, even today some people associate biological anthropology with the paradigm that was in place before the 1950s. The lack of knowledge on the new physical anthropology, as well as the late introduction of social and cultural anthropology (as compared to United Kingdom and the United States) in the Portuguese paradigm, has led to some prejudice regarding contemporaneous biological anthropology.9 There was a certain deceleration in this area in the 1970s and in the 1980s. However, in the 1990s, encouraged by anthropologists such as João Pereira Neto and António Bracinha Vieira, a number of research projects into this arose, within the scope of primatology, for example, in the ISCSP (the school whose origin goes back to the ESC, of which Mendes Correia was director), the FCTUC, the FCUL and the Higher Institute of Applied Psychology (ISPA [today: University Institute of Psychological, Social and Life Sciences]). On the other hand, Mendes Correia did not eventually study a human group from a more holistic perspective. His analyses essentially focused on individual subjects, not considering possible relationships to other subjects, their interactions or an explanation for them. Although he mentioned cultural influence and the social and cultural changes that may occur due to external influences or triggered by migration, his motivation was not of the diffusionist school. Both diffusionists and functionalists rejected a connection between ‘race’ and culture. Therefore, in the early twentieth century, the research performed by physical and sociocultural anthropologists grew apart. However, archaeologists and biological anthropologists remained faithful to the goals of nineteenth-century anthropology, that is, to documenting the course of human history. Furthermore, in modern

Conclusion • 313

anthropology, anthropobiologists, although with different bases compared to those that postulated a connection between ‘race’ and culture, still seek to find ‒ for example, by means of genetic studies ‒ the ancestors of current populations. One of Mendes Correia’s greatest interests was the colonies. His colonial project included the concept of Portugal’s civilizing mission, sometimes referring to the natives in the colonies as ‘savages’ or ‘backward populations’. Although he made some journeys and established several contacts, his relationship to the colonies was neither very intense nor extended. However, he always promoted the work of others: I am a humble biologist or, more precisely, a promotor of the sciences of Man. I am, preferably, an office scholar, a lab and museum worker, more than a man of the field, of the wood, of the jungle and, even less, of the sea. As to the sea, only twice I made the journey, comfortably accommodated in admirable transatlantic ships – always pleasant for a Portuguese person – to Brazil. As to the colonies, I made two short journeys by plane to Guinea and there I made only short expeditions. Recently, also by plane, I travelled to South Africa and to Lourenço Marques … But, gentlemen, I have an accurate notion and knowledge of what field works look like. I performed numerous tasks in archaeological and anthropological research, I took part in excavations, I climbed a hundred hills in our home country, when researching antiques and other curiosities. I visited many caves, not the ones prepared to be comfortably visited by tourists, but uneven caves, sometimes with difficult access, in which, dressed in an overall, crawling on the damp ground, we sometimes had to move forward several hundred metres, in narrow passages, putting a shoulder first, and then the other, holding the acetylene gas detector in front of us … Among the plain titles I exhibit to expect a little attention for my reflections, one I claim for myself with no modesty at all: of being an animator, a great enthusiast of scientific work, not only my own, but also of others, in the most diverse domains … I bear an endless curiosity: let us be clear, scientific curiosity. As to the work performed by others, in all leadership missions I took part in, one may accuse me of helping, supporting some unsuccessful initiative, some young scientist that did not live up to the expectations. But nobody can say, in truth, that, within the possibilities of such missions, I ever refused the support to any real value. I was always an enthusiast of the sea, despite not being a sailor. (Mendes Correia, session at the AN, 20 January 1950) (Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: V Legislatura [1949‒53])

More than theories that were innovative or that stood out in the national and international scientific scene, Mendes Correia contributed to the creation of conditions for others to undertake their research in Portugal or in its colonies, since those spaces were then considered as part of the country. His action paved the way, defined strategies and drew paths that

314  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

contributed to the production of new knowledge and to a transversal character of knowledge. He fought for scientific progress, for the acknowledgement of research and for the improvement of the status of university professors. Some of Mendes Correia’s proposals were also notable: the African influence in the Portuguese genetic heritage (1917); the Lusitanians as the main ancestors of the Portuguese (1919); the need to know the colonies and their inhabitants (the 1930s); the construction of decent housing for underprivileged social classes (1936); the access for all citizens to cultural and scientific life (1936); valuing the country’s (1936) and the overseas (1949) heritage; women’s right to vote (1945); improving the conditions of the teaching career in higher education (1945, 1946) and the career of geologists (1952); hiring national artists (1946, 1947, 1949 and 1952); the creation of a colonial university (1948); and the abolition of the Indígena statute (1951). Furthermore, his scientific work was not much different from that produced in other places. Although anthropology was initially – in the nineteenth century – interested in the origins of the human being and in the search for archaeological finds (whose remains might illustrate the onset of human life by its proximity to other mammals, in particular the primates), later on the focus of anthropology was directed to the study of human variability, mainly based on other elements such as genes and also on the social and cultural components of such variability. However, the permanence or the simultaneous existence of both aspects (biological and sociocultural) has had a broad spectrum since the beginnings of anthropological practice. Therefore, it was not only the work practised by Franz Boas that combined both aspects, but also institutions, such as the Musée de l’Homme in Paris or the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In addition to Mendes Correia’s notable proposals, one of his greatest legacies lies in the type of structures implemented that allowed the performance of research and also in the fact that he gathered around him a diverse group of collaborators and disciples who he always encouraged.

Collaborators and Followers of Mendes Correia’s Work Mendes Correia used his holidays to visit places where he might find archaeological or anthropological data, and encouraged his collaborators to do the same. Some of his works were subsequently published in the TAE or Revista de Estudos da Universidade do Porto journals. In 1922, the conclusions of twenty works in anthropology of students from the UP were presented at the Portuguese-Spanish Congress (Mendes Correia 1922a). Mendes Correia therefore encouraged and supported a first generation of archaeologists and

Conclusion • 315

anthropologists who later held important positions in the scientific domain in Portugal (see Figure 6.2). In the 1930s, António de Almeida and Santos Júnior first established themselves by writing articles in the field of the physical anthropology of the colonized populations. Later on, Alfredo Athayde, professor of the theorical classes of anthropology and who succeeded Mendes Correia on the board of the IAUP, and Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo, Mendes Correia’s assistant professor in the FCUP’s discipline of anthropology, stood out. Among his collaborators we can also find the brothers Joaquim Alberto and Américo Pires de Lima, Hernâni Monteiro, Bethencourt Ferreira, Amândio Tavares, Luís de Pina, Filipe Ferreira, Constâncio Mascarenhas, Lino Rodrigues, Melo Adrião, Fernando Castro Pires de Lima (son to Joaquim Alberto Pires de Lima) and Maria Irene Leite da Costa,10 among others. Mendes Correia also left a legacy in geology. After the death of Nery Delgado (1908), assistant director of the Committee for Geologic Works, which was directed by Carlos Ribeiro, some discouragement was felt. However, Mendes Correia would continue the school of archaeology of the Geological Services, that had started in the second half of the nineteenth century, having written several works on the prehistoric and protohistoric past, including anthropological, geographical, historical and

Figure 6.2. Biological sciences teachers and students. Standing, from left to right: Leopoldina Paulo, Amílcar Mateus, Arnaldo Rozeira, Santos Júnior, Manuel Ferreira, Marques Teixeira, Pires de Lima, Alfredo Silva, António Machado, João Cabral, Alfredo Ataíde, Alzira Almoster, Maria Emília Carregal and Maria Otilde Costa. http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina?p_pagina=1001831 (retrieved July 2021)

316  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

archaeological aspects (for example, Mendes Correia 1924a, 1928b). Besides being a professor in the group of geological sciences of the FCUP, he undertook initiatives so that this area and its practitioners could establish themselves in a national context. When he was deputy at the AN, he defended the national interest in investing in geology and in promoting the work of its practitioners. He also raised awareness concerning geological studies during his lectures at the National Radio (Emissora Nacional). He was a member of the Portuguese Geological Society, which was created in 1940 by figures connected to Porto, such as João Carrington da Costa (1891‒1982), Carlos Teixeira (1910‒82) and João Manuel Cotelo Neiva (1917–2015) – which published the Boletim da Sociedade Geológica de Portugal in which he collaborated. He highlighted the role of geologists and of geology in the country’s development, warning of the potential tragedies if its knowledge was not taken into consideration. He also promoted a geological cartography in Portugal and other places, such as the colonies. As a professor in Porto, Mendes Correia mentored Carlos Teixeira,11 one of the most influential Portuguese geologists of the twentieth century. This influence must have been decisive, not only due to being his student, but also considering the way in which Teixeira subsequently approached scientific research, which was also with different interests, similarly to his mentor, based on the enterprising example received from him, and surely underlies the creation of his own research school at the FCUL’s Centre for Pure and Applied Geological Studies. The tradition in geological studies would be carried on from the 1940s by figures such as Georges Zbyszewski (1909‒1999), Octávio da Veiga Ferreira (1917‒97) and José Camarate França (1923‒63), Mendes Correia’s contemporaries, with whom he performed some excavations. Besides beginning several studies in the field of archaeology, Mendes Correia promoted and supported excavations by the collaborators of the Porto School of Anthropology, through the CEEP (a foundation of the IAC), which was attached to the FCUP. The most relevant archaeological research performed by the CEEP (created in 1945) were those concerning the shell midden of Muge (Moita do Sebastião, Cabeço de Amoreira and Cabeço da Arruda) performed by Jean Roche12 and Octávio da Veiga Ferreira, following those coordinated by Mendes Correia in the 1930s. Several archaeologists in addition to those mentioned above received financial and institutional support in the 1950s under his intervention, as was the case for Fernando de Almeida (whose excavations in Egitânia had the support of the CEEP), Abel Viana, Eduardo da Cunha Serrão, Eduardo Prescott Vicente and José Camarate França. The outcomes of these research works were often published in the TAE. When Mendes Correia was chairman of the SGL, Cunha Serrão, Prescott Vicente and Camarate

Conclusion • 317

França also collaborated there. The archaeologist Abel Viana sought his support in order to be able to perform excavations in the Elvas region, since Manuel Heleno13 was posing difficulties to this intention. Mendes Correia always tried to support anyone who came to the CEEP for assistance. He himself mentioned that one of the ‘most essential [features] in the personality of a man of science is the reception, the stimulus, the help, the friendliness towards the young’ and that he met ‘old tight-fisted men in knowledge and glory that hid information, documents, books from the young that sought them’; perhaps for that reason, he mentioned that his conscience would not permit him into ‘intentionally obstructing the path of a young person’ (Mendes Correia 1951b: 80). The problems that Manuel Heleno caused Mendes Correia and other researchers, as stated in Chapter 3, remained in the following years and occurred several times. Due to Manuel Heleno’s difficult personality, Afonso do Paço and Eugénio Jalhay also did not donate to the Museum of Ethnology (which had been directed by Heleno since 1930) the estate they acquired in their excavations, and preferred to give it to local museums, to the Portuguese Geological Services or to the Association of Portuguese Archaeologists. Besides Mendes Correia, Manuel Heleno had a relationship marked by conflict with Abel Viana and the researchers of the Portuguese Geological Services. During the 1950s, long after Leite de Vasconcelos’ death, he criticized his predecessor at the museum (Fabião 1999: 124). Unlike Mendes Correia, Heleno was not able to fight for the institution he directed or to persuade the political sector, despite the positions he held. At an international level, he did not publish or participate in congresses, unlike several contemporary researchers, such as Mendes Correia. Even after his retirement from research activities in anthropology and archaeology, in order to hold political and institutional positions, Mendes Correia maintained his consultant activities, in which he reflected on the pertinence of certain researches or their financing. He always developed national and international contacts, in contrast to Heleno’s attitude. On the other hand, even the heated discussions between Mendes Correia and contemporary figures of archaeology eventually contributed to the establishment of this discipline in Portugal and its expansion. According to Carlos Fabião (1999), the foreign researchers who came to Portugal visited the Museum of Ethnology; however, their preferred counterparts were the CEEP, directed by Mendes Correia, the archaeologists of the Association of Portuguese Archaeologists (Afonso do Paço and Eugénio Jalhay), the Portuguese Geological Services (including George Zbyszewski and Octávio da Veiga Ferreira) and the Society Martins Sarmento (where Colonel Mário Cardozo maintained the Revista de Guimarães journal). The geographer Orlando Ribeiro14 considered Heleno to be harmful since ‘he did not act,

318  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

nor allow others to act’ (1978: 30). Despite having read Bosch-Gimpera and Gordon Childe, Heleno did not produce a synthesis of prehistory and antiquity in Portugal, as opposed to Mendes Correia. But the latter was also the target of harsh criticism by Ribeiro, who described him as an author who: Took care of … his national and international propaganda, distanced himself from his life as a man of study, in Porto, to occupy, in Lisbon, politically prestigious positions and lucrative responsibilities. A very clever man, he was able to see the most controversial issues in anthropology and ethnology on which he published articles in French in renowned international journals. (1977: 52)

Ribeiro adds that in the works by Mendes Correia, ‘there was a lot of chaff among the wheat’ (1977: 52). However, Ribeiro’s criticism was always more heavily directed at Heleno than Mendes Correia. One of Mendes Correia’s closest collaborators was Santos Júnior,15 who succeeded Alfredo Athayde in the IAUP’s role of director. Although he worked in a different field, he sought to follow in his master’s footsteps, recalling the goals he had designated for anthropology, as in the opening lecture of the anthropology course in the University of Luanda at the Faculty of Sciences in October 1970, in which he mentioned: Anthropology is a well-individualized science with an enormous scope of study … but with well-established aims, with specific working methods … an autonomous science, surely resorting to a large accumulation of knowledge from subsidiary sciences. (Júnior 1971: 7)

One of the most important figures in the history of anthropology in Portugal, who became a member of the CEEP in 1947 (being introduced by Mendes Correia), was Jorge Dias, who must not be considered as a disciple, but rather as someone who further developed anthropological studies in Portugal and some structures that Mendes Correia sought to implement. Jorge Dias studied German philology at the UC and was influenced by the intellectual tradition started in Porto by Joaquim de Vasconcelos, Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcelos, Adolfo Coelho and Teófilo Braga, among others. His interest in archaeology and ethnography originates from the line pursued by Rocha Peixoto and Leite de Vasconcelos. Subsequently, he moved to Rostock in Germany to teach languages. In Berlin, he worked with Richard Thrunwald, who introduced him to North American cultural anthropology. He wrote a dissertation on the community village of Vilarinho da Furna in Gerês. He lived in Spain from 1944 to 1947. When he returned to Portugal, he was invited by Mendes Correia to work at the CEEP and to coordinate its ethnography section. His work in this capacity contributed to an increase

Conclusion • 319

in the development of sociocultural anthropology. The TAE journal thus started publishing more works in this field. In the late 1940s, Dias published the revised version of his dissertation, written in Germany (1981 [1948]), in which he rejected the role of ‘race’ as an explanation for social behaviour (Sobral 2007), and a book on the origins and the distribution of ploughs in Portugal (Dias 1982 [1948]). When he visited the United States in 1950, he was influenced by American cultural anthropology and rephrased his disciplinary definition (Pina-Cabral 1991: 29). We would later find it in the work on Rio de Onor – a village in northeast Portugal with community traditions – in which he quoted Ruth Benedict, Robert Harry Lowie, Clyde Kluckhohn, Alfred Louis Kroeber and George Murdock. However, Dias mainly highlighted material and technological aspects, and not social structure (Pina-Cabral 1991: 29). Following Jorge Dias, other people were admitted to the CEEP: Margot Dias (1947), Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira (1948) and Fernando Galhano (1953).16 In 1956 this team’s work was continued in Lisbon and Benjamim Pereira joined the team in 1959. As a professor, Jorge Dias taught ethnology at the FLUC (1952–56); ethnology (1956), and subsequently general ethnology (1957) and regional ethnology (1958) at the FLUL. He established a programme that allowed a degree in ethnology to be granted at the ISEU, and, as recommended by Adriano Moreira, at the ISEU he taught the disciplines cultural anthropology and native institutions (from 1956 to 1962), and cultural anthropology and regional institutions from 1962 onwards (Pereira 1989: 66). According to Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira, Dias pursued the ‘school tradition’ in ethnology, as mentioned in Chapter 2, although he delivered a ‘critical review … of the concepts formulated by his ancestors’ (1972: 7). When Santos Júnior retired, his place was taken by João Machado Cruz,17 who became a full professor in 1973; he secured the position after applying together with Leopoldina Ferreira Paulo. He was director of the Museum of Anthropology of the FCUP and, as director of the FCUP’s Zoology and Anthropology Institute, he was advised that he should devote himself to anthropology. He then started working in the area of biological anthropology (human genetics) and sought to carry out community-oriented work, which still he advocates today, namely in the area of paternity tests and the identification of criminal records. Another source that allows us to know the work produced by the Porto School of Anthropology is the collection of miscellanies18 with articles by the people associated with the school – professors and researchers – and others, both national and foreign, with whom works were exchanged. This act of exchanging articles and ideas, method sharing and discussion has largely contributed to creating and structuring the school. This collection comprised

320  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

sixty-six volumes, with around twenty to fifty texts in each. The first article of the first volume (written by Mendes Correia on Alexandre Herculano) is dated 1910, and the last article of the last volume (by Eduardo da Cunha Serrão on archaeology) is dated 1975. However, considering all the miscellanies, they contain texts from the middle of the nineteenth century (1854, for example). These materials are allocated (pencilled in the volumes themselves) to categories such as anthropology, physical anthropology, ethnology, anatomy (and, within it, topographic anatomy),19 medicine and psychological development, among others; some articles refer to animals, but are not categorized as veterinary medicine. Other topics include archaeology, memoirs, pharmacology, stomatology, obstetrics, mineralogy, and several human and animal deformities (e.g. in chickens or rabbits).20 In this collection it is mainly doctors who analyse anomalies, defects and the so-called ‘human monsters’. The common concern in many of these texts was finding a norm and a deviation in each analysed case. However, there were exceptions. For example, although most of J.A. Pires de Lima’s texts were on anatomy, pathology and zoology, there was one on the role of the green lizard in folk traditions (Miscelânea II). On the other hand, one of the most important topics was ‘race’. The exchanged texts (and those received at the school) were mainly of interest to Mendes Correia and his collaborators. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I noted a strong presence of works on archaeology and geology; these domains seem to have played a very important role in the continuity of the work promoted and developed since the early years (1910s and 1920s) by Mendes Correia and other figures at the school. In fact, from 1974 onwards, archaeology at the FLUP has developed considerably. The Porto School of Anthropology might only have lasted half a century, but it fitted into a period marked by many changes and the ascension of authoritarian regimes, and this influenced not only the research topics, but also the institutions with which works were exchanged. After the Second World War, I observed that fewer exchanges were made with Eastern European universities, such as from Poland or Czechoslovakia (nowadays the Czech Republic). This was surely due to the fact that the Cold War isolated people and ideas,21 which leads me to conclude that the anthropological works that are better known today are mainly those produced in the West (Europe and the United States) and, therefore, these were the ones that came to define the mainstream. There are several interesting studies produced in Eastern universities (some of them similar to the studies influenced by romantic ideals) based on ethnographic studies, mainly dedicated to popular culture and, within it, to essentially rural culture, and they are virtually unknown or ignored. Mendes Correia ‒ and actually also

Conclusion • 321

anthropology in Portugal ‒ was marginal in the global context; however, there was an effort to be otherwise in the school. In a total of sixty-six volumes of the aforementioned miscellanies, only fourteen include foreign authors. However, foreign authors are present in other volumes and in some of these fourteen, there are Portuguese authors.22 The list of foreign authors23 allows us to see with whom works were exchanged. Among them we find: Giuseppe Sergi, Sergio Sergi, Joseph Deniker and Luis de Hoyos Sáinz24 (all anthropologists); Henri de Breuil and Hugo Obermaeier (archaeologists); Pierre Saintyves (a French ethnographer and folklorist); Hermann Lautensach (a geographer who worked with Orlando Ribeiro); and Sílvio Romero (a Brazilian historian). This short list allows us to understand that they were specialized in different areas, but their work matched Mendes Correia’s diversified interests.

From Porto to Lisbon and from Lisbon to the World When Mendes Correia left Porto and moved to Lisbon, he continued to follow the school of anthropology he founded, mainly through his correspondence with Santos Júnior. In those letters, Mendes Correia: a) asked for articles on certain matters, as well as annotations (for the press, for the Annals of the FCUP and for the TAE), photographs and drawings; b) promoted the work of the individuals connected to the school and supported them in financing and publishing them; c) delegated tasks to different people, according to their responsibilities and study or action domains; d) advised on the participation in congresses (suggesting lecture topics and lecturers);25 e) gave bibliographical advice; and f) tried to mitigate conflicts. On the other hand, he presented topics for debate at the JMGIC and the AN, at Santos Júnior’s request, i.e. he used the offices he held to plead before the highest authorities for the approval and/or financing of certain projects. On some of these occasions, he quoted the opinions of foreign specialists in order to consolidate his arguments. To his peers in Lisbon, Mendes Correia was always a man from the ‘north’, most specifically from Porto, a full professor of the FCUP – a connection that was highlighted in an oil painting of him side by side with other professors portrayed in the FCUP’s ceremonial room (see Figure 6.3). However, he left his mark in other institutions too, such as the ESC, the ISCSPU, the JMGIC and the SGL. At the ESC he taught geography, and was director and supervisor of the final dissertations of the degree in the overseas high studies course. It was Mendes Correia 26 who invited the then young lawyer Adriano Moreira by telegram to teach law at the ESC, who later on became director of that school and Minister of the Colonies. In an

322  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

Figure 6.3. Oil painting of Mendes Correia. Noble Hall of the historic building of the FCUP. Picture of the painting courtesy of the FCUP

Conclusion • 323

interview, Adriano Moreira mentioned that he might say he owed Mendes Correia everything and made the following comment: They wanted to reform the overseas prison system … and asked me to study that matter, which was a huge task, since I was extremely young … Subsequently I visited all the colonies in Africa. And came back with this idea: this law we have been teaching is not true. What happens there has nothing to do with law whatsoever. I think we need to change the school, to start studying reality, because I have been teaching things that do not actually happen … I feel that he [Mendes Correia] has influenced my life greatly, because he was the one who took me there … because I saw that the world that was created did not exist and therefore I have to pay my respects to Mendes Correia, considering he was an aged professor, ancient in the weight that the university then had, both in Porto, Lisbon or Coimbra. I accompanied him at a very important congress in Bukavu … a social sciences congress, and I presided over the management committee and went with Mendes Correia, who was our high-profile figure … He considered my report and said: ‘You are absolutely right! Please do say anything you have to say!’ And so the Centre of Political and Social Studies at JMGIU was born, directed by Carrington da Costa … I was named director of that centre, for my great surprise, since I was the youngest, and we did extraordinary things, money was not a problem then … In my mind it started to become clear that the school had to enter the university … Mendes Correia did not object in the least to everything I wanted to do … I would not have inaugurated that path if the man he was, considering his age, etc., had thought that it should not be so … but he himself was able to recognize at the conference of Bukavu that our backwardness was extraordinary.27

With the intervention of Adriano Moreira and the agreement of Moisés Bensabat Amzalak, an economist, leader of the Lisbon Israelite Community and rector of the Technical University of Lisbon (UTL) (from 1956 to 1963), the ISCSPU was included as part of the UTL. The connection of the former ESC to the SGL was maintained, since some of the ESC’s students, or professors, were subsequently connected to the SGL or presided over it, as was the case for Adriano Moreira himself (from 1964 to 1974). It was also due to Mendes Correia that the reform in the country’s policies regarding the overseas territories took place. According to Rui Ulrich, the creation of the Research Institutes in Luanda and Lourenço Marques (in the former colonies of Angola and Mozambique, respectively), as well as the ISEU’s prestige, were also a result of his efforts and enthusiasm (offprint of Boletim da SGL 1957: 128). In 1957, the MEMEUP was created at the JMGIU (presided over by Mendes Correia), in which Jorge Dias (leader), Margot Dias and Manuel Viegas Guerreiro (assistants) were integrated. During the African campaigns in 1957 and 1958, and alongside the research works, around

324  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

300 Makonde ethnographic objects were gathered (Mozambique), allowing for the organization of the ‘Life and Art of the Makonde People’ exhibition at the SNI in February 1959 (a year before Mendes Correia’s death). This collection built the initial core of a museum that mainly took on a pedagogical character and that was installed on the underground level of the then ISEU at Praça do Príncipe Real in Lisbon. The museum, which comprised the original set and several later acquisitions (from overseas study missions and purchases from collectors), was inaugurated in 1961. It was called the Museum of Overseas Ethnology, while at the JMGIU, the Centre of Cultural Anthropology Studies was created. On 20 November 1962, the facilities of the museum were inaugurated at the ISCSPU, which was meanwhile transferred to the Junqueira Palace. The current National Museum of Ethnology, founded in 1965, corresponds to the extension of the small museum that initially existed at the ISEU. Mendes Correia was a university professor, but he also held several political offices. Holding a privileged place in science and offices that were decisive in the assessment of individuals’ physical and mental health placed him in a position of power. He was almost obsessed by the study of the causes of disease and crime, and the origins of human beings (most specifically of the Portuguese), but also of cities, languages, the alphabet and human migrations. His nationalism, consistent with different political regimes, is ever present in his research, be it on the origins of Portugal, of the Portuguese, its position in the colonial system, the improvement of the genetic material – eugenics – or the fight against behaviours that were considered deviant. Although some of these concerns were common to successive Portuguese governments, we cannot say that he reacted mechanically to those concerns, that his works were directly at the service of political strategies, or that scientists and politicians had the same agendas, the same sensitivity in the resolution of matters or even the same principles and values. There were differences of course. Even among the so-called ‘single party’ of the Estado Novo there were different ways of thinking and the proposals put forward to solve the same problems could be very different, as was the case in some debates held at the AN. In the case of Mendes Correia, politics was used as a means to defend national interests – connected to obtaining improvements for science, and the diffusion of the Portuguese language, heritage and arts – and to put forward his ideas on the overseas territories. He did not eventually develop a political career; besides, his action was constrained by the limitations of the dictatorial context in which he acted. On the other hand, the relationships between the scientific and the political milieus were not always peaceful; his projects were not always supported, and sometimes they diverged or went in other directions.

Conclusion • 325

After Mendes Correia The first university degree in anthropology in Portugal would be created in the late 1960s at the ISCSPU. In the years following the revolution of 25 April 1974, the ISCSP28 witnessed a struggle between young students associated with the ‘left-wing’ political sphere and the conservative wing of the colonial ideologists, led by the former Minister of the Overseas Adriano Moreira, who replaced Mendes Correia as head of this school. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, new departments were created and others that had previously existed were revived. Some anthropologists, who had meanwhile finished their degrees (some of them abroad), were integrated into new schools. From a theoretical point of view, during the early 1980s, ‘the former concern with national identity gave way to a search for difference’ (Pina-Cabral 1991: 37). Following the Department of Anthropology at the ISCSP, another was created at the UNL and the ISCTE (today the IUL), all in Lisbon, while in Coimbra, the initially named the Anthropology Department, was recently integrated into the Life Sciences Department of the FCTUC. In the 1990s, the degree in anthropology also existed at the Fernando Pessoa University in Porto and the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto-Douro (UTAD) in Vila Real, but was suspended in the first decade of the new millennium in both universities. As to the anthropology carried out nowadays, my question is the following: in order to guarantee a useful and creative scientific dialogue, is it necessary to have a common theoretical base, a common history or an identification with a set of antecedents? João de Pina-Cabral depicts a problem that is at the same time synchronic and diachronic as follows: ‘How to describe a group of scientists that, despite being placed under the same discipline category, maintain incompatible theoretical and methodological positions and that, despite affirming a common past in the discipline, do not find there the inspiration for their work?’ (1991: 13). As mentioned by Pina-Cabral, it is a historicist sense, and not a theoretical and methodological one, that allows us to say that ‘there are anthropologists in Portugal, even if there is not just one anthropology’; we will then be able to bring together the ‘diversity within this discipline’s domain’ by speaking less of disciplines and rather of discipline traditions (1989: 31). Since the late 1970s, and especially more recently, the anthropology carried out in Portugal and elsewhere has been turning to new fields, or to fields that were not considered previously, which illustrates a new trend in the discipline towards learning to see the difference in closely related fields (Lima and Sarró 2006). Over time in Portugal, anthropology has been associated with a group of people, anthropologists, differing among themselves, who advocate

326  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

different paradigms, as well as different methods. Furthermore, not all current anthropologists claim the same ancestors, or precursors of the discipline, or the specific work they developed. Therefore, Mendes Correia may be considered an ancestor by biological anthropologists (or archaeologists), but not by sociocultural anthropologists. The Porto School of Anthropology, idealized by Mendes Correia, will always be associated with his name and his collaborators, whose activities took place mainly from the 1920s to the 1960s. Almost all initiatives originated with him, but he was receptive to the suggestions of his collaborators and, in general, he not only encouraged but also supported their work. The research topics were very diverse, as a result of Mendes Correia’s broad perspective, somewhat similar to Franz Boas’ vision, who viewed the discipline as being divided into four main branches (archaeology, biological anthropology, cultural anthropology and linguistics). Within the scope of the history of anthropology in Portugal, and regardless of the research options, in terms of object and method, we can conclude that Mendes Correia was a promoter of ideas, an entrepreneur and a manager of people. The future of people like Santos Júnior, Jorge Dias and his team, as well as Adriano Moreira, was due to Mendes Correia’s initial invitation to them to perform specific tasks. I heard several living first-person testimonies, not only by figures such as Benjamim Pereira (with whom I spoke personally), who was part of Jorge Dias’ team, but also other individuals connected to the ESC, like Adriano Moreira and João Pereira Neto, whom I both interviewed. As mentioned by António de Almeida Garrett, Mendes Correia ‘gathered a group of followers … [and] was a master in the full sense of the word’, allowing the works to become ‘greater in number and volume’, not only in metropolitan anthropology, but also in ethnography, prehistory, archaeology and in the scope of colonial anthropology (Boletim da SGL 1957, volume 15: 140). Mendes Correia always wanted to promote a general study, divided into several specific fields, that would contribute to a broader knowledge of the human being. However, anthropology was, in fact, at the centre of his interests, and sciences such as archaeology, geology, prehistory and ethnology remained subsidiary to it. Often, he did not seem to search for something specific. He found what he sought through several paths, attempts and directions. For him, the specificity of the human being might reside in not being specific, in not being limited to just some parts of history, of knowledge, of the physical body and of the social and behavioural body. It is precisely this specificity of not being specific, of not being easily delimited, identifiable or classifiable, that is challenging for those who seek to study his work. In any case, he was a dominant figure of anthropology in Portugal, rivalled only by Leite de Vasconcelos – who did not devote

Conclusion • 327

himself to physical anthropology – and only in the 1950s would Jorge Dias start to eclipse him in terms of importance. One of the factors that may have contributed to the end of this school was the death of Mendes Correia. His collaborators and disciples continued producing some studies, but not for long. They then scattered; on the one hand, due to divergent scientific interests and, on the other hand, as a result of personal incompatibilities. As a consequence of the division that later occurred, brought about mainly by the innovation of Jorge Dias and his team, anthropology then gave preference to the study of social facts to the detriment of the study of natural facts. However, and in other schools such as the Coimbra School of Anthropology, the study of natural facts was not abandoned. The racial (and racist) studies and the determining and determinative character of these forms of research was merely altered. That is, both the biological component (today with a greater trend towards the research in palaeontology, genetics and primatology, for example), and social and cultural anthropology have taken new paths, diversified their interests and ventured into new methods. From the 1960s onwards, the absence of Mendes Correia in bibliographical lists of new articles is apparent when compared to Jorge Dias or Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira. Concerning the fact that Mendes Correia is nowadays more or less forgotten, it is due probably not so much to an association with the Estado Novo regime, during which he held public offices, but rather to the anthropological current to which he was connected. The mainstream anthropology thrived because it was effectively separated from the racial school. In other words, there had to be a rupture in order for today’s anthropology to be able to rise. Both the French-German core (ethnography) and the Anglo-American core abandoned the field of study of ‘race’. Therefore, social anthropology did not undergo an earlier development in Portugal, perhaps because the other areas were still very strongly engaged with and committed to the Portuguese national and colonial project. Mendes Correia’s work also lacked a systematic treatment of culture, acculturation, history and other topics that are widely debated today, but that, at the time, were treated mainly in other contexts, such as the British and North American ones. In Raças do Império, Mendes Correia highlighted the progress brought about by the cultural anthropology school, as well as its theoretical and methodological benefits to the study of peoples and cultures. Additionally, he criticized the evolutionist vision. However, in the end, this work detailed anthropobiological aspects rather than focusing on ethnographic analyses. This is also due to the absence of additional studies and to the incipient character of the existing studies, which he himself recognized on several occasions.

328  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

In writing this work, I sought to reject easy conclusions and avoided following the same direction of other authors who wrote on the history of anthropology in Portugal (although they were useful) and I avoided an uncritical reproduction of their contents and conclusions. I chose to dive into the archives and interview people, and, in this process, I was the first researcher to do so in greater depth concerning the Porto School of Anthropology. Afterwards, I organized and systematized the hundreds of materials I found. During my analysis, I concluded that there were prejudiced ideas regarding the work produced by the SPAE and the Porto School of Anthropology, but that, deep down, they mirrored some lack of knowledge; and that those ideas contribute to clarify that there was still much to explore and learn about the past of anthropology in Portugal and its relations with the history of anthropology in other countries. The new and challenging material analysed in this book will at least enrich the discussion on the various pasts of anthropology, namely those related with nationalism and colonialism.

Notes   1. Text originally published in Portuguese (translator note).   2. Ricardo Severo offered the SPAE the Portugália journal collections, which were later on deposited at the IAUP’s library.

  3. After his death in Timor, Fonseca Cardoso’s family offered his estate to the IAUP

 

     

(Mendes Correia 1941a: 17). This included records of numerous anthropological observations in Angola, Timor and Porto, which Mendes Correia subsequently used (1916b, 1916e, 1918d). 4. As mentioned by Vítor Oliveira Jorge, current director of the journal, the TAE is ‘an important heritage’ and ‘it is not common for a Portuguese scientific periodical publication, produced by a (relatively small) association … to reach such level of continuity’ (Jorge 1998: 8). 5. See also Mendes Correia 1937a. 6. Some of the researchers who contributed to this estate were Ricardo Severo, Camarate França, Hipólito Cabaço, Virgílio Correia, Eugénio Jalhay, Jean Roche, Carlos Teixeira, Russel Cortez and Agostinho Isidoro. 7. Huet Bacelar arranged and rearranged the museum’s room four times during his tenure. Since he had chosen to give it an ‘archaeologic reading’, when Santos Júnior visited the museum, he told him that he had destroyed the museum. According to Huet Bacelar, with his arrangement the museum started receiving students from the FLUP interested in Castro culture, and in the Roman, Bronze Age, Palaeolithic and Mesolithic legacy. This was also possible because the new layout enabled the circulation of people within the space, which was previously not possible due to the large number of showcases. According to Huet Bacelar, ‘people would come in

Conclusion • 329

and only see shards, bones, thousands of fragments and, above, ox yokes, physical anthropology, foetuses, spindles’, and, side by side with these objects, they might find a work that had been published on them (interview, 29 March 2007). When Santos Júnior retired, Huet Bacelar received the support he needed from João Machado Cruz, the museum’s director, to refurbish the room according to his preferences.   8. Llobera, for example, acknowledges that sometimes anthropology incorporated theoretical models from other sciences in a mechanical way, but the application of which did not yield success; these incorporations of external scientific models must sometimes have been an obstacle to anthropology (1976: 36‒37).   9. Some authors seek to articulate the biological and cultural elements (Ingold 1988, 1990). 10. Maria Irene Leite da Costa concluded her degree in historical-natural sciences and in pharmacy, in 1934, when she excelled as a student in the discipline of anthropology; she cooperated with Mendes Correia on studies on the colonized people who came to the 1934 colonial exhibition. She was a professor and performed research work based on psychological and pedagogical tests. In the 1950s and 1960s she was deputy at the AN, where she intervened in the field of child issues and child support. 11. A student of Mendes Correia’s at the FCUP in geology, physical geography, palaeontology and anthropology. He was first interested in topics pertaining to physical anthropology, archaeology and ethnology and, later on, he stood out as a geologist and palaeobotanist; he became member of the SPAE and in 1934 he published in the TAE a work on popular medicine and the superstitions of Vieira do Minho (Teixeira 1934). He also published on archaeology (Teixeira 1935a, 1936b), physical anthropology (Teixeira 1935b, 1935c, 1936a) and on factors connected to human reproduction, where he concluded ‘that there is for man a period of greater genesic activity, confirmed not only by birth, but also by sexual criminology statistics, by suicide statistics, etc.’ (Teixeira 1936c: 14). In 1940 he participated in the Portuguese Pre- and Proto-History Congress (Athayde and Teixeira 1940) and in the CNCP (Teixeira 1940), both of which were part of the Congresses of the Portuguese World. He also delivered the academic eulogy for Mendes Correia at the ACL (Teixeira 1964), highlighting the IAUP’s reputation. 12. Mendes Correia was responsible for bringing abbot Jean Roche to Portugal in the mid-1950s; he worked in Morocco and was maître de recherches at the CNRS and a specialist in prehistory and the Mesolithic period. Jean Roche visited the shell midden in Muge, excavated in coordination with the Institute for Archaeological Studies in Portugal and was later the supervisor of the doctoral dissertation of Vítor Oliveira Jorge (the current president of the SPAE). 13. According to João Luís Cardoso, despite the usual criticism shown towards Heleno, mainly in relation to his character, he was the author of the ‘most extraordinary repository of discoveries and original considerations of an archaeological nature that can be attributed to a single archaeologist up to the present day and in Portugal’ (1999: 154). 14. He was a student of the Swiss geologist Ernest Fleury who also owed his French education to Hermann Lautensach; he worked in Portugal with Hermann Lautensach, Emmanuel de Martonne and Pierre Birot; he was admitted to the ACL by Barahona Fernandes; and he took part in the organization of the Lisbon International Congress of Geography (1949) – the first geographer international meeting after the Second World War (Ribeiro 2003: 99). Among the most active geographers, he could count on Alfredo Fernandes Martins and Mariano Feio, who helped to prepare and

330  •  Anthropology, Nationalism and Colonialism

coordinate the expeditions of the geologists Georges Zbyszewski and Carlos Teixeira, the historian Virgínia Rau and the ethnologist Jorge Dias (Ribeiro 2003: 99). 15. Holder of a degree in medicine, anthropology professor at the FCUP, President of the SPAE and founder of the Ornithological Reserve of Mindelo (in Vila do Conde). Created by Decree-Law of 2 September 1957, this was the first natural reserve in Portugal and the first ornithological reserve in Europe, although nowadays it does not have a defined protection status. Santos Júnior’s family donated his estate to the Centro de Memória of Torre de Moncorvo. 16. Harry West mentions that Galhano joined the team in 1948 (West 2006: 147). 17. Holder of a degree in biological sciences (1949). As an assistant professor at the FCUP, he initially worked in the area of zoology and then wrote a doctoral dissertation on the sardine (interview in 2007). 18. Miscelâneas, 66 volumes, 1910‒75. Porto: FCUP. 19. Miscelânea XIV. 20. Some of these articles were written based on the analyses carried out on animals, especially domestic animals with deformities, which were delivered to FCUP by their owners (often inhabitants of the rural areas around the city of Porto). 21. Leite de Vasconcelos, for example, read in Russian, but afterwards that language and others were no longer mandatory. 22. This was the case for António Aurélio da Costa Ferreira, José Júlio Bethencourt Ferreira, Joaquim Leitão, Froilano de Melo (Portuguese born in Goa), António Pereira-Forjaz and Francisco Luís Pereira de Sousa, who were present in volume III of Miscelâneas. 23. See Appendix 2 containing the list of names and the volume of the Miscelâneas where they are included. 24. He was a full professor of physiology and was president of the section of natural sciences of the Madrid Athenaeum, of the Institute of School Hygiene and of the International Anthropometry Committee. 25. For example, on 6 July 1953 he mentioned: ‘As to the visit by the Spaniards, the speeches (ten minutes each) will be by Abel Viana (Megalithic), you (cave art), Chico (Portuguese medieval art) and Veiga Ferreira (Muge) … And we only want summaries of the latest news’ (emphasis in original). Correspondence of Mendes Correia to Santos Júnior, 1930‒53, File 365, Centro de Memória, Torre de Moncorvo. 26. He was then chairman of SGL, director of ESC and deputy at the AN. 27. Interview on July 2010. 28. A former designation, but from which the word ‘ultramarine’ (overseas) was removed.

Appendix 1

Volumes of Miscellaneous from the Porto School of Anthropology

Miscellaneous I: Mendes Corrêa, Volume I. Miscellaneous: J. Pires de Lima, Hernâni Monteiro, Amândio Tavares, Álvaro Rodrigues, etc., Volume II. Miscellaneous: Pantens, Létienne, Rulot, Sergi, Reiss, Volume III. Miscellaneous: Leite de Vasconcelos, Pires de Lima, Fonseca Cardoso, Emanuel Ribeiro, Volume IV. Miscellaneous: Costa Santos, Santos Júnior, J. de Pinho, Rui de Serpa, Athayde, Volume V. Miscellaneous: Glozel, Volume VI. Miscellaneous II: Mendes Corrêa, Volume VII. Miscellaneous III: Mendes Corrêa, Volume VIII. Miscellaneous IV: Mendes Corrêa, Volume IX. Miscellaneous V: Mendes Corrêa, Volume X. Miscellaneous VI: Mendes Corrêa, Volume XI. Miscellaneous?: ?, Volume XII.1 Miscellaneous I: Santos Júnior, Volume XIII. Miscellaneous I: J.A. Pires de Lima, Volume XIV. Miscellaneous II: J.A. Pires de Lima, Volume XV. Miscellaneous I: Luís de Pina, Volume XVI. Miscellaneous: J.L. de Vasconcelos, Alberto Souto, Filipe Ferreira, Ricardo Severo, etc., Volume XVII. Miscellaneous: Carlos Teixeira, Amílcar Mateus, A. Rozeira, A. Martins d’Alte, António d’Almeida, F. Pires de Lima, etc., Volume XVIII. Miscellaneous: O. Deperét, Lucien Fabre, V. Buck, A. Hrdlička, W. Pessler, L. Cipriani, etc., Volume XIX. Miscellaneous: O. Deperét, P. Saintyves, A. Hrdlička, W. Pessler, M. Wigmati, etc., Volume XX. Miscellaneous: J. Déchelette, L. Lindet, Lucien Mayet, E. Piette, etc., Volume XXI. Miscellaneous: Leite de Vasconcelos, Aurélio C. Ferreira, Félix Alves Pereira, etc., Volume XXII. Miscellaneous: Alexandre Sarmento, Cotelo Neiva, António Cruz, etc., Volume XXIII.

332 Appendices

Miscellaneous: Déchelette, G. Sergi, Breuil, R. Martin, A. Castellanos, Hrdlička, etc., Volume XXIV. Miscellaneous: A. Paul, A. Moitas, Jorge M. Dalte, Filipe Ferreira, etc., Volume XXV. Miscellaneous: L. Biret, Deniker, H. Breuil, Dastley, etc., Volume XXVI. Miscellaneous: Delattre, Obermaier, O. Schlaginhaufen, etc., Volume XXVII. Miscellaneous VII: Mendes Corrêa, Volume XXVIII. Miscellaneous I: A. Athayde, Volume XXIX. Miscellaneous I: Carlos Teixeira, Volume XXX. Miscellaneous II: Santos Júnior, Volume XXXI. Miscellaneous VIII: Mendes Corrêa, Volume XXXII. Miscellaneous II: Carlos Teixeira, Volume XXXIII. Miscellaneous: José Júlio Bethencourt Ferreira, Leopoldina Paulo, Hugo de Magalhães, Volume XXXIV. Miscellaneous: Orlando Ribeiro, Carrington da Costa, Cotelo Neiva, H. Lautensach, etc., Volume XXXV. Miscellaneous: Constâncio Mascarenhas, A. Moitas, Martins d’Alte, Maria Irene Leite da Costa, A. Sarmento, etc., Volume XXXVI. Miscellaneous I: Pires de Lima, Volume XXXVII. Miscellaneous: Mário Cardoso, José de Pinho, Afonso do Paço, A. Souto, etc., Volume XXXVIII. Miscellaneous: H. Obermaier, Octobon, A. Ruhlmann, Lacombe, etc., Volume XXXIX. Miscellaneous: Gabriel Pereira, Bernardino Machado, Armando de Matos, etc., Volume XL. Miscellaneous IX: Mendes Corrêa, Volume XLI. Miscellaneous I: Russell Cortez, Volume XLII. Miscellaneous: P. R. Giot, Raffaello Parenti, Lemaire, Blanchar, etc., Volume XLIII. Miscellaneous: E. Echreider Angyone Costa, J. Comas, L. Pales, L. Hoyos Sáinz, etc., Volume XLIV. Miscellaneous III: J. A. Pires de Lima, Volume XLV. Miscellaneous: Elogios históricos. Notícias históricas e memórias à Acad. R. das Ciências de Lisboa, Volume XLVI. Miscellaneous I: Jorge Dias, Volume XLVII. Miscellaneous III: Santos Júnior, Volume XLVIII. Miscellaneous: F. Cardoso, R. Severo, Hernandez, A.G. Ferreira, Pires de Lima, Volume XLIX. Miscellaneous: Carrington da Costa, Volume L. Miscellaneous: J. Lorenzo Fernandez, Volume LI. Miscellaneous: Afonso do Paço, Maxime Vaultier, M.L. Arthur, Eugénio Jalhay, etc., Volume LII. Miscellaneous: Abel Viana, J. Formosinho, A. Deus, Quintas Neves, José de Pinho, E. Jalhay, etc., Volume LIII. Miscellaneous X: Mendes Corrêa, Volume LIV. Miscellaneous I: A. Almeida, Volume LV. Miscellaneous II: A. Athayde, Volume LVI. Miscellaneous: L. H. Sáinz, Volume LVII. Miscellaneous: Leopoldina Paulo, Volume LVIII. Miscellaneous I: Agostinho F. Isidoro, Volume LIX, 1958‒1978. Miscellaneous IV: Santos Júnior, Volume LX, 1955‒74. Miscellaneous: Maria de Lourdes Bártholo, Henrique Leonor Pina, Carlos T. da Silva, Fernando Lanhas, Marcos Albuquerque, etc., Volume LXI, 1927‒71. Miscellaneous I: Ernesto de Oliveira, Volume LXII, 1952‒68.

Appendices • 333

Miscellaneous: Manuel Monteiro, Vergílio Correia, J. Monteiro de Aguiar, J. Camarate França, João de Castro Nunes, etc., Volume LXIII, 1901‒71. Miscellaneous II: Jorge Dias, Volume LXIV, 1957‒72. Miscellaneous III: Carlos Teixeira, Volume LXV, 1947‒79. Miscellaneous I: Eduardo C. Serrão and Eduardo P. Vicente, Volume LXVI, 1951‒75.

Note   1. This miscellany disappeared during the period in which I carried out the research.

Appendix 2

Foreign Authors in the Miscellaneous of the Porto School of Anthropology

Alvarez, M. Rubén García (LI) Anciaux, Léon (XLIV) Aragón, Francisco de las Barras de (XXIV) Arthaud, Gabriel (VI) Arthur, M.L. (LII) Barradas, José Pérez de (XXIV) Bártholo, Maria L. (LII) Baur, Erwin (XXI) Bayet, Adrien (VI) Baye, Le Baron J. de (XXVI) Beauvieux, Jean (XLIV) Bégouen, Count de (VI) Bem-Amos, Dan (LXIV) Berardinelli, W. (XX) Blanc, A.C. (XXXV) Blanchard, Raphael (XLIII) Blondel, S. (XXI) Boetticher, Ernest (XXVI) Boldrini, Marcelo (XLIII) Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro (V, XIX, XX, XXIV) Bötticher, Ernst (XXVII) Bonsor, George (XXI, XXVI) Bourrinet, Pierre (XXIV) Boyle, Mary E. (XXIV) Breuil, L. Abbé Henri (XX, XXIV, XXVI, LV) Bruet, E. (VI) Buchi, E.C. (XLIV) Buhler, Alfred (XLIV) Buy, J. (VI) Capitan (XXIV)

Appendices • 335

Carro, Xesús (XXIV) Cartailhac, E. (XX) Castellanos, Alfredo (XIX, XXIV) Castrilli, Vincenzo (XIX) Chaput, E. (XIX) Choffat, Paul (LXIII) Cipriani, Lidio (XIX) Closson, C.–C. (XXVI) Cogné, J. (XLIII) Collignon, M. Maxime (XXI) Comas, Juan (XXVII) (XLIV) Correns, Car W. (XXXV) Cortez, Russell (XLII) Costa, Angyone (XLIV) Couturier (VI) Croze, F. (VI) Cruchet, R. (II) Cuevillas, Florentino López (XIX, XXIV, LI) Cuscoy, Luis Diego (XLIV) d’Aguiar, J. Monteiro (XX) Dankmeijer, J. (XLIV) Déchelette, Joseph (XXI) Delattre, R.P. (XXVII) Deniker, J. (XXVI) Depéret, Charles (VI, XIX, XX) Diaz, Aurelio Rodríguez (V) Dornellas, Affonso de (III) Duchateau, Armand (LXIV) Dukinfield-Astley, H.J. (XXVI) Duncker, G. (IV) Dussaud, René (VI) Echreider, Eugène (XLIV) Engerrand, Georges (XXVI) Fabre, Lucien (XIX) Farabee, William C. (XXI) Fernández, Luís Tobio (XXIV) Fernandez, Joaquín Lorenzo (XXIV, LI)1 Finch, Otto (XXVI) Fleury, Ernest (III) Fraguas, Antonio (XIX) Frankowski, Eugenjusk (XIX) Frassetto, Fábio (VII) Frentag, M. (XX) Furuhata, Tanemoto (XX) Gaudry, M. Albert (XX) Genna, Giuseppe (XLIII) Giot, Pierre-Roland (XLIII) Gomez, Jose Royo y (XLIV) González, Sebastián (XXIV) Grancière, Aveneau de la (XXI)

336 • Appendices

Grobe, Hans (XXI) Guerne, M. Jules de (XXIV) Guilcher, André (XLIII) Haeckel, Ernest (XXVI) Handschin, Ed. (XLIV) Hawkes, C.F.C. (XXXIX) Hrdlička, Aleš (XIX, XX, XXIV) Ihering, H. von (XXVII) Imbelloni, J. (XX) Jacovella, Bruno C. (LX) Jacq, M. (XLIII) Jalhay, Eugénio (LII) Johnson, Mimi (VI) Keen, E. (XXXIX) Kehl, Renato (XXI) Koppers, Wilhem (LVI) Lacombe (XXXIX) Lagneau, Gustave (XXVII) Lammers, H.J. (XLIV) Lautensach, Hermann (XXXV) Lehmann-Nitsche, Roberto (XIX) Lehmann, Siegfried (XX) Létienne, Auguste (III) Liebreich, Richard (III) Lindet, L. (XXI) Lorenzana, María Pura (XIX) Loth, J. (VI) MacWhite, E. (XXXIX) Martelli, Gino-Luigi (XIX) Martin, Rudolf (III) Massari, Cláudia (XLIII) Mayet, M. Lucien (XXI) Moens, H.M. Bernelot (III) Montané, Louis (XX) Morel, Gaston (XXI) Morlet, A. (VI) Müller, Theodor (XLIV) Neveu-Lemaire, M. (XLIII) O’Rourke, F.J. (XXXIX) Obermaier, Hugo (XXVII, XXXIX) Octobon, E. (XXXIX) Ojeda, Luís Thayer (XX) Oliveira, I.B. de Sá (XXVI) Paço, Afonso do (LII) Pales, Léon (XLIV) Pantens, G. (III) Parenti, D. Raffaello (XLIII) Paris, Pierre (XXI) Pauw, M.L. (XXVI) Pebler, Wilhelm (XIX, XX)

Appendices • 337

Pedrayo, Ramón Otero (XX) Pericot, Luís (XX) Perthes, Jacques Boucher de (XXXIX) Pessler, Wilhem (XX) Peyrony, D. (VI, XXIV) Phalipau, M. de Vaux (XIX) Pieracchini, Gaetano and Guido Pieraccini (XLIII) Piette, Ed. (XXI) Pittard, Eugène (XIX) Poinsard, Léon (III) Pokrowski, Egor (XXVI) Pradenne, A. Vayson de (VI) Quijano, Vicente de la Puente y (V) Reiss, R.-A. (III) Riba, Eduardo Fontseré Y. (XX) Ribeiro, Leonídio (XX) Ridder, A. de (XXI) Risco, Vicente. (XXIV) Rivet, P. (XXIV) Roiter, M. (XX) Roman, F. (XXI) Romero, Sylvio (XL) Roussel, Jean (XLIV) Rouzic, Zacharie le (XXIV) Rozprým, F. (XX) Ruhlmann, Armand (XXXIX) Rutot, A. (III) Saintyves, P. (XX) Sáinz, Luís de Hoyos (XLIV, LVII) Saldaña, Quintiliano (XIX) Salmon, Philippe (XIX) Sangmeister, Edward (LII) Santa-Olalla, Júlio Martinez (XXIV, XLIV) Schmidt, Hilde (XXIV) Schlaginhaufen, Otto (III, XXVII, XLIV) Schoppe, Curt (XXI) Schuchert, Charles (III) Sergi, Giuseppe (III, XXI) Sergi, Sergio (III) Siret, Louis (XXVI) Smyth, Alfred (XL) Suk, V. (XIX, XXVII) Teijeiro, Modesto López (XXIV) Tildesley, M.L. (XLIV) Tormo, I. Ballester (XX) Trillo-Figueroa, Antonio Carbonell y (V) Unamuno, Telesforo d'Aranzadi y (XX) Vallaux, Camille (XIX) Valverde, Xoxé Filgueira (XXIV) Vaultier, Maxime (LII)

338 • Appendices

Vignati, Milcíades Alejo (XX) Wildhaber, Robert (XLIV) Wloszcewski, Stefan (XXXV) Zbyszewski, Georges (XXIV, LII)

Note   1. In some texts the name appears as Joaquín and in others as Xaquin.

References

Archives and Libraries Arquivo da Câmara Municipal do Porto/Porto City Council Archive Arquivo Distrital do Porto/Porto District Archive Arquivo Municipal do Porto – Casa do Infante/Porto Municipal Archive – Casa do Infante Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo (ANTT), Lisboa/Torre do Tombo National Archive, Lisbon Biblioteca da FCUP – Fundo Antigo/Library of the FCUP – Old Collection Biblioteca da FLUL/Library of the FLUL Biblioteca do Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia da FCUP/Library of the Department of Zoology and Anthropology at the FCUP Biblioteca do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da UL/Library of the Institute of Social Sciences at the UL Biblioteca João Paulo II da Universidade Católica Portuguesa/João Paulo II Library, Portuguese Catholic University Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa/National Library, Lisbon Biblioteca Nacional do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro/National Library, Rio de Janeiro Centro de Memória, Torre de Moncorvo/Memory Centre, Torre de Moncorvo Conservatória do Registo Civil de Lisboa/Civil Registry, Lisbon Conservatória dos Registos Centrais, Lisboa/Central Registry Office, Lisbon Departamento de Biologia da FCUP/Department of Biology at the FCUP Hemeroteca Nacional, Lisboa/National Hemeroteque IICT, Lisboa/Institute for Scientific and Tropical Research, Lisbon Museu de História Natural da FCUP/Natural History Museum at the FCUP Quarto Cartório Notarial de Lisboa/Fourth Notary Office, Lisbon Real Gabinete Português de Leitura, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil/Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil Real Gabinete Português de Leitura, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil/Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sala de Arqueologia e Pré-História Mendes Corrêa do Museu de História Natural da FCUP/ Mendes Corrêa Archaeology and Prehistory Room at the Natural History Museum at the FCUP

340 • References

Primary Sources Separate Documents Acta da Reunião da Comissão de Toponímia da Câmara Municipal do Porto [Minutes of the meeting of the Toponymy Committee of the Municipality of Porto], 8 January 1963, Porto, CMP. Birth and Death Registration of António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, Porto District Archive. Birth and Death Registration of Maria do Carmo Bahia, Torre do Tombo National Archive, Lisbon. Correspondence of Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes Correia, 1959‒73, folder 292, collection of Professor Santos Júnior, Memory Centre, Torre de Moncorvo. Correspondence of Mendes Correia, 1925‒29, folder 364, collection of Professor Santos Júnior, Memory Centre, Torre de Moncorvo. Correspondence of Mendes Correia 1930‒53, folder 365, collection of Professor Santos Júnior, Memory Centre, Torre de Moncorvo. Correspondence of Mendes Correia 1953‒59, folder 366, collection of Professor Santos Júnior, Memory Centre, Torre de Moncorvo. Correspondence of Mendes Correia to José Leite de Vasconcelos, National Museum of Archaeology, Lisbon. Diário de campo de Mendes Correia sobre a viagem à Guiné (1945‒46) [Mendes Correia’s Field Diary about the Trip to Guinea (1945‒46)], private collection. Livro de Actas da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia I, 1918‒24 [Proceedings of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology I, 1918‒24], Porto, SPAE. Livro de Actas da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia II, 1925‒44 [Proceedings of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology II, 1918‒24], Porto, SPAE. Manuscript document by Mendes Correia in 1946, private collection. Marriage registration of Mendes Correia and Maria do Carmo Bahia, Civil Registry Office, Lisbon. Mendes Correia’s diaries, Natural History Museum, FCUP (several years). Personal certificate (cédula pessoal) of António Maria Esteves Mendes Correia, no. 219123, series A, Civil Registry at Vagos, 20 September 1924, private collection. Process no. 306 of António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia, vols 1 and 2. Lisbon: IICT Archive. Registration no. 114 of the Baptism Register in 1888, Parish of Vitória, Porto, Porto District Archive.

Periodical Sources Anuário da Câmara Municipal do Porto [Porto City Council Yearbook]. 1923. Porto: CMP. Boletim Cultural [Cultural Bulletin]. 1950. Vol. 13, nos. 1‒2. Porto: CMP. Boletim Municipal da Câmara Municipal do Porto [Municipal Bulletin of the Porto City Council]. 1937‒42. Porto: Tipografia Leitão. Diário da República [Republic Diary], 16 April 1987. No. 89, 2nd series. Diário de Coimbra [Coimbra Diary], 10 December 1937. Diário de Notícias [News Diary], 16 September 1937, No. 25,724. Diário do Govêrno, 1st series, 31 December 1936, no. 306. Diário Ilustrado, Regenerador – Liberal [Illustrated Diary, Regenerator – Liberal], 25 April 1909, No. 12,835.

References • 341

O Ilhavense [The Ilhavense], January 1960. O Jornal de Vagos, Semanário Progressista, Noticioso, Científico, Literário e Agrícola [The Newspaper of Vagos, Progressive Weekly, News, Scientific, Literary and Agricultural], 23 June 1906. No. 378. O Primeiro de Janeiro [The First of January], 7 January 1960.  . 9 January 1960. O Tripeiro, Revista Mensal de Divulgação e Cultura ao Serviço da Cidade e do seu Progresso [The Tripeiro, Monthly Magazine of Dissemination and Culture at the Service of the City and Its Progress]. Several numbers, Porto. UPortoAlumni: Revista dos Antigos Alunos da Universidade do Porto [UPortoAlumni: Magazine of Former Students of the University of Porto]. 2007. Vol. 1, 2nd series.

Online Sources ‘António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia’. Retrieved 28 September 2022 from http://app. parlamento.pt/PublicacoesOnLine/DeputadosAN_1935-1974/html/pdf/c/correia_ antonio_augusto_esteves_mendes.pdf. ‘Cármen de Boàda Loureiro Mendes’. Retrieved June 2010 from www.geneall.net. Diário das Sessões da Câmara Corporativa: I Legislatura (1935‒38), II Legislatura (1938‒42) [Diaries of the Corporate Chamber Sessions: I Legislature (1935‒38), II Legislature (1938‒42)]. Retrieved September 2010 from http://debates.parlamento.pt. Diário das Sessões da Assembleia Nacional: IV Legislatura (1945‒49), V Legislatura (1949‒53), VI Legislatura (1953‒57) [Diaries of the Sessions of the National Assembly: IV Legislature (1945‒49), V Legislature (1949‒53), VI Legislature (1953‒57)]. Retrieved September 2010 from http://debates.parlamento.pt. ‘Docentes e Estudantes da Primeira Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto’ [Teachers and Students of the First Faculty of Humanities of the University of Porto]. Retrieved 28 September 2022 from http://sigarra.up.pt/up/web_base.gera_pagina?P_pagina=1004189. ‘História de Vida – Academia’ [History of Life – Academy]. Retrieved May 2011 from: http:// www.memoriamedia.net/historiasdevida/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& id=70&Itemid=57. Legislation on Anthropometric Posts. Retrieved December 2011 from http://digitarq.cpf. dgarq.gov.pt/details?id=39150. Legislation on Anthropometric Posts. Retrieved December 2011 from http://www. redeconhecimentojustica.mj.pt/Category.aspx?id=78. Portuguese Ethnographic Museum. Retrieved 28 September 2022 from http://www. mnarqueologia-ipmuseus.pt/?a=1&x=3&cc_tipo=28.

Published Sources AAVV. 1884. Congrès Internationale d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques: Compte Rendu de la Neuvième Session à Lisbonne 1880 [International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology: Report of the Ninth Session in Lisbon 1880]. Lisbon: Académie Royale des Sciences.  . 1927. Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia [Works of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology] 3(3).  . 1935. A Cultura Portuguesa no Brasil: Missão do Professor Mendes Corrêa [Portuguese Culture in Brazil: Mission of Professor Mendes Corrêa]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.

342 • References

 . 1957. ‘Professor Mendes Correia: Homenagem dos seus Amigos e Admiradores’ [Professor Mendes Correia: Tribute from His Friends and Admirers], offprint of Boletim da SGL 4‒6: 119‒52.  . 1959. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia (TAE) [Works on Anthropology and Ethnology] 17. Actas da Assembleia-Geral da Universidade do Porto, 1911‒1935 [Minutes of the General Assembly of the University of Porto, 1911‒1935]. Porto: UP. Actas da Comissão Administrativa da Câmara Municipal do Porto [Minutes of the Administrative Commission of the Porto City Council]. Several volumes. Porto: CMP. Aguiar, Alberto. 1940. ‘Dr. António Maria Esteves Mendes Correia: In Memoriam’, Revista de Semiótica Laboratorial 4(1‒2): 106‒8. Almeida, António de. 1974. ‘Da Onomástica-Tabu no Timor Português: Antropónimos e Zoónimos’ [On Onomastics-Taboo in Portuguese Timor: Anthroponyms and Zoonyms], In Memoriam 3: 9‒26. Almeida, Maria Emília. 1968. ‘A Raça em Antropologia: Trabalho em Homenagem à Memória do Prof. Doutor Flávio Resende’ [Race in Anthropology: Work in Homage to the Memory of Prof. Dr. Flávio Resende], Revista da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa 15(2): 147‒80. Anonymous. 1935. ‘Le Congrès d’Anthropologie Coloniale de Porto’ [Porto Colonial Anthropology Congress], L’Anthropologie 45.  . 1951. ‘Homenagem ao Prof. Dr. Mendes Corrêa’ [Tribute to Prof. Dr. Mendes Corrêa], offprint of TAE 13(1‒2): 1‒8.  . 1957. ‘Homenagem ao Sr. Prof. Dr. Mendes Corrêa’ [Tribute to Mr. Prof. Dr. Mendes Corrêa], offprint of TAE 15(3‒4): 1‒15.  . 1960a. Grande Enciclopédia Portuguesa e Brasileira [Great Portuguese and Brazilian Encyclopaedia], vol. 40. Lisbon and Rio de Janeiro: Editorial Enciclopédia.  . 1960b. ‘Prof. Mendes Correia’, Livros de Portugal 13.  . 2005. ‘Colecções de Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes Correia Abrem Ciclo de Exposições “Aventureiros, Naturalistas e Coleccionadores”’ [Collections of Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes Correia Opens Exhibition Cycle ‘Adventurers, Naturalists and Collectors’], UPorto: Revista dos Antigos Alunos da Universidade do Porto 17: 42‒43. Anuário da Universidade de Coimbra [Yearbook of the University of Coimbra]. 1887‒88. Coimbra. Athayde, Alfredo. 1934. ‘Fonseca Cardoso e a Antropologia Colonial’ [Fonseca Cardoso and Colonial Anthropology], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol. 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 151‒56. Athayde, Alfredo, and Carlos Teixeira. 1940. ‘A Necrópole e o Esqueleto de S. Paio de Antas e o Problema dos Vasos de Largo Bordo Horizontal’ [The Necropolis and the Skeleton of S. Paio de Antas and the Problem of Horizontal Wide Board Vessels], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso da Pré e Proto-História de Portugal, vol. 1. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 667‒83. Azevedo, Ayres de. 1940a. ‘População e Império’ [Population and Empire], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 61‒75.  . 1940b. ‘A Pureza Bioquímica do Povo Português’ [The Biochemical Purity of the Portuguese People], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 551‒64. Balandier, Georges. 1951. ‘The Colonial Situation: A Theoretical Approach’, in Pierre L. van der Berghe (ed.), Africa: Social Problems of Change and Conflict. San Francisco: Chandler, pp. 34‒61. Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

References • 343

 . 1983 [1942]. Race and Racism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Boas, Franz. 1940. Race, Language and Culture. New York: Free Press. Boule, Marcellin. 1923. Les Hommes Fossiles: Éléments de Paléontologie Humaine [Fossil Men: Elements of Human Palaeontology]. Paris: Masson et Cie. Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro. 1922. Ensayo de una reconstrucción de la Etnología Prehistórica de la Península Ibérica [Essay of a Reconstruction of the Prehistoric Ethnology of the Iberian Peninsula]. Santander: Talleres Tipográficos. Braga, Teófilo. 1985‒86 [1885]. O Povo Português nos seus Costumes, Crenças e Tradições [The Portuguese People in Their Customs, Beliefs and Traditions], vols 1 and 2. Lisbon: Portugal de Perto. Bruet, Edmond, et al. 1928. ‘Les analyses de Glozel’ [Glozel’s Analyses], Les Cahiers de Glozel 7: 1‒79. Cardoso, Artur da Fonseca. 1919. ‘Em Terras de Moxico: Apontamentos de Etnografia Angolense’ [In Terras de Moxico: Notes on Angolese Ethnography], TAE 1(1): 11‒35. Castro, José de. 1964. ‘Elogio do Professor Doutor António Mendes Correia pelo Académico de Número José de Castro’ [Praise of Professor Dr. António Mendes Correia by Academic Number José de Castro], in Elogio do Professor Doutor António Mendes Correia. Lisbon: Academia Portuguesa de História, pp. 1‒37. Cinatti, Ruy. 1974. ‘Alguns Aspectos de Mudança Social no Timor Português’ [Some Aspects of Social Change in Portuguese Timor], Memoriam 3: 95‒105. Coelho, Francisco Adolfo. 1892. Os Ciganos de Portugal: Com um Estudo sobre o Calão [The Gypsies of Portugal: With a Study on Slang]. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional. Correia, Germano da Silva. 1934. ‘Os Eurafricanos de Angola’ [Angola’s Eurafricans], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol. 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 300‒30.  . 1940. ‘Antropologia na Índia portuguesa’ [Anthropology in Portuguese India], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso da História da Actividade Científica Portuguesa, vol. 12. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 663‒78. Dantas, Júlio. 1919. Espadas e Rosas [Swords and Roses]. Lisbon: Soc. Ed. Portugal-Brasil. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.  . 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. Dias, Jorge. 1942. ‘Acerca do Sentimento da Natureza entre os Povos Latinos’ [About the Feeling of Nature among Latino Peoples], offprint of Ensayos y Estudios 4(5‒6) (Berlin): 1‒14.  . 1953. Rio de Onor: Comunitarismo Agro-Pastoril [Rio de Onor: Agro-Pastoral Communitarianism]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1961. ‘A Expansão Ultramarina à Luz da Moderna Antropologia’ [The Overseas Expansion in the Light of Modern Anthropology], Ensaios Etnológicos: Revista Estudos de Ciências Políticas e Sociais 52: 145‒58.  . 1971. ‘O Carácter Nacional Português na Presente Conjuntura’ [The Portuguese National Character in the Present Conjuncture], in Estudos do Carácter Nacional Português. Lisbon: JMGIU, pp. 35‒49.  . 1981 [1948]. Vilarinho da Furna: Uma Aldeia Comunitária [Vilarinho da Furna: A Community Village]. Lisbon: INCM.  . 1982 [1948]. Os Arados Portugueses e as suas Prováveis Origens [The Portuguese Plows and Their Probable Origins]. Lisbon: INCM.  . 1984. ‘Antropologia Cultural’ [Cultural Anthropology], Estudos Políticos e Sociais 12(3‒4): 241‒456.

344 • References

 . 1990 [1953]. ‘Os Elementos Fundamentais da Cultura Portuguesa’ [The Fundamental Elements of Portuguese Culture], Estudos de Antropologia 1: 135‒57.  . 1998 [1964]. Os Macondes de Moçambique: Aspectos Históricos e Económicos [The Macondes of Mozambique: Historical and Economic Aspects], vol. I. Lisbon: CNCDP and IICT. Durkheim, Émile. 1912. Les Formes Elémentaires de la Vie Religieuse [The Elementary Forms of Religious Life]. Paris: PUF. Durkheim, Émile, and Marcel Mauss. 1903. ‘De Quelques Formes Primitives de Classification: Contribution à l’Étude des Représentations Collectives’ [Some Primitive Forms of Classification: Contribution to the Study of Collective Representations], Année Sociologique 6: 13‒89. Elogio do Professor Doutor António Mendes Correia [Praise of the Professor Doctor António Mendes Correia]. 1964. Lisbon: Academia Portuguesa de História. Estatutos da Sociedade de Antropologia de Coimbra [Statutes of the Society of Anthropology of Coimbra]. 1899. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade. Estatutos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia [Statutes of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology]. 1918. Porto: SPAE. Estatutos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia [Statutes of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology]. 1924. Porto: SPAE. Ferreira, Cláudio. 1932. ‘Diferenciação das Raças pelo Sangue’ [Differentiation of Races by Blood], in Memória apresentada ao XV Congresso Internacional de Antropologia e de Arqueologia Pré-Histórica, IV Sessão do Instituto Internacional de Antropologia. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, pp. 3‒12. Ferreira, António José de Liz, Alfredo Athayde, and Hugo de Magalhães. 1945. Gorilas do Maiombe Português [Portuguese Maiombe Gorillas]. Lisbon: JMGIC. Fontes, Victor. 1934. ‘Instruções Antropológicas para Uso nas Colónias’ [Anthropological Instructions for Use in the Colonies], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol. 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 188‒97. Freyre, Gilberto. 1954a. Aventura e Rotina: Sugestões de uma Viagem à Procura das Constantes Portuguesas de Carácter e de Acção [Adventure and Routine: Suggestions for a Journey in Search of Portuguese Character and Action Constants]. Lisbon: Livros do Brasil.  . 1954b. Um Brasileiro em Terras Portuguesas: Introdução a uma Possível Lusotropicologia [A Brazilian in Portuguese Lands: Introduction to a Possible Lusotropicology]. Lisbon: Livros do Brasil.  . 1957 [1933]. Casa Grande & Senzala: Formação da Família Brasileira sob o Regime de Economia Patriarcal [Manor-House & Slave-Lodges: Formation of the Brazilian Family under the Regime of Patriarchal Economy]. Lisbon: Livros do Brasil. Galton, Francis 1883. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: Macmillan.  . 1979 [1869]. Hereditary Genius. London: Lulyan Friedman. Galvão, Henrique. 1974. O Assalto ao Santa Maria [The Assault on Santa Maria]. Águeda: Delfos. Gini, Corrado. 1940. ‘Les Facteurs de la Décroissance de la Natalité à l’Époque Contemporaine’ [The Factors of Declining Birth Rate in the Contemporary Era], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 76‒123. Giuffrida-Ruggeri, Vincenzo. 1916‒17. ‘La Posizione Antropologica dell’Uomo Fossile di Combe-Capelle’ [The Anthropological Position of the Fossil Man of Combe-Capelle], Rivista di Antropologia 21: 235‒40.  . 1918. ‘Prime Linee de un’Antropologia Sistematica dell’Asia’ [First Lines of a Systematic Anthropology of Asia], Archivio per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia 47: 165‒249.

References • 345

 . 1921. Su l’Origine dell’Uomo: Nuove Teorie e Documenti [On the Origin of Man: New Theories and Documents]. Bolonha: N. Zanichelli. Gobineau, Arthur de. 2006 [1853]. The Inequality of the Human Races, trans. Adrian Collins. Carshalton: Historical Review Press. Gonçalves, Júlio. 1957. ‘Professor Mendes Correia: À Guisa de Prolegómenos’ [Professor Mendes Correia: By the Guise of Prolegomena], Boletim da SGL 75(4‒6): 119‒24. Guimarães, Querubim. 1960. ‘Uma Figura Nacional que Desaparece’ [A National Figure That Disappears], Litoral: Semanário de Aveiro, 16 January 1960. Heleno, Manuel. 1956. ‘Um Quarto de Século de Investigação Arqueológica’ [A Quarter Century of Archaeological Research], O Arqueólogo Português 3: 221‒37. Herculano, Alexandre. 1916 [1846]. História de Portugal [History of Portugal], 7th edn. Lisbon: Aillaud & Bertrand. Jubainville, Henry Arbois de. 1904. Les Celtes: Depuis les Temps les Plus Anciens Jusqu’en l’An 100 Avant Notre Ère [The Celts: From the Earliest Times to 100 BCE]. Paris: Albert Fontemoing. Júnior, Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos. 1934. ‘O Prof. Mendes Corrêa no Instituto LusoBrasileiro de Alta-Cultura’ [Prof. Mendes Corrêa at the Luso-Brazilian Institute of High Culture], offprint of TAE 6(4): 1‒8.  . 1937. ‘Grupos Sanguíneos nos Indígenas de Tete, Zambézia’ [Blood Groups in the Indigenous People of Tete, Zambezia], TAE 8(2): 213‒17.  . 1956. Antropologia de Moçambique [Anthropology of Mozambique]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1969. ‘O Professor Mendes Correia, Fundador e 2.º Presidente da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia’ [Professor Mendes Correia, Founder and 2nd President of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology], Trabalhos do Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes Correia 21: 37‒45.  . 1971. ‘Antropologia (Amplitude e Finalidade desta Ciência)’ [Anthropology (Extent and Purpose of This Science)], Trabalhos do Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes Corrêa 22(1): 5‒19. Keith, Arthur. 1916. ‘On Certain Factors Concerned in the Evolution of Human Races’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 46: 10‒34. Lapouge, Georges Vacher de. 1896. Les Sélections Sociales: Cours Libre de Science Politique [Social Selections: Free Political Science Course]. Paris: Librairie Thorin & Fils. Le Bon, Gustave. 1910 [1894]. Les Lois Psychologiques de l’Évolution des Peuples [The Psychological Laws of the Evolution of Peoples]. Paris: Félix Alcan. Lima, Joaquim Alberto Pires de. 1940. ‘Influência de Mouros, Judeus e Negros na Etnografia portuguesa’ [Influence of Moors, Jews and Blacks in Portuguese Ethnography], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 18. Lisbon: Edição dos Congressos do Mundo Português, pp. 63‒102. Lima, Joaquim Alberto Pires de, and Constâncio Mascarenhas. 1930. Contribuição para o Estudo Antropológico da Guiné Portuguesa [Contribution to the Anthropological Study of Portuguese Guinea] (XV Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Portugal, 21‒30/9/1930). Loureiro, João Avelar Maia de. 1940. ‘Natalidade, Mortalidade e Selecção da Raça’ [Birth, Mortality and Race Selection], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 124‒39.  . 1945. ‘Reflexões acerca da Estatística de Mortalidade por Causas em Portugal’ [Reflections on the Statistics of Mortality from Causes in Portugal], Revista do Centro de Estudos Demográficos do Instituto Nacional de Estatística 1‒2: 65‒94.

346 • References

Magalhães, António Leite de. 1919. ‘Subsídios para o Estudo Etnológico de Timor’ [Subsidies for the Ethnological Study of Timor], TAE 1: 37‒65. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1989 [1967]. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: Athlone Press. Mello, Lopo Vaz de Sampaio. 1936. ‘Da Influência da Eugenia no Fenómeno da Colonização e na Política do Império’ [On the Influence of Eugenics on the Phenomenon of Colonization and on the Politics of the Empire], Boletim Geral das Colónias 131: 37‒69. Mendes Correia, António. 1910a. Alexandre Herculano. Porto: Liga Nacional d’Instrução.  . 1910b. ‘Tolstoi e Nietzsche: Antípodas na Filosofia, Irmãos no Viver’ [Tolstoy and Nietzsche: Antipodes in Philosophy, Brothers in Living], O Porto (19 November 1910) and O Imparcial (21 November 1910), Porto.  . 1911. O Génio e o Talento na Patologia [Genius and Talent in Pathology]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1912a. ‘Instrução e Criminalidade em Portugal’ [Instruction and Criminality in Portugal], offprint of Porto Médico 1: 1‒7.  . 1912b. ‘A Situação dos Médicos Legistas e os Progressos da Antropologia Criminal’ [The Situation of Forensic Doctors and the Progress of Criminal Anthropology], Porto Médico 2: 46‒53.  . 1913a. Os Criminosos Portugueses: Estudos de Antropologia Criminal [The Portuguese Criminals: Studies in Criminal Anthropology]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1913b. ‘Um Delinquente Habitual: Exame Médico Antropológico’ [A Habitual Delinquent: Anthropological Medical Examination], offprint of Gazeta dos Hospitais do Porto 9: 1‒14.  . 1913c. ‘A Criminalidade Precoce’ [Early Criminality], A Tutoria 11: 179‒81.  . 1915a. Crianças Delinquentes: Subsídios para o Estudo da Criminalidade em Portugal [Delinquent Children: Subsidies for the Study of Criminality in Portugal]. Coimbra: Typ. França Amado.  . 1915b. Antropologia: Resumo das Lições Feitas pelo Assistente, Servindo de Professor da Cadeira [Anthropology: Summary of Lessons Taken by the Assistant, Serving as Professor of the Chair]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1915c. ‘Contribuição para o Estudo Antropológico da População da Beira Alta’ [Contribution to the Anthropological Study of the Population of Beira Alta], offprint of Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 10: 1‒39.  . 1916a. ‘O Retrato de Nun’Álvares’ [The Portrait of Nun’Álvares], offprint of Revista dos Liceus 7: 1‒16.  . 1916b. ‘Timorenses de Okussi e Ambeno (Notas Antropológicas sobre Observações de Fonseca Cardoso)’ [Timorese from Okussi and Ambeno (Anthropological Notes on Observations by Fonseca Cardoso)], offprint of Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 11: 1‒16.  . 1916c. ‘Antropologia Timorense’ [Timorese Anthropology], offprint of Revista dos Liceus 4: 1‒8.  . 1916d. ‘Os Berberes e os Povos Peninsulares’ [The Berbers and the Peninsular Peoples], A Águia 10: 94‒104, 169‒77.  . 1916e. ‘Antropologia Angolense – Quiocos, Luimbes, Luenas e Lutchazes (Notas Antropológicas sobre Observações de Fonseca Cardoso)’ [Angolese Anthropology – Quiocos, Luimbes, Luenas and Lutchazes (Anthropological Notes on Observations by Fonseca Cardoso)], Archivo de Anatomia e Antropologia 2(4): 323‒56.  . 1916f. ‘Instrumentos Paleolíticos dos Arredores de Lisboa’ [Palaeolithic Instruments from the Surroundings of Lisbon], offprint of Gente Lusa 2: 1‒8.

References • 347

 . 1916g. ‘Sobre Alguns Objectos Proto-Históricos e Lusitano-Romanos, Especialmente de Alpiarça e Silvã’ [On Some Proto-historical and Lusitanian-Roman Objects, Especially from Alpiarça and Silvã], O Arqueólogo Português 221: 331‒7.  . 1916‒17. ‘Sobre Alguns Crânios da Índia Portuguesa’ [About Some Skulls from Portuguese India], Anais Scientíficos da Faculdade de Medicina do Porto 3(3): 251‒74.  . 1917a. ‘Nota sobre Alguns Índices Sagrados de Portugueses’ [Note on Some Sacred Indices of Portuguese], offprint of Portugal Medico 2: 1‒8.  . 1917b. ‘À Propos des Caractères Inférieurs de Quelques Crânes Préhistoriques du Portugal’ [About the Lower Characters of Some Prehistoric Skulls from Portugal], offprint of Archivo de Anatomia e Anthropologia 3(3): 221‒37.  . 1917c. ‘Novos Subsídios para a Antropologia Portuguesa’ [New Subsidies for Portuguese Anthropology], in Asociación Española para el Progreso de las Ciencias: Congreso de Sevilla. Madrid: Eduardo Árias, pp. 141‒50.   . 1917d. ‘Taylorismo e Reeducação Profissional’ [Taylorism and Professional Re-education], offprint of Portugal Médico 3(8): 1‒14.  . 1917‒18. ‘Sobre uma Forma Craniana Arcaica’ [About an Archaic Cranial Form], Anais Científicos da Faculdade de Medicina do Porto 4(1): 1‒79.  . 1918a. ‘Osteometria Portuguesa I: Coluna Vertebral’ [Portuguese Osteometry I: Spine], Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 12: 1‒30.  . 1918b. ‘Estudos de Etnogenia Portuguesa (Crânios Braquicéfalos)’ [Studies of Portuguese Ethnogeny (Brachycephalic Skulls)], offprint of Anais Científicos da Faculdade de Medicina do Porto 4(2): 1‒80.  . 1918c. ‘Estudos da Etnogenia Portuguesa: Os Habitantes Primitivos do Território’ [Studies of Portuguese Ethnogeny: The Territory’s Primitive Inhabitants], offprint of Terra Portuguesa 24: 1‒7.  . 1918d. ‘Antropologia Angolense II: Bi-N’Bundo, Andulos e Ambuelas-Mambundas (Notas Antropológicas sobre Observações de Fonseca Cardoso)’ [Angolese Anthropology II: Bi-N’Bundo, Andulos and Ambuelas-Mambundas (Anthropological Notes on Observations by Fonseca Cardoso)], Archivo de Anatomia e Antropologia 4(2‒3): 283‒321.  . 1919a. ‘Osteometria Portuguesa II: Cintura Escapular’ [Portuguese Osteometry II: Scapular Waist], Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 13: 102‒23, 172‒92.  . 1919b. Raça e Nacionalidade [Race and Nationality]. Porto: Renascença Portuguesa.  . 1919c. ‘Osteometria Portuguesa I: Tronco e Esqueleto Zonal dos Membros’ [Portuguese Osteometry I: Trunk and Zonal Skeleton of the Limbs], in Congreso de Bilbao. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, pp. 209‒21.  . 1919d. ‘As Condições Físicas na Formação das Raças’ [The Physical Conditions in the Formation of the Races], offprint of Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 13: 1‒30.  . 1919e. ‘Relatório dos Trabalhos de 1919’ [Report of the Works of 1919], TAE 1: 77‒80.  . 1919f. ‘Origins of the Portuguese’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2(2): 117‒45.  . 1919g. ‘As Origens Humanas: Ideias Modernas sobre o Problema’ [The Human Origins: Modern Ideas on the Problem], offprint of A Medicina Moderna 304: 1‒23.  . 1919h. ‘Mendigos e Criminosos’ [Beggars and Criminals], offprint of Portugal Médico 5(1): 1‒8.  . 1920. ‘Osteometria Portuguesa III: Cintura Pélvica’ [Portuguese Osteometry III: Pelvic Waist], Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 14: 1‒16.  . 1921a. Homo: Os Modernos Estudos sobre a Origem do Homem [Homo: Modern Studies on the Origin of Man]. Lisbon: Lumen.

348 • References

  . 1921b. ‘Sur Quelques Différences Sexuelles dans le Squelette des Membres Supérieures’ [On Some Sexual Differences in the Skeleton of the Upper Limbs], offprint of Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 172: 1‒4.  . 1922a. Curso de Antropologia na Universidade do Porto, Trabalhos dos Alunos: Notas Apresentadas ao Congresso de Ciências Luso-Espanhol [Anthropology Course at the University of Porto, Student Works: Notes Presented to the Luso-Spanish Science Congress]. Porto: Imprensa Nacional, pp. 1‒27.  . 1922b. ‘De l’Asymétrie du Squelette des Membres Supérieurs’ [Skeletal Asymmetry of the Upper Limbs], offprint of Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 174: 1‒3.  . 1922c. ‘L’Hérédité Mendélienne et l’Analyse Ethnologique’ [Mendelian Inheritance and Ethnological Analysis], offprint of Natur und Mensch: Revue de Biologie Sociale (Berne) 10: 1‒8.  . 1922d. ‘Os Problemas da Análise Etnológica’ [The Problems of Ethnological Analysis], offprint of Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto 5‒6: 1‒18.  . 1923a. ‘Nouvelles Observations sur l’Homo taganus, nob’ [New Observations on Homo taganus, nob], Revue Anthropologique 33: 570‒9.  . 1923b. ‘Osteometria Portuguesa IV: Esqueleto do Braço e do Antebraço’ [Portuguese Osteometry IV: Skeleton of the Arm and Forearm], offprint of Anais da Academia Politécnica do Porto 15: 1‒38.  . 1924a. Os Povos Primitivos da Lusitânia [The Primitive Peoples of Lusitania]. Porto: Figueirinhas.  . 1924b. ‘Uma Invasão Pré-Histórica na Península Ibérica (Os Capsienses)’ [A Prehistoric Invasion in the Iberian Peninsula (The Capsienses)], offprint of A Águia 24(19‒20): 19‒32.  . 1924c. ‘L’Origine de l’Homme: L’État Actuel du Problème’ [The Origin of Man: The Current State of the Problem], Scientia: Revue Internationale de Synthèse Scientifique 35: 339‒50.  . 1925a. ‘Antropologia Criminal Integral: O Normal Delinquente e a Crise Moral’ [Integral Criminal Anthropology: The Normal Delinquent and the Moral Crisis], offprint of Boletim do Instituto de Criminologia 5: 1‒25.  . 1925b. ‘O Significado Genealógico do “Australopithecus” e do Crânio de Tabgha e o Arco Antropofilético Índico’ [The Genealogical Significance of ‘Australopithecus’ and the Skull of Tabgha and the Indian Anthropophyletic Arc], TAE 2(3): 249‒86.  . 1925c. ‘A Sepultura Neolítica do Vale das Lages e os “Eólitos” de Ota’ [The Neolithic Grave of Vale das Lages and the ‘Eoliths’ of Ota], Butlletí de L’Associació Catalana d’Antropologia, Etnologia i Prehist 3(2): 117‒46.  . 1925d. ‘A Necrópole de Parada Todeia’ [The Necropolis of Parada Todeia], offprint of O Archeólogo Português 26: 1‒16.  . 1925e. ‘Nótulas Arqueológicas: Estação Luso-Romana em Fiães’ [Archaeological Notes: Luso-Roman Station in Fiães], offprint of Revista de Estudos Históricos 2: 1‒13.  . 1925f. ‘As Primeiras Migrações Humanas’ [The First Human Migrations], offprint of Diónysos 2: 1‒13.   . 1925g. ‘Notas Morfológicas sobre os Molares Superiores nos Portugueses’ [Morphological Notes on the Upper Molars in the Portuguese], Arquivo de Anatomia e Antropologia 9: 9‒16.  . 1925h. ‘As Diferenças Sexuais nos Esqueletos Portugueses’ [The Sex Differences in Portuguese Skeletons], in Congreso de Coimbra: Asociación Española para el Progreso de las Ciencias, Ciencias Naturales, vol. 6. Madrid: José Molina, pp. 29‒33.

References • 349

 . 1925i. ‘Inquéritos Escolares’ [School Surveys], offprint of Educação Nova 12‒13: 1‒7.  . 1925j. A Antropologia nas suas Relações com a Arte [Anthropology in Its Relations with Art]. Porto: Renascença Portuguesa.  . 1925k. ‘A Lealdade duma Rainha Portuguesa’ [The Loyalty of a Portuguese Queen], Revista de Estudos Históricos 2(3): 168‒89.  . 1925l. ‘A Atitude Moral’ [The Moral Attitude], Dionysos 1: 8‒13.  . 1926a. Homo: Os Modernos Estudos sobre a Origem do Homem [Homo: Modern Studies on the Origin of Man], 2nd edn. Coimbra: Atlântida.  . 1926b. ‘Osteometria portuguesa II: Esqueleto Apendicular dos Membros Superiores’ [Portuguese Osteometry II: Appendicular Skeleton of the Upper Limbs], in Congresso do Porto: Associação Portuguesa para o Progresso das Ciências. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, pp. 1‒6.  . 1926c. ‘O Homem Terciário em Portugal’ [The Tertiary Man in Portugal], offprint of Lusitânia: Revista de Estudos Portugueses 3(9): 1‒16.  . 1926d. ‘Sur les Prétendues “Races” Sérologiques’ [On the Alleged Serological ‘Races’], offprint of L’Anthropologie 36: 437‒45.  . 1926e. ‘Glozel e Alvão: Os Portugueses e a Invenção do Alfabeto’ [Glozel and Alvão: The Portuguese and the Invention of the Alphabet], offprint of TAE 3(2): 1‒26.  . 1926f. ‘Nouvelle Hypothèse sur le Peuplement Primitif de l’Amérique du Sud’ [New Hypothesis on the Primitive Settlement of South America], offprint of Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti 97‒118.  . 1926g. ‘Le Normal Délinquant et la Crise Morale’ [The Normal Delinquent and the Moral Crisis], Revue Anthropologique 7‒9: 1‒22.   . 1927a. ‘Sur la Valeur Anthropologique des Groupes Sanguins’ [On the Anthropological Value of Blood Groups], in Le Sang: Biologie et Pathologie. Paris: Gaston Doin & Cie Éditeurs, pp. 1‒11.  . 1927b. ‘Os Portugueses e a Questão de Glozel’ [The Portuguese and the Glozel Question], offprint of Lusitânia: Revista de Estudos Portugueses 4(9): 1‒13. ———.1927c. ‘O Petroglifo do Guerreiro Lusitano no Monte do Castelo de Penafiel’ [The Petroglyph of the Lusitano Warrior on Monte do Castelo of Penafiel], offprint of Brotéria 4(1): 1‒12.  . 1927d. ‘La Dispersion de l’Homme sur la Surface Terrestre’ [The Dispersion of Man on the Earth’s Surface], offprint of Scientia: Revue Internationale de Synthèse Scientifique 42: 210‒4.  . 1928a. ‘O Problema Eugénico em Portugal’ [The Eugenics Problem in Portugal], in Congresso Nacional de Medicina. Porto: Enciclopédia Portuguesa, pp. 1‒8.  . 1928b. ‘A Lusitânia Pré-Romana’ [Pre-Roman Lusitania], in Damião Peres and Eleutério Cerdeira (eds), História de Portugal, vol. 1. Barcelos: Portucalense, pp. 77‒214.  . 1928c. ‘Nouvelles Recherches sur l’Homme Tertiaire en Portugal’ [New Research on Tertiary Man in Portugal], in III.e Session Amsterdam, 20‒29 Septembre 1927. Paris: Libraire E. Nourry, pp. 1‒5.  . 1928d. ‘La Question de Glozel et l’Origine de l’Alphabet’ [Glozel’s Question and the Origin of the Alphabet], offprint of Archivio di Storia della Scienza (Archeion) 9(1): 53‒62.  . 1928e. ‘Sur une Inscription Proto-Ibérique d’Alvão’ [On a Proto-Iberian Inscription from Alvão], offprint of TAE 3(4): 1‒16.  . 1928f. ‘Le Serpent, Totem dans la Lusitanie Protohistorique’ [The Serpent, Totem in Protohistoric Lusitania], Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 15: 1‒7.

350 • References

 . 1928g. ‘Signes Alphabétiformes Gravés sur une Pièce Magdalénienne des Asturies’ [Alphabetical Signs Engraved on a Magdalenian Piece from Asturias], in Atti della Pont. Accademia delle Scienze Nuovi Lincei. Rome: Suola Tipografica, pp. 1‒5.  . 1928h. ‘L’Authenticité d’Alvão: Réponse à M. Dussaud’ [The Authenticity of Alvão: Response to Mr. Dussaud], offprint of TAE 4(1): 1‒7.  . 1928i. ‘Nouveaux Documents sur l’Art Préhistorique en Portugal’ [New Documents on Prehistoric Art in Portugal], Revue Anthropologique 4‒6: 1‒8.  . 1928j. ‘Les Différences Sexuelles dans le Squelette chez le Portugais et la Hiérarchie des Sexes’ [Sexual Differences in the Portuguese Skeleton and the Hierarchy of the Sexes], in III.e Session Amsterdam, 20‒29 Septembre 1927. Paris: Libraire E. Nourry, pp. 1‒4.  . 1929a. Geologia e Antropologia em Portugal [Geology and Anthropology in Portugal]. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional.  . 1929b. A Cronologia das Mais Antigas Inscrições do Noroeste da Península [The Chronology of the Oldest Inscriptions in the Northwest of the Peninsula]. Madrid: Asociación Española para el Progreso de las Ciencias.  . 1929c. ‘Art Rupestre en Traz-os-Montes (Portugal). 1.º Pétroglyphes de la Valée de l’Avelames. 2.º Le Sanctuaire d’Outeiro Machado’ [Rock Art in Traz-os-Montes (Portugal). 1.º Petroglyphs of the Avelames Valley. 2.º The Sanctuary of Outeiro Machado], Revue Archéologique 29: 121‒36.  . 1929d. A Geografia da Pré-História [The Geography of Prehistory]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1930a. ‘As Pinturas do Dólmen do Padrão (Vandoma)’ [The Pattern Dolmen Paintings (Vandoma)], offprint of O Archeólogo Português 27: 1‒11.  . 1931a. A Nova Antropologia Criminal [The New Criminal Anthropology]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1931b. ‘Os Grupos Sanguíneos na Genética’ [Blood Groups in Genetics], offprint of Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 16: 1‒31.  . 1931c. ‘Sur Quelques Schémas de l’Hérédité des Groupes Sanguins’ [On Some Diagrams of the Inheritance of Blood Groups], in XVe Congrès International d’Anthropologie & d’Archéologie Préhistorique, IVe. Portugal, 21‒30 Septembre 1930. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry, pp. 1‒6.  . 1931d. ‘L’Art Rupestre Préhistorique dans le Nord-Ouest de la Péninsule Ibérique’ [Prehistoric Rock Art in the Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula], in XVe Congrès International d’Anthropologie & d’Archéologie Préhistorique, IVe. Portugal, 21‒30 Septembre 1930. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry. pp. 1‒4.  . 1931e. ‘Inquérito sobre as Ideias Morais em Criminosos e Não Criminosos’ [Survey on Moral Ideas in Criminals and Non-criminals], offprint of Arquivo da Repartição de Antropologia Criminal, Psicologia Experimental e Identificação Civil do Porto 1(2): 101‒5.  . 1931f. ‘O Prof. Carrara e “A Nova Antropologia Criminal”’ [Prof. Carrara and ‘The New Criminal Anthropology’], offprint of Arquivo da Repartição de Antropologia Criminal, Psicologia Experimental e Identificação Civil do Porto 1(3): 181‒90.  . 1932a. ‘Herman Ten Kate (Um Amigo de Wenceslau de Morais)’ [Herman Ten Kate (A Friend of Wenceslau de Morais)], offprint of TAE 5(3): 1‒40.  . 1932b. ‘A Controvérsia Transformista’ [The Transformist Controversy], offprint of Descobrimento: 1‒11.  . 1932c. ‘Estatura e Índice Cefálico em Portugal’ [Height and Head Index in Portugal], offprint of Arquivo da Repartição de Antropologia Criminal, Psicologia Experimental e Identificação Civil do Porto 2(1‒2): 37‒72.  . 1932d. ‘Gravuras Rupestres no Brasil’ [Rock Engravings in Brazil], offprint of TAE 5(4): 1‒8.

References • 351

 . 1932e. ‘La Taille des Portugais d’Après les os Longs: Hommage au Prof. J. Matiegka’ [The Size of the Portuguese According to the Long Bones: Tribute to Prof. J. Matiegka], Anthropologie (Prague) 10: 268‒72.  . 1932f. ‘Ideias Morais em Jovens Criminosos e Não Criminosos’ [Moral Ideas in Young Criminals and Non-criminals], in Asociación Española para el Progreso de las Ciencias. Madrid: Huelves y Compañia, pp. 55‒58.  . 1932g. ‘La Nouvelle Anthropologie Criminelle’ [The New Criminal Anthropology], offprint of Scientia: Revue Internationale de Synthèse Scientifique 51: 357‒65.  . 1932h. ‘L’Étude du Criminel en Portugal’ [The Study of the Criminal in Portugal], offprint of Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie 2: 1‒28.  . 1932i. ‘A Fisionomia Humana e os Animais’ [Human Physiognomy and Animals], offprint of Archivo de Medicina Legal 5(1‒2): 1‒11.  . 1933a. Introdução à Antropobiologia [Introduction to Anthropobiology]. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade.  . 1933b. ‘Valencianos e Portugueses’ [Valencians and Portuguese], in Homenagem a Martins Sarmento. Guimarães: Sociedade Martins Sarmento, pp. 242‒54.  . 1933c. ‘Les Peintures Mégalithiques de Côta (Beira Alta): (Lettre à Monsieur le Prof. H. Breuil)’ [The Megalithic Paintings of Côta (Beira Alta): (Letter to Prof. H. Breuil)], offprint of TAE 6(2): 1‒8.  . 1933d. ‘Les Inscriptions de Parada, Alvão et Lerilla’ [The Inscriptions of Parada, Alvão and Lerilla], in XVe Congrès International d’Anthropologie & d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Ve Session de l’Institut Internat. d’Anthropologie, Paris. 20‒27/9/1931. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry, pp. 1‒9.  . 1933e. ‘A Posição Sistemática do Esqueleto de Combe-Capelle’ [The Systematic Position of the Combe-Capelle Skeleton], offprint of TAE 6(2): 1‒40.  . 1933f. ‘Les Migrations Préhistoriques: Le Témoignage Spécial de la Péninsule Ibérique’ [Prehistoric Migrations: The Special Testimony of the Iberian Peninsula], offprint of Revue Anthropologique 7‒9: 1‒26.  . 1934a. ‘Os Mestiços nas Colónias Portuguesas’ [The Mestizos in the Portuguese Colonies], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 331‒49.  . 1934b. ‘Discurso Inaugural no I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial’ [Inaugural Speech at the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol. 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 21‒29.  . 1934c. Da Biologia à História [From Biology to History]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1934d. ‘La Atlántida y los Orígenes de Lisboa’ [Atlantis and the Origins of Lisbon], Investigacion y Progreso 7‒8: 221‒25.  . 1934e. ‘As Novas Ideias sobre a Atlântida’ [New Ideas about Atlantis], offprint of A Terra: Revista Portuguesa de Geofísica 12‒13: 1‒25.  . 1934f. ‘Moron’, offprint of TAE 6(3): 1‒7.  . 1934g. ‘As Ruínas de Zimbábue e a Arqueologia de Moçambique’ [The Ruins of Zimbabwe and the Archaeology of Mozambique], in Actas do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa, pp. 1‒3.  . 1934h. O Instituto de Antropologia da Universidade do Porto e a Investigação científica colonial [The Institute of Anthropology of the University of Porto and Colonial Scientific Research]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1935a. ‘A Teologia e a Origem do Homem’ [Theology and the Origin of Man], offprint of TAE 7(1‒3): 1‒32.

352 • References

 . 1935b. As Origens da Cidade do Porto (Cale, Portucale e Porto) [The Origins of the City of Porto (Cale, Portucale and Porto)], 2nd edn. Porto: Fernando Machado & C.a Editores.  . 1935c. ‘A Etnogenia Brasílica’ [The Ethnogeny of Brazil], offrint of Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 19: 1‒22.  . 1935d. ‘Uma Visita ao Instituto do Cérebro, de Buch’ [A Visit to the Brain Institute, of Buch], Revista de Ciências Médicas e Humanismo 14: 62‒65.  . 1935e. Cariocas e Paulistas [Cariocas and Paulistas]. Porto: Fernando Machado.  . 1936a. ‘A Propósito do “Homo Taganus”: Africanos em Portugal’ [About the ‘Homo Taganus’: Africans in Portugal], offprint of Boletim da Junta Geral do Distrito de Santarém 43: 1‒23.   . 1936b. ‘Pré-história de Moçambique: Um Plano de estudos’ [Prehistory of Mozambique: A Study Plan], offprint of Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 20(3): 1‒32.  . 1936c. ‘La Nuova Antropologia Criminale’ [The New Criminal Anthropology], offprint of Giustizia penale 1: 1‒35.  . 1936d. ‘La Nuova e la Vecchia Antropologia Criminale’ [The New and the Old Criminal Anthropology], offprint of Giustizia penale 7: 1‒50.  . 1937a. ‘Os Estudos de Antropologia na Academia Politécnica do Porto (1888‒1911)’ [Anthropology Studies at the Polytechnic Academy of Porto (1888‒1911)], in O Ensino na Academia Politécnica. Porto: Universidade do Porto, pp. 1‒12.  . 1937b. ‘Les Métis des Îles du Cap-Vert’ [The Mestizos of the Cape Verde Islands], offprint of Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde 5(1): 80‒7.  . 1937c. ‘A Nova e a Velha Antropologia Criminal’ [The New and Old Criminal Anthropology], offprint of Arquivos de Medicina Legal e Identificação (Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional) 13: 1‒30.  . 1938. ‘Antigos Escravos Africanos em Portugal e no Brasil’ [Former African Slaves in Portugal and Brazil], Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 23: 1‒29.  . 1938‒42. Relatório da Câmara Municipal do Porto [Porto City Council Report], several volumes, Porto: Câmara Municipal do Porto.  . 1939. ‘Les “Profils” en Anthropologie, Biotypologie et Criminologie’ [‘Profiles’ in Anthropology, Biotypology and Criminology], Bolletino del Comitato Internazionale per L’Unificazione dei Metodi e per la Sintesi in Antropologia Eugenica e Biologia 9: 1‒6.  . 1940a. ‘Discurso na Sessão Inaugural do Congresso Nacional de Ciências da População’ [Speech at the Inaugural Session of the National Congress of Population Sciences], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 1‒20.  . 1940b. ‘O Mestiçamento nas Colónias Portuguesas’ [Miscegenation in the Portuguese Colonies], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso Colonial, vol. 14. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 113‒33.   . 1940c. ‘Factores Degenerativos na População Portuguesa e seu Combate’ [Degenerative Factors in the Portuguese Population and Their Combat], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 577‒89.  . 1940d. ‘O Elemento Português na Demografia do Brasil’ [The Portuguese Element in the Demography of Brazil], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso Luso-Brasileiro de História – O Império e a República, vol. 9. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 243‒58.  . 1940e. ‘Novas Estações Líticas em Muge’ [New Lithic Stations in Muge], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso da Pré e Proto-História de Portugal. Lisbon, pp. 1‒17.

References • 353

 . 1940f. Da Raça e do Espírito [Of Race and Spirit]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1941a. A Escola Antropológica Portuense [The Porto School of Anthropology]. Lisbon: Bertrand, pp. 1‒61.  . 1941b. ‘Conceitos Genéticos de Raça e de Constituição’ [Genetic Concepts of Race and Constitution], in Actas do I Congresso Nacional de Ciências Naturais, Lisboa, Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências Naturais 13(2): 27‒29.  . 1941c. Plano de Estudos Antropológicos Coloniais [Colonial Anthropological Studies Plan]. Lisbon: IICT.  . 1941d. ‘Anthropologie et Préhistoire du Portugal’ [Anthropology and Prehistory of Portugal], Bulletin des Études Portugaises et de l’Institut Français au Portugal 8(1): 42‒58.  . 1943a. Raças do Império [Races of the Empire]. Porto: Portucalense Editora.  . 1943b. ‘O Bloco Peninsular’ [The Peninsular Block], offprint of Ocidente 59: 5‒34.  . 1944a. Timor Português: Contribuições para o seu Estudo Antropológico [Portuguese Timor: Contributions to Its Anthropological Study]. Lisbon: Ministério das Colónias.  . 1944b [1938]. Raízes de Portugal. Portugal ‘Ex-Nihilo’!… Terra e Independência. A Raça [Portuguese Roots. Portugal ‘Ex-Nihilo’!… Land and Independence. The Race]. Lisbon: Ocidente.  . 1944c. ‘O Mestiçamento nas Colónias Portuguesas’ [Miscegenation in the Portuguese Colonies], offprint of África Médica 12: 1‒4.  . 1944d. Gérmen e Cultura [Seed and Culture]. Porto: IAUP.  . 1944e. ‘Los Timorenses y la Posición Sistemática de los Indonesios’ [The Timorese and the Systematic Position of the Indonesians], Investigación y Progreso 15: 257‒61.  . 1944f. ‘As Tendências Bio-Étnicas do Brasil Contemporâneo’ [The Bioethnic Trends of Contemporary Brazil], offprint of Publicações do Congresso Luso-Espanhol do Porto 5: 1‒11.  . 1944g. ‘Cultura e Culturas’ [Culture and Cultures], offprint of O Lar do Médico (supplement of Jornal do Médico) 13: 1‒8.  . 1945a. ‘Missões Antropológicas às Colónias’ [Anthropological Missions to the Colonies], offprint of Jornal do Médico 7(149[11‒12]): 1‒10.  . 1945b. ‘Sobre um Problema de Biologia Humana em Timor Português’ [About a Human Biology Problem in Portuguese Timor], BGC 235: 13‒26.  . 1945c. ‘Tabu da Sogra nos Bantos da África Portuguesa’ [Mother-in-Law’s Taboo in the Bantu of Portuguese Africa], offprint of TAE 10(3‒4): 1‒12.  . 1946a. ‘A Masculinidade nos Nascimentos em Portugal’ [Male Birth Rate in Portugal], offprint of Revista do Centro de Estudos Demográficos 3: 9‒31.  . 1946b. Em Face de Deus: Memórias e Confissões [In the Face of God: Memories and Confessions]. Porto: Fernando Machado.  . 1946c. ‘Elementos para a Classificação de Raças e Línguas na Guiné Portuguesa’ [Elements for the Classification of Races and Languages in Portuguese Guinea], in Congresso Comemorativo do Mother-in-Law’s Taboo in the Bantu of Portuguese Africa Quinto Centenário do Descobrimento da Guiné, vol. 2. Lisbon: SGL, pp. 373‒87.  . 1947. Uma Jornada Científica na Guiné Portuguesa [A Scientific Journey in Portuguese Guinea]. Lisbon: AGC.  . 1948. ‘Cômputos da População Global da África’ [Africa’s Global Population Accounting], offprint of Revista do Centro de Estudos Demográficos 5: 17‒35.  . 1949a. Ultramar Português I: Síntese de África [Portuguese Overseas I: Synthesis of Africa]. Lisbon: AGC.  . 1949b. ‘Professor João Avelar Maia de Loureiro’, Revista do Centro de Estudos Demográficos 6: 7‒11.

354 • References

 . 1949c. ‘La Posición Sistemática de los Amerindios’ [The Systematic Position of the Amerindians], offprint of Homenaje a Don Luis de Hoyos Sainz 1: 217‒22.  . 1950. ‘Contacts Culturels dans les Colonies Portugaises’ [Cultural Contacts in the Portuguese Colonies], offprint of Estudos Coloniais: Revista da Escola Superior Colonial 1: 1‒11.  . 1951a. ‘Reverendo Pe. Eugénio Jalhay, S. J.’ [Reverend Fr. Eugénio Jalhay, S. J.], Arqueologia e História 8(5): 67‒82.  . 1951b. ‘Études Anthropologiques sur les Populations de l’Archipel du Cap-Vert et de la Guinée Portugaise’ [Anthropological Studies on the Populations of the Archipelago of Cape Verde and Portuguese Guinea], Première Conférence Internationale des Africanistes de l’Ouest, 1945 2:120‒2.  . 1951c. ‘O Estudo das Populações e o Futuro do Ultramar’ [The Study of Populations and the Future of Overseas], Mensário Administrativo 47‒48: 1‒28.   . 1951d. ‘Contacts Culturels dans l’Afrique Portugaise’ [Cultural Contacts in Portuguese Africa], Anais da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar 6(5): 5‒14.  . 1951e. ‘A Cultura portuguesa na África e no Oriente’ [Portuguese Culture in Africa and the East], Estudos Coloniais. Revista da ESC 2(1): 19‒51.  . 1951f. A Alimentação do Povo Português: Bibliografia Prefaciada e Coordenada pelo Prof. Doutor António Augusto Mendes Correia [The Food of the Portuguese People: Bibliography Prefaced and Coordinated by Prof. Doctor António Augusto Mendes Correia]. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Demográficos.  . 1951g. ‘L’Organisation de la Recherche Scientifique dans l’Afrique Portugaise’ [The Organization of Scientific Research in Portuguese Africa], Anais da Junta de Investigações Coloniais 6(1): 7‒16.  . 1951h. ‘Impressões de Duas Viagens’ [Two-Trip Impressions], offprint of Boletim da SGL 3‒4: 1‒23.  . 1952a. ‘Aumento da População, Emigração, Colonização’ [Population Increase, Emigration, Colonization], offprint of Anuário da Escola Superior Colonial 1‒23.  . 1952b. ‘Contacts Culturels dans la Guinée Portugaise’ [Cultural Contacts in Portuguese Guinea], offprint of Actas da Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais em Bissau 1947, Anais da JIC 6(5): 7‒14.  . 1952c. ‘No 5.º Centenário de Leonardo da Vinci’ [On the 5th Centenary of Leonardo da Vinci], offprint of Boletim da SGL 10‒12: 1‒27.  . 1953a. ‘Locais Arqueológicos e Históricos em África: Relatório e Proposta ao IV Congresso de Turismo Africano, em Lourenço Marques’ [Archaeological and Historical Sites in Africa: Report and Proposal to the IV Congress of African Tourism, in Lourenço Marques], offprint of Revista Guimarães 63: 5‒8.  . 1953b. ‘Aspectos Demográficos do Arquipélago de Cabo Verde’ [Demographic Aspects of the Cape Verde Archipelago], offprint of Garcia de Orta 1(1): 1‒15.  . 1954a. Antropologia e História [Anthropology and History]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1954b. Ultramar Português II: Ilhas de Cabo Verde [Portuguese Overseas II: Cape Verde Islands]. Lisbon: AGC.  . 1954c. ‘Portugal e a Índia’ [Portugal and India], in Palestras na Emissora Nacional, em 31 de Julho, 7, 14, 21 e 28 de Agosto e 4 e 11 de Setembro de 1954. Lisbon: Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, pp. 1‒27.  . 1954d. ‘Cientistas no Brasil’ [Scientists in Brazil], in Antropologia e História. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 265‒94.  . 1954e. ‘Júlio de Matos e a Psiquiatria em Portugal’ [Júlio de Matos and Psychiatry in Portugal], in Antropologia e História. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 295‒318.

References • 355

 . 1955. Um Mês em Timor: Palestras na Emissora Nacional, na Série ‘A Ciência ao Serviço da Humanidade’ [A Month in Timor: Lectures on the National Broadcaster, in the Series ‘Science at the Service of Humanity’]. Lisbon: Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, pp. 1‒24.  . 1956a. ‘Notice Préliminaire sur les Squelettes Préhistoriques de Moita de Sebastião (Muge)’ [Preliminary Note on the Prehistoric Skeletons of Moita de Sebastião (Muge)], offprint of Crónica del IV Congreso Internacional de Ciencias Prehistóricas y Protohistóricas (Madrid, 1954) 133‒39.  . 1956b. ‘O Interesse dos Estudos de Linguística e o seu Carácter Científico’ [The Interest of Linguistics Studies and Its Scientific Character], Boletim da SGL 74(7): 227‒42.  . 1956c. ‘A “Cultura Luso-Brasileira” (A Propósito de Duas Conferências de Pedro Calmon)’ [The ‘Luso-Brazilian Culture’ (On the Purpose of Two Lectures by Pedro Calmon)], offprint of Boletim da SGL 74(10‒12): 347‒57.  . 1957. ‘Professor Mendes Correia: Homenagem dos seus Amigos e Admiradores’ [Professor Mendes Correia: Tribute from His Friends and Admirers], offprint of Boletim da SGL 15(4‒6):1‒152.  . 1958a. ‘Notas de Visitas a Institutos Científicos do Congo Belga’ [Notes of Visits to Scientific Institutes of the Belgian Congo], Boletim da SGL 76(7‒9): 203‒12.   . 1958b. ‘Sobre o “Ano Geofísico Internacional”’ [About the ‘International Geophysical Year’], offprint of Boletim da SGL 76(1‒3): 3‒20.  . 1962. ‘Da Antropobiologia Ultramarina’ [On Overseas Anthropobiology], Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 95: 145‒238. Mendes Correia, António, António de Almeida, and José Camarate Andrade França. 1954. ‘Nouvelles Stations Lithiques du Timor Portugais et Préhistorique de l’Indonésie Orientale’ [New Lithic Stations of Portuguese Timor and Prehistoric of Eastern Indonesia], in Crónica del IV Congreso Internacional de Ciencias Prehistóricas e Protohistóricas, Madrid, 1954. Zaragoza: Librería General, pp. 295‒98. Mendes Correia, António, and Alfredo Athayde. 1931a. ‘Contribution à la craniologie d’Angola’ [Contribution to the Craniology of Angola], in XV Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Portugal. 21‒30/9/1930. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry.  . 1931b. ‘Contribution à l’Anthropologie de la Guinée Portugaise’ [Contribution to the Anthropology of Portuguese Guinea], in XV Congrès International d’ Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Portugal. 21‒30/9/1930. Paris: Libraire E. Nourry, pp. 1‒3. Miscelâneas [Miscellaneous]. 1910‒1975. 66 volumes. Porto: FCUP. ‘Missões Antropológicas e Etnológicas às Colónias, Decreto-lei n.º 34.478’ [Anthropological and Ethnological Missions to the Colonies, Decree-Law No. 34,478]. 1951 [1945]. Anuário da Escola Superior Colonial 146‒49. Monod, Théodore. 1950. ‘Two African International Scientific Conferences’, Geographical Review 40(2): 309‒12. Monteiro, Hernâni. 1959. ‘Professor A.A. Mendes Correia’, TAE 17(1‒4): 1‒8.  . 1960. ‘Prof. Doutor A.A. Mendes Corrêa’ [Professor Doctor A.A. Mendes Corrêa], offprint of TAE 18(1‒2): 1‒8. Neto, João Pereira. 1988. ‘Parecer sobre a Eventual Criação da Licenciatura em Antropologia na Universidade de Coimbra’ [Opinion on the Possible Creation of the Degree in Anthropology at the University of Coimbra], Estudos Políticos e Sociais 16(1‒2): 130‒1. Peixoto, António Augusto da Rocha. 1890. ‘Notícias: A Sociedade Carlos Ribeiro’ [News: The Carlos Ribeiro Society], Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais 1: 189‒90.  . 1898. ‘A Sociedade Carlos Ribeiro: Nótula Histórica’ [The Carlos Ribeiro Society: Historical Note], Revista de Ciências Naturais e Sociais 5(20): 178‒215.

356 • References

 . 1967 [1908]. ‘Formas da Vida Comunalista em Portugal’ [Ways of Communal Life in Portugal], in A.A. da Rocha Peixoto, Obras. Póvoa do Varzim: Câmara Municipal de Póvoa do Varzim, pp. 330‒47. Peres, Damião. 1970 [1938]. Como nasceu Portugal [How Portugal Was Born]. Porto: Portucalense. Péry, Gérard. 1875. Geografia e Estatística Geral de Portugal e Colónias [Geography and General Statistics of Portugal and the Colonies]. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional. Pessoa, Alberto. 1940. ‘História da Introdução em Portugal dos Métodos Científicos de Identificação Criminal’ [History of the Introduction in Portugal of Scientific Methods of Criminal Identification], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso da História da Actividade Científica Portuguesa, Ciências Físico-Matemáticas e Militares, Ciências Naturais e Biológicas, vol. 12. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 709‒22. Pina, Luís de. 1931. ‘Les Angles de la Base du Crâne chez les Indigènes des Colonies Portugaises Africaines’ [The Angles of the Base of the Skull in the Natives of the African Portuguese Colonies], in XV Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry, pp. 20‒7.  . 1966. ‘Faculdade de Letras do Porto (Breve História)’ [Faculty of Humanities of Porto (Brief History)], Cale: Revista da Faculdade de Letras do Porto 1: 59‒172. Pinto, Rui Correia de Serpa, and Hugo de Magalhães. 1942. Bibliografia do Professor Mendes Corrêa (1909‒1944) [Bibliography of Professor Mendes Corrêa (1909‒1944)], 2nd edn. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa. Professor Mendes Corrêa. 1888‒1988: 1.º Centenário do seu Nascimento [Professor Mendes Corrêa. 1888‒1988: 1st Centenary of His Birth]. 1988. Porto: FCUP. Reitoria da Universidade do Porto (ed.). 2005. 1. Etnologia e Arqueologia: Mendes Correia, Ciclo de Exposições ‘Aventureiros, Naturalistas e Coleccionadores’ [1. Ethnology and Archaeology: Mendes Correia, Exhibition Cycle ‘Adventurers, Naturalists and Collectors’]. Porto: UP. Renan, Ernest. 1992 [1882]. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? Et autres essais politiques [What Is a Nation? And Other Political Essays]. Paris: Presses Pocket. Reynold, Gonzague de. 1936. Portugal. Paris: Spes. Ribeiro, Leonel. 1963. ‘O Saudoso Arqueólogo Prof. Doutor A. A. Mendes Corrêa e as suas Teses duma Grande Civilização Ocidental e duma Provável Origem Ocidental do Alfabeto’ [The Late Archaeologist Prof. Doctor A. A. Mendes Corrêa and His Theses on a Great Western Civilization and a Probable Western Origin of the Alphabet], offprint of Lucerna 3: 1‒15. Saldaña, Quintiliano. 1933. ‘La Nouvelle Anthropologie Criminelle’ [The New Criminal Anthropology], offprint of Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 18: 1‒24. Sampaio, Alberto. 1923. Estudos Históricos e Económicos [Historical and Economic Studies]. Porto: Livraria Chardron. Sant’Ana, J. 1940. ‘A Mortalidade na População Portuguesa e suas Principais Causas’ [Mortality in the Portuguese Population and Its Main Causes], in Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP, vol. 17. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 140‒80. Santa-Rita, Gonçalo 1940. ‘O Contacto das Raças nas Colónias Portuguesas: Seus Efeitos Políticos e Sociais, Legislação Portuguesa’ [The Contact of Races in the Portuguese Colonies: Its Political and Social Effects, Portuguese Legislation], in Congressos do Mundo Português: Congresso Colonial, vol. 15. Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenários, pp. 13‒70. Santos, Francisco Bahia. 1955. Política Ultramarina de Portugal [Overseas Policy of Portugal]. Lisbon. Serrão, Eduardo da Cunha. 1959. ‘Investigações Arqueológicas na Região de Sesimbra. Resultado das Campanhas Realizadas pelo Centro de Estudos de Etnologia Peninsular’

References • 357

[Archaeological Investigations in the Sesimbra Region. Results of the Campaigns Held by the Centre for the Study of Peninsular Ethnology], TAE 17(1‒4): 187‒203. Tamagnini, Eusébio. 1915. ‘A Cor do Cabelo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes das Escolas Primárias Portuguesas’ [The Colour of Hair and Eyes in Portuguese Primary School Students], Revista da Universidade de Coimbra 4: 581‒620.  . 1934. ‘Os Problemas da Mestiçagem’ [The Problems of Miscegenation], in Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial, vol. 1. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 39‒63.  . 1934‒35. ‘Lição Inaugural do Ano Lectivo de 1934‒35’ [Inaugural Lesson of the Academic Year 1934‒35], Revista da Faculdade de Ciências 5(1): 7‒28.  . 1939. ‘Les Dimensions du Nez, l’Indice Nasal et le Prétendu Fort Métissage Négroïde des Portugais’ [The Dimensions of the Nose, the Nasal Index and the Alleged Strong Negroid Interbreeding of the Portuguese], in Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques vol. 1. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, pp. 175‒6.  . 1940. ‘Os Grupos Sanguíneos dos Portugueses’ [The Blood Groups of the Portuguese], in Actas dos Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 1‒27. Teixeira, Carlos. 1934. ‘Medicina e Superstições Populares de Vieira’ [Medicine and Popular Superstitions of Vieira], offprint of TAE 6(4): 1‒40.  . 1935a. ‘Um Peso Bizantino, Inédito, de Braga’ [A Byzantine Weight, Unpublished, from Braga], offprint of Alto Minho 3: 1‒4.  . 1935b. ‘O Índice da Secção dos Cabelos nos Portugueses’ [The Hair Section Index in the Portuguese], offprint of TAE 7(2‒3): 1‒7.  . 1935c. ‘Um Caso de Polidactilia Familial’ [A Case of Familial Polydactyly], offprint of TAE 7(4): 1‒8.  . 1936a. ‘Um Caso de Polidactilia Hereditária’ [A Case of Hereditary Polydactyly], offprint of Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 20: 1‒8.  . 1936b. Subsídios Para o Estudo da Arqueologia Bracarense I: O Monte de Castro [Subsidies for the Study of the Archaeology of Braga I: O Monte de Castro]. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa.  . 1936c. ‘A Periodicidade das Funções Genésicas Humanas’ [The Periodicity of Human Genetic Functions], offprint of TAE 8(2): 1‒15.  . 1940. ‘A Mulher Portuguesa e o seu Papel Bio-Sociológico’ [The Portuguese Woman and Her Bio-Sociological Role], offprint of Congressos do Mundo Português: CNCP. Porto: Imprensa Portuguesa, pp. 1‒12.  . 1964. ‘Elogio Histórico de A. A. Mendes Correia’ [Historical Praise of A.A. Mendes Correia], in Memórias da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, vol. 1. Lisbon: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. Topinard, Paul. 1885. Éléments d’Anthropologie Générale [Elements of General Anthropology]. Paris: Adrien Delahaye & Émile Lescrosnier.  . 1892. ‘L’Anthropologie du Bengale ou Étude des Documents Anthropométriques Recueillis par M. Risley’ [The Anthropology of Bengal or Study of the Anthropometric Documents Collected by M. Risley], L’Anthropologie 3(3): 282‒316. Trabalhos do I Congresso Nacional de Antropologia Colonial [Works of the First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology], 1934, vol. 1. Porto: I Exposição Colonial Portuguesa. Vasconcelos, José Leite de. 1885. Portugal Pré-Histórico [Prehistoric Portugal]. Lisbon: David Corazzi.  . 1895. ‘Excursão Arqueológica a Alcácer do Sal: Uma Raça Originária de África’ [Archaeological Tour to Alcácer do Sal: A Race Native to Africa], O Arqueólogo Português 1: 65‒92.

358 • References

 . 1901. Esquisse d’une Dialectologie Portugaise [Outline of a Portuguese Dialectology]. Paris: Aillaud.  . 1915. História do Museu Etnológico Português [History of the Portuguese Ethnological Museum]. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional.   . 1928. ‘A Antropologia Portuguesa como Fonte de Investigação Etnográfica’ [Portuguese Anthropology as a Source of Ethnographic Research], Boletim de Etnografia 4: 1‒19.  . 1941. ‘Origem do Povo Português (Estado Actual e Sucinto do Problema)’ [Origin of the Portuguese People (Current and Brief State of the Problem)], Revista Lusitana 38: 196‒246. Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1962 [1869]. The Malay Archipelago. New York: Dover Publications.

Secondary Sources AAVV. 1999. Al-Madan 8. Alexandre, Valentim. 2000. ‘O Império e a Ideia de Raça (Séculos XIX e XX)’ [Empire and the Idea of Race (Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries)], in Jorge Vala (ed.), Novos Racismos: Perspectivas Comparativas. Oeiras: Celta, pp. 133‒44. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Areia, Manuel Laranjeira Rodrigues de, and Maria Augusta Tavares da Rocha. 1985. ‘O Ensino da Antropologia em Coimbra’ [Teaching Anthropology in Coimbra], in Cem Anos de Antropologia em Coimbra, 1885‒1985. Coimbra: MLAUC, pp. 13‒60. Asad, Talal (ed.). 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.  . 1991. ‘Afterword: From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Anthropology of Western Hegemony’, in George W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 314‒24. Augstein, Hannah Franziska. 1996. Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760‒1850. Bristol: Thoemmes Press. Bahn, Paul G. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banton, Michael. 1996. ‘Eugenics’, in Ellis Cashmore (ed.), Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 125‒26.  . 1998. Racial Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnes, John Arundel. 1972. ‘Social Networks’, Module in Anthropology, vol. 26. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1‒29. Baroja, Julio Caro. 1995. La Cara, Espejo del Alma: Historia de la Fisiognómica [The Face, Mirror of the Soul: History of Physiognomics]. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg, Círculo de Lectores. Bastos, Cristiana. 1998. ‘Tristes Trópicos e Alegres Luso-Tropicalismos: Das Notas de Viagem em Lévi- Strauss e Gilberto Freyre’ [Sad Tropics and Joyful Luso-Tropicalisms: From Travel Notes in Lévi-Strauss and Gilberto Freyre], Análise Social 33(146‒47): 415‒32.  . 2002. ‘Um Centro Subalterno? A Escola Médica de Goa e o Império’ [A Subaltern Centre? The Medical School of Goa and the Empire], in C. Bastos, M. Vale de Almeida

References • 359

and B. Feldman-Bianco (eds), Trânsitos Coloniais: Diálogos Críticos Luso-Brasileiros. Lisbon: ICS, pp. 133‒49. Bastos, Susana Pereira. 1997. O Estado Novo e os Seus Vadios: Contribuição para o Estudo das Identidades Marginais e da sua Repressão [The New State and Its Vagrants: Contribution to the Study of Marginal Identities and Their Repression]. Lisbon: Dom Quixote. Bender, Gerald J. 1980. Angola: Mito y Realidade de su Colonización [Angola: Myth and Reality of Its Colonization]. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La Distinction: Critique Sociale du Jugement [The Distinction: Social Critique of Judgment]. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.  . 1980. Le Sens Pratique [Practical Sense]. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.  . 1988. Homo academicus, trans. P. Collier. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Boxer, Charles. 1963. Race Relations in the Portuguese Colonial Empire, 1415‒1825. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Branco, Jorge Freitas. 1986. ‘Cultura como Ciência? Da Consolidação do Discurso Antropológico à Institucionalização da Disciplina’ [Culture as Science? From the Consolidation of Anthropological Discourse to the Institutionalization of Discipline], Ler História 8: 75‒101. Cahen, Michel, and Patrícia Ferraz de Matos (eds). 2018. New Perspectives on Luso-Tropicalism, Portuguese Studies Review 26(1), 350 pp. Cardoso, João Luís. 1999. ‘O Professor Mendes Corrêa e a Arqueologia Portuguesa’ [Professor Mendes Corrêa and Portuguese Archaeology], Al-Madan 8: 138‒56. Casanova, Catarina. 2011. ‘O Papel de Mendes Corrêa Enquanto Referência na Antropologia Biológica em Portugal: Caminhos e Percursos da Primatologia’ [The Role of Mendes Corrêa as a Reference in Biological Anthropology in Portugal: Paths and Routes of Primatology], in Ana Cristina Martins (ed.), Mendes Correia (1888‒1960): Entre a Ciência, a Docência e a Política. Lisbon: ACD Editores, pp. 85‒127. Castelo, Cláudia. 1998. O Modo Português de Estar no Mundo: O Luso-Tropicalismo e a Ideologia Colonial Portuguesa (1933‒1961) [The Portuguese Way of Being in the World: LusoTropicalism and Portuguese Colonial Ideology (1933‒1961)]. Porto: Afrontamento. Catroga, Fernando. 1977a. ‘Os Inícios do Positivismo em Portugal: O seu Significado PolíticoSocial’ [The Beginnings of Positivism in Portugal: Its Political-Social Meaning], Revista de História das Ideias 1: 287‒394.  . 1977b. ‘A Importância do Positivismo na Consolidação da Ideologia Republicana em Portugal’ [The Importance of Positivism in the Consolidation of the Republican Ideology in Portugal], Biblos: Revista da Faculdade de Letras 53: 285‒327.  . 1996. ‘História e Ciências Sociais em Oliveira Martins’ [History and Social Sciences in Oliveira Martins], in Luís Reis Torgal, José Amado Mendes and Fernando Catroga (eds), História da História em Portugal, Séculos XIX‒XX. Lisbon: Círculo de Leitores, pp. 117‒59. Centlivres, Pierre. 1982. ‘Des “instructions” aux collections: la prodution ethnographique de l’image de l’Orient’ [From ‘Instructions’ to Collections: The Ethnographic Production of the Image of the Orient], in Jacques Hainard and Roland Kaehr (eds), Collections Passion. Neuchâtel: Musée d’Ethnographie, pp. 33‒61. Comaroff, John. 1997. ‘Images of Empire, Contests of Conscience’, in Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler (eds), Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 163‒97. Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, Frederick. 2005. Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cooper, Frederick, and Ann Laura Stoler (eds). 1997. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

360 • References

Corrêa, Mariza 2013. As Ilusões da Liberdade: A Escola Nina Rodrigues e a Antropologia no Brasil [The Illusions of Freedom: The Nina Rodrigues School and Anthropology in Brazil], 3rd edn. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz. Costa, Henrique Alves. 1978. Breve História do Cinema Português (1896‒1962) [A Brief History of Portuguese Cinema (1896‒1962)]. Venda Nova: Instituto de Cultura Portuguesa. Costa, Rui Manuel Pinto. 2009. O Poder Médico no Estado Novo (1945‒1974): Afirmação, Legitimação e Ordenamento Profissional [Medical Power in the New State (1945‒1974): Affirmation, Legitimation and Professional Ordering]. Porto: UP. Dias, Nélia. 1996. ‘O Corpo e a Visibilidade da Diferença’ [The Body and the Visibility of Difference], in Miguel Vale de Almeida (ed.), Corpo Presente: Treze Reflexões Antropológicas sobre o Corpo. Oeiras: Celta, pp. 23‒44. Dirks, Nicholas B. 1992. ‘Introduction: Colonialism and Culture’, in Nicholas B. Dirks (ed.), Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1‒25. Edwards, Elizabeth. 1990. ‘Photographic “Types”: The Pursuit of Method’, Visual Anthropology 3: 235‒58. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, and Finn Sivert Nielsen. 2001. A History of Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. Escobar, Arturo. 1994. ‘Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture’, Current Anthropology 35(4): 211‒31. Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press. Fabião, Carlos. 1996. ‘Archaeology and Nationalism: The Portuguese Case’, in M. DíazAndreu and T. Champion (eds), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press, pp. 90‒107.  . 1999. ‘Um Século de Arqueologia em Portugal I’ [A Century of Archaeology in Portugal I], Al-Madan 8: 104‒26. Fatela, João. 1989. O Sangue e a Rua: Elementos para uma Antropologia da Violência em Portugal (1926‒1946) [Blood and the Street: Elements for an Anthropology of Violence in Portugal (1926‒1946)]. Lisbon: Dom Quixote. Ferreira, Nuno Estevão. 2009. ‘A Câmara Corporativa no Estado Novo: Composição, Funcionamento e Influência’ [The Corporate Chamber in the New State: Composition, Functioning and Influence], Ph.D. dissertation. Lisbon: University of Lisbon. Figueiras, Isilda. 1981. Contribuições para o Estudo da Antropologia Portuguesa: Índices, vol. 1‒10, 1914‒1981 [Contributions to the Study of Portuguese Anthropology: Indexes, vols 1‒10, 1914‒1981]. Coimbra: IAUC. Fink, Carole. 1991. Marc Bloch: A Life in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les Mots et les Choses: Une Archéologie des Sciences Humaines [Words and Things: An Archaeology of the Humanities]. Paris: Gallimard.  . 1975. Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison [Discipline and Punish: Birth of the Prison]. Paris: Gallimard. Gallo, Donato. 1988. O Saber Português: Antropologia e Colonialismo [Portuguese Knowledge: Anthropology and Colonialism]. Lisbon: Heptágono. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gellner, Ernest. 1991. Reason and Culture: The Historical Role of Rationality and Rationalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Goody, Jack. 1995. The Expansive Moment: The Rise of Social Anthropology in Britain and Africa, 1918‒1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton & Company.

References • 361

Gravlee, Clarence C., H. Russel Bernard, and William Leonard. 2003. ‘Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form: A Re-analysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data’, American Anthropologist 105(1): 125‒38. Guimarães, Ângela. 1984. Uma Corrente do Colonialismo Português: A Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, 1875‒1895 [A Current of Portuguese Colonialism: The Geographical Society of Lisbon, 1875‒1895]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte. Guimarães, Gonçalves. 1995. ‘A Escola de Antropologia do Porto e os Estudos Pré-Históricos em Portugal’ [The Porto School of Anthropology and Prehistoric Studies in Portugal], offprint of Revista de Ciências Históricas 10: 59‒78. Hallowell, Alfred Irving. 1965. ‘The History of Anthropology as an Anthropological Problem’, in Raymond D. Fogelson (ed.), Contributions to Anthropology: Selected Papers of A. Irving Hallowell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 21‒35. Handler, Richard. 2000. ‘Boundaries and Transitions’, in Richard Handler (ed.), Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays toward a More Inclusive History of Anthropology, History of Anthropology, vol. 9. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 3‒10. Harris, Marvin. 2001 [1968]. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Hayes, Carlton J.H. 1941. A Generation of Materialism: 1871‒1900. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Henriques, Isabel Castro. 1997. Percursos da Modernidade em Angola: Dinâmicas Comerciais e Transformações Sociais em Angola [Paths of Modernity in Angola: Commercial Dynamics and Social Transformations in Angola]. Lisbon: IICT and ICP. Hinsley, Curtis M. 2008. ‘Personalities and Institutions in Americanist Archaeology, 1850‒1950’, Reviews in Anthropology 37(2‒3): 122‒35. Ingold, Tim (ed.). 1988. What Is an Animal? London: Unwin Hyman.  . 1990. ‘An Anthropologist Looks at Biology’, Man 25(2): 208‒29. Jahoda, Gustav. 1999. Images of Savages: Ancient Roots of Modern Prejudice in Western Culture. London: Routledge. Jorge, Vítor Oliveira. 1998. ‘Preâmbulo’ [Preamble], TAE 38(3‒4): 7‒11. Kuper, Adam. 2005. ‘Histórias Alternativas da Antropologia Social Britânica’ [Alternative Histories of British Social Anthropology], Etnográfica 9(2): 209‒30. Latour, Bruno. 1991. We Have Never Been Modern. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Laviolette, Patrick. 2008. ‘Anthropology in the UK: Never Mind the Biographies, Here’s the Reflexive Symbols’, Reviews in Anthropology 37: 231‒58. Leal, João. 2000. Etnografias Portuguesas (1870‒1970): Cultura Popular e Identidade Nacional [Portuguese Ethnographies (1870‒1970): Popular Culture and National Identity]. Lisbon: Dom Quixote.  . 2006. Antropologia em Portugal: Mestres, Percursos, Transições [Anthropology in Portugal: Masters, Paths, Transitions]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte. Lima, Antónia Pedroso. 2003. Grandes Famílias, Grandes Empresas: Ensaio Antropológico sobre uma Elite de Lisboa [Big Families, Big Companies: An Anthropological Essay on a Lisbon Elite]. Lisbon: Dom Quixote. Lima, Antónia Pedroso de, and Ramon Sarró. 2006. Terrenos Metropolitanos: Ensaios sobre Produção Etnográfica [Metropolitan Fields: Essays on Ethnographic Production]. Lisbon: ICS. Lima, Joaquim. 2007. Princípios de Antropologia em Bernardino Machado [Principles of Anthropology in Bernardino Machado]. Porto: Campo das Letras. Llobera, Josep R. 1976. ‘The History of Anthropology as a Problem’, Critique of Anthropology 2(7): 17‒42.  . 2003. The Making of Totalitarian Thought. Oxford: Berg.

362 • References

Lohmann, Roger Ivar. 2008. ‘Introduction: Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data’, Reviews in Anthropology 37: 89‒101. Lopes, João Teixeira (ed.). 2001. A Tutoria do Porto: Estudo sobre a Morte Social Temporária [The Tutorship of Porto: Study on Temporary Social Death]. Porto: Afrontamento. Lopes, Óscar. 1996. ‘7.ª Época - Época Contemporânea’ [7th Epoch‒Contemporary Epoch], in História da Literatura Portuguesa, 17th edn. Porto: Porto Editora, pp. 937‒1061. Madureira, Nuno Luís. 2003. ‘A Estatística do Corpo: Antropologia Física e Antropometria na Alvorada do Século XX’ [The Statistics of the Body: Physical Anthropology and Anthropometry at the Dawn of the Twentieth Century], Etnográfica 7(2): 283‒303. Marques, A. H. de Oliveira, and Fernando Marques da Costa. 1978. Bernardino Machado. Lisbon: Montanha. Martins, Ana Cristina (ed.). 2011. Mendes Correia (1888‒1960): Entre a Ciência, a Docência e a Política [Mendes Correia (1888‒1960): Between Science, Teaching and Politics]. Lisbon: ACD Editores.  . 2011. ‘Mendes Correia (1888‒1960) e a Arqueologia Coeva: (En)Trechos’ [Mendes Correia (1888‒1960) and Coeval Archaeology: (En)Excerpts], in Ana Cristina Martins (ed.), Mendes Correia (1888‒1960): Entre a Ciência, a Docência e a Política. Lisbon: ACD Editores, pp. 37‒73. Martins, Leonor Pires. 2006. ‘Ossos do Ofício: Antropometria e Etnografia no Norte de Moçambique (1916‒1917)’ [Bones of the Craft: Anthropometry and Ethnography in Northern Mozambique (1916‒1917)], in Manuela Ribeiro Sanches (ed.), Portugal Não é um País Pequeno: Contar o ‘Império’ na Pós-Colonialidade [Portugal Is Not a Small Country: Tell the ‘Empire’ in Post-Coloniality]. Lisbon: Cotovia, pp. 113‒39. Matos, Patrícia Ferraz de. 2007. ‘Review of A Escola de Antropologia de Coimbra, 1885‒1950: O que Significa Seguir uma Regra Científica? by Gonçalo Duro dos Santos’, Etnográfica 11(2): 496‒501.  . 2010. ‘Aperfeiçoar a “Raça”, Salvar a Nação: Eugenia, Teorias Nacionalistas e Situação Colonial em Portugal’ [Improving the ‘Race’, Saving the Nation: Eugenics, Nationalist Theories and Colonial Situation in Portugal], TAE 50: 89‒111.  . 2013. The Colours of the Empire: Racialized Representations during Portuguese Colonialism. Oxford: Berghahn Books.  . 2014. ‘Power and Identity: The Exhibition of Human Beings in the Portuguese Great Exhibitions’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 21(2): 202‒18.  . 2015. ‘Eduardo Augusto Marques, 1867‒1944’, in Fernando de Sousa and Maria da Conceição Meireles Pereira (eds), Os Presidentes do Parlamento Português (1822‒2012). Lisbon: Assembleia da República, pp. 213‒36.  . 2016. ‘Anthropology in Portugal: The Case of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology (SPAE), 1918’, in Regna Darnell and Frederic W. Gleach (eds), Local Knowledge: Global Stage, Histories of Anthropology Annual, vol. 10. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 53‒97.  . 2018. ‘Inclusions and Exclusions in the Production and Circulation of Scientific Knowledge: The Case of the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) and the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology (SPAE)’, in Paulo Granjo, Sofia Aboim and Alice Ramos (eds), Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges, vol.1. Lisbon: ICS, pp. 407‒29.  . 2019. ‘Racial and Social Prejudice in the Colonial Empire: Issues Raised by Miscegenation in Portugal (Late Nineteenth to Mid-twentieth Centuries)’, Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 28(2): 23‒44.  . 2021. ‘Studies on the “Portuguese Orient” (India [Goa, Daman and Diu], Macau and Timor) in the Colonial Context: Political and Scientific Programs (1880s‒1960s)’, in Marta Pacheco Pinto and Catarina Apolinário de Almeida (eds), Portuguese Orientalism:

References • 363

The Interplay of Power, Representation and Dialogue in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 83‒107. Matos, Sérgio Campos. 1998. Historiografia e Memória Nacional no Portugal do Século XIX (1846‒1898) [Historiography and National Memory in Nineteenth-Century Portugal (1846‒1898)]. Lisbon: Colibri. Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Though: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Mead, Margaret. 1974. Ruth Benedict: A Humanist in Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press. Mosse, George L. 1963. The Culture of Western Europe: The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries ‒ An Introduction. London: John Murray.  . 1992 [1978]. Il Razzismo in Europa: Dalle Origini all’ Olocausto [Racism in Europe: From the Origins to the Holocaust]. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Moutinho, Mário Canova. 1982. ‘A Etnologia Colonial Portuguesa e o Estado Novo’ [Portuguese Colonial Ethnology and the New State], in O Fascismo em Portugal. Lisbon: A Regra do Jogo, pp. 415‒42. Nunes, João Arriscado, and Maria Eduarda Gonçalves. 2001. ‘Introdução’ [Introduction], in João Arriscado Nunes and Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, Enteados de Galileu? A Semiperiferia no Sistema Mundial da Ciência. Porto: Afrontamento, pp. 13‒31. Oliveira, Ernesto Veiga de. 1972. ‘Introdução’ [Introduction], in Museu de Etnologia do Ultramar: Povos e Culturas. Lisbon: JMGIU, pp. 1‒16. Oliveira, Maria Antónia. 2003. ‘Biografia e Ficção’ [Biography and Fiction], Revista de Comunicação e Linguagens: Ficções 32: 101‒16. Pereira, Ana Leonor. 1999. ‘Eugenia em Portugal?’ [Eugenics in Portugal?], Revista de História das Ideias 20: 531‒600.  . 2001. Darwin em Portugal (1865‒1914): Filosofia, História, Engenharia Social [Darwin in Portugal (1865‒1914): Philosophy, History, Social Engineering]. Coimbra: Almedina. Pereira, Rui. 1986. ‘Antropologia Aplicada na Política Colonial Portuguesa do Estado Novo’ [Applied Anthropology in the Portuguese Colonial Policy of the New State], Revista Internacional de Estudos Africanos (4‒5): 191‒235.  . 1989. ‘A Questão Colonial na Etnologia Ultramarina’ [The Colonial Question in Overseas Ethnology], Antropologia Portuguesa 7: 61‒78.  . 1998. ‘Introdução à Reedição de 1998’ [Introduction to the 1998 Reissue], in Jorge Dias, Os Macondes de Moçambique: Aspectos Históricos e Económicos, vol. 1. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, IICT, pp. V‒LII. Pichot, André. 2000. La Société Pure: De Darwin à Hitler [The Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler]. Paris: Flammarion. Pimenta, Fernando Tavares. 2008. Angola, os Brancos e a Independência [Angola, the Whites and the Independence]. Porto: Afrontamento. Pimentel, Irene Flunser. 1998. ‘O Aperfeiçoamento da Raça. A Eugenia na Primeira Metade do Século XX’ [The Improvement of Race. Eugenics in the First Half of the Twentieth Century], História 3: 18‒27.  . 2011. A Cada Um o seu Lugar: A Política Feminina do Estado Novo [To Each His Place: The Feminine Politics of the New State]. Lisbon: Círculo de Leitores and Temas e Debates. Pina-Cabral, João de. 1989. ‘Breves Considerações Sobre o Estado da Antropologia em Portugal’ [Brief Considerations on the State of Anthropology in Portugal], Antropologia Portuguesa 7: 29‒36.  . 1991. Os Contextos da Antropologia [The Contexts of Anthropology]. Lisbon: Difel.

364 • References

 . 2008. ‘History of Anthropology and Personal Biography’, Anthropology Today 24(6): 26‒27. Pires, Daniel. 1996. Dicionário da Imprensa Periódica Literária Portuguesa do Século XX (1910‒1940) [Dictionary of the Portuguese Literary Periodical Press of the Twentieth Century (1910‒1940)]. Lisbon: Grifo. Poliakov, Léon. 1974. Arian Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. New York: Basic Books. Porter, Roy. 1999. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present. London: Fontana Press. Price, David H. 2008. ‘On the Ambivalence of Orthodoxy in American Anthropology’, Reviews in Anthropology 37(2‒3): 102‒21. Proctor, Robert. 1988. ‘From Anthropologie to Rassenkunde in the German Anthropological Tradition’, in George W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Bones, Bodies, Behaviour. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 138‒79. Quine, M. Sophia. 1996. Population Politics in Twentieth-Century Europe: Fascist Dictatorships and Liberal Democracies. London: Routledge. Quintais, Luís. 2012. Mestres da Verdade Invisível: No Arquivo da Psiquiatria Forense Portuguesa [Masters of Invisible Truth: In the Archive of Portuguese Forensic Psychiatry]. Coimbra: IUC. Ribeiro, Orlando. 1977. Introduções Geográficas à História de Portugal [Geographical Introductions to the History of Portugal]. Lisbon: INCM.  . 1978. Geografia e Civilização: Temas portugueses [Geography and Civilization: Portuguese Themes]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.  . 1981. A Colonização de Angola e o Seu Fracasso [The Colonization of Angola and Its Failure]. Lisbon: INCM.  . 2003. Memórias de um Geógrafo [Memoirs of a Geographer]. Lisbon: Sá da Costa. Ricoeur, Paul. 2000. La Mémoire, L’Histoire, L’Oubli [Memory, History, Oblivion]. Paris: Seuil. Rolo, António Rosmaninho. 2004. ‘Correia, António Augusto Esteves Mendes (1888‒1960)’, in Manuel Braga da Cruz and António Costa Pinto (eds), Dicionário Biográfico Parlamentar, 1935‒1974. Lisbon: ICS and Assembleia da República, pp. 434‒38. Roque, Ana Cristina. 2010. ‘Missão Antropológica de Moçambique: Antropologia, História e Património’ [Anthropological Mission of Mozambique: Anthropology, History and Heritage], in Ana Cristina Martins and Teresa Albino (eds), Viagens e Missões Científicas nos Trópicos, 1883‒2010. Lisbon: IICT, pp. 84‒89. Roque, Ricardo. 2001a. Antropologia e Império: Fonseca Cardoso e a Expedição à Índia em 1895 [Anthropology and Empire: Fonseca Cardoso and the Expedition to India in 1895]. Lisbon: ICS.  . 2001b. ‘Porto-Paris, Ida-e-Volta, Estratégias Nacionais de Autoridade Científica: A Sociedade Carlos Ribeiro e a Antropologia Portuguesa no Final do Século XIX’ [PortoParis, Round Trip, National Strategies for Scientific Authority: The Carlos Ribeiro Society and Portuguese Anthropology at the End of the Nineteenth Century], in João Arriscado Nunes and Maria Eduarda Gonçalves (eds), Enteados de Galileu? A Semiperiferia no Sistema Mundial da Ciência [Galileo’s stepchildren? The Semiperiphery in the World System of Science]. Porto: Afrontamento, pp. 239‒90.  . 2003. ‘Correia, António Augusto Esteves Mendes’, in António Nóvoa, and Filomena Bandeira (eds), Dicionário de Educadores Portugueses: 900 Biografias de Homens e Mulheres que se Dedicaram ao Ensino e à Educação nos Séculos XIX e XX. Porto: Asa, CD-ROM, file no. 237.  . 2006. ‘A Antropologia Colonial Portuguesa (1911‒1950)’ [Portuguese Colonial Anthropology (1911‒1950)], in Diogo Ramada Curto (ed.), Estudos de Sociologia da Leitura em Portugal no século XX. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, pp. 789‒822.

References • 365

Rowlands, Mike, and John Gledhill. 1976. ‘The Relation between Archaeology and Anthropology’, Critique of Anthropology 2: 23‒37. Ruffié, Jacques. 1983. De la Biologie a la Culture [From Biology to Culture], vol. 2. Paris: Flammarion. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 1993. ‘Modernidade, Identidade e a Cultura de Fronteira’ [Modernity, Identity and Border Culture], Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 38: 11‒39. Santos, Cândido dos. 2007. Para a História da Universidade do Porto [For the History of the University of Porto]. Porto: UP. Santos, Gonçalo Duro dos. 1996. ‘Topografias Imaginárias: as Estórias de Eusébio Tamagnini no Instituto de Antropologia de Coimbra’ [Imaginary Topographies: The Stories of Eusébio Tamagnini at the Institute of Anthropology of Coimbra], Degree dissertation. Coimbra, UC.  . 2005. A Escola de Antropologia de Coimbra, 1885‒1950: O que Significa Seguir uma Regra Científica? [The Coimbra School of Anthropology, 1885‒1950: What Does It Mean to Follow a Scientific Rule?]. Lisbon: ICS. Sahlins, Marshall. 2008. The Western Illusion of Human Nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Saraiva, António José, and Óscar Lopes. 1996. História da Literatura Portuguesa [History of Portuguese Literature], 17th edn. Porto: Porto Editora. Schwarcz, Lilia Moritz. 2007. O Espectáculo das Raças: Cientistas, Instituições e Questão Racial no Brasil: 1870‒1930 [The Spectacle of Races: Scientists, Institutions and the Racial Question in Brazil: 1870‒1930]. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras. Shapin, Steven. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schouten, Maria Johanna. 2001. ‘Antropologia e Colonialismo em Timor Português’ [Anthropology and Colonialism in Portuguese Timor], Lusotopie 8(1‒2): 157‒71. Smith, Anthony. 2010. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sobral, José Manuel. 1999. Trajectos: O Presente e o Passado na Vida de uma Freguesia da Beira [Paths: The Present and the Past in the Life of a Parish of Beira]. Lisbon: ICS.  . 2004. ‘O Norte, o Sul, a Raça, a Nação: Representações da Identidade Nacional Portuguesa (Séculos XIX‒XX)’ [The North, the South, the Race, the Nation: Representations of the Portuguese National Identity (Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries)], Análise Social 39(171): 255‒84.  . 2006. ‘Memória e Identidade Nacional: Considerações de Carácter Geral e o Caso Português’ [Memory and National Identity: General Considerations and the Portuguese Case], in Manuel Carlos Silva (ed.), Nação e Estado: Entre o Global e o Local. Porto: Afrontamento, pp. 27‒49.  . 2007. ‘O Outro Aqui Tão Próximo: Jorge Dias e a Redescoberta de Portugal pela Antropologia Portuguesa (Anos 70‒80 do Século XX)’ [The Other Here So Close: Jorge Dias and the Rediscovery of Portugal by Portuguese Anthropology (1970s and 1980s)], Revista de História das Ideias 28: 479‒526.  . 2010. ‘Representações Portuguesas e Brasileiras da Identidade Nacional Portuguesa no Século XX’ [Portuguese and Brazilian Representations of the Portuguese National Identity in the Twentieth Century], Revista de Ciências Sociais 41(2): 125‒39. Sousa, Fernando de, Manuel Pires Ribeiro and Ricardo Rocha. 2009. ‘António Augusto Esteves Mendes Correia’, in Os Presidentes da Câmara Municipal do Porto (1822‒2009), vol. 2. Porto: CEPESE, pp. 479‒85. Stepan, Nancy Leys. 1982. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800‒1960. London: Macmillan.  . 1991. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

366 • References

Stocking Jr., George W. 1966. ‘The History of Anthropology: Where, Whence Whither?’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 2(1): 281‒90.  . 1968. Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  . (ed.). 1974. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883‒1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.  . 1982. ‘Afterword: A View from the Center’, Ethnos 47: 172‒86.  . 1983. ‘The Ethnographer’s Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski’, in George W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 70‒120.  . (ed.). 1988. Bones, Bodies, Behaviour: Essays on Biological Anthropology, vol. 5. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.  . 1995a. ‘Delimiting Anthropology: Historical Reflections on the Boundaries of a Boundless Discipline’, Social Research 62: 933‒66.  . 1995b. After Tylor: British Social Anthropology 1888‒1951. London: Athlone Press.  . (ed.). 1996. Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, vol. 8. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Stoler, Ann Laura. 1992. ‘Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Communities and the Boundaries of Rule’, in Nicholas B. Dirks (ed.), Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 319‒52. Sullivan, Gerald. 2008. ‘Three Boasian Women: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Ruth Landes’, Reviews in Anthropology 37: 201‒30. Thomas, Nicholas. 1994. Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel and Government. Cambridge: Polity Press.  . 2000. ‘Colonial Conversions: Difference, Hierarchy, and History in Early TwentiethCentury Evangelical Propaganda’, in Catherine Hall (ed.), Cultures of Empire, A Reader: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 298‒328. Thomaz, Omar Ribeiro. 2001. ‘“O Bom Português”: Usos e Costumes d’Aquém e d’AlémMar’ [‘The Good Portuguese’: Uses and Customs d’Aquém and d’Além-Mar], Mana 7(1): 55‒87. Urry, James. 2006 [1996]. ‘Anthropological Societies’, in Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer (eds), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Routledge, pp. 44‒5. Vale de Almeida, Miguel. 2004. An Earth-Colored Sea: ‘Race’, Culture and the Politics of Identity in the Post-colonial Portuguese-Speaking World. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Vermeulen, Han F. 2006. ‘Enlightenment Anthropology’, in Alan Barnard, and Jonathan Spencer (eds), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Routledge, pp. 183‒85. Washburn, Sherwood Larned. 1951. ‘The New Physical Anthropology’, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 13(7): 298‒304. West, Harry. 2006. ‘Invertendo a Bossa do Camelo: Jorge Dias, a sua Mulher, o seu Intérprete e Eu’ [Inverting the Camel’s Hump: Jorge Dias, His Wife, Their Interpreter and I], in Manuela Ribeiro Sanches (ed.), Portugal Não É Um País Pequeno: Contar o ‘Império’ na Pós-Colonialidade [Portugal Is Not a Small Country: Tell the ‘Empire’ in Post-Coloniality]. Lisbon: Cotovia, pp. 141‒90.

Index

A Académie International d’Histoire des Sciences, 27 acclimatization, 64, 227 acculturation, 290, 327 Adventurers, Naturalists and Collectors’ exhibition, 33 African influence in Portuguese genetic heritage, 115, 130, 313–314. See also Homo afer taganus Agassiz, Louis, 101, 167n9, 177n150 Aguiar, Alberto, 37n9 Albuquerque, Afonso de, 227 Almeida, António de, 205, 209, 215, 220– 221, 223–224, 290, 299n25, 315 Almeida, Fernando de, 316 Almeida, Maria Emília de Castro e, 35, 205 Alte, Jorge Alberto Martins de, 218 Alves, Francisco Manuel (abbot of Baçal), 58 Alves, Silvestre Sérgio, 217 American Anthropological Association, 10, 55 Ammon, Otto, 139 Amzalak, Moisés Bensabat, 40n59, 323 Anatomy Institute (Porto), 23, 86n27 Angola, 41n72, 53, 75, 79–81, 109, 159, 162, 174, 206, 208–211, 215–216, 222, 230, 243–244, 247, 252n48, 284, 288–290, 304, 323, 328n3 Angola Diamonds Company, 287 Dundo museum, 287 anonymity, 8, 13 Antarctica, 124, 168n36

anthropological missions to the colonies, 213–215 to Angola, 215 to Guinea, 29, 215–216, 220, 235–236, 238, 283 to Mozambique, 215–217, 219–220, 222 to Timor, 29, 125, 215–216, 221 anthropology and archaeology, 110–111 Anthropology Institute of the University of Coimbra (IAUC), 62, 64, 76, 80, 86n30, 196 Anthropology Institute of the University of Porto (IAUP), 23–24, 28, 32–33, 68, 81, 86n27, 88n54, 154, 181, 196–197, 211, 214–215, 217, 221, 235, 239, 277, 286, 303–304, 315, 328n3 ‘anthropology of nation-building’, 56–57, 128 ‘anthropology of empire-building’, 56–57 Anthropometric Posts, 88n52, 180–181 anthropometry, 50, 62–63, 66–67, 85n8, 87n49, 94, 96, 98–99, 125, 135, 169, 179, 180–181, 186, 191–192, 196, 210, 212, 214, 217, 220–223, 232, 247, 253n56, 253n76, 307, 309, 312, 330n24 anthropometric box, 67 craniometry, 59–60, 63, 66, 99, 109, 114–116, 139–140, 147–150, 167n9, 167n16, 175n18, 308–309, 312 (see also craniology) facial and cranial indices, 99, 149 meristic elements, 98–99, 218

368 • Index

anthropozoology, 94, 190 anticolonialism, 157, 293 ‘applied anthropology’, 15, 55, 64, 69, 98 Aragón, Francisco de las Barras de, 73, 75, 334 archaeology, 2, 4, 6, 12, 25–26, 32–33, 39n53, 40n65, 41n67, 42, 50, 54, 58–60, 62, 66–67, 69, 71, 78, 80–82, 92–94, 106, 110–113, 117–118, 120, 125–126, 129, 132–133, 138, 161, 169n37, 170n60, 172n73, 172n75, 174n95, 215–216, 230, 257, 264, 302–303, 305–307, 309, 315–318, 320, 326, 329n11 archaeological excavations, 51, 94, 113–114, 116–118, 120, 137, 167n11, 170n60, 173n88, 218, 304, 313, 316–317 prehistoric archaeology, 14, 46–47, 50, 74, 77–78, 80, 112, 169n39, 214 Areia, Manuel Laranjeira Rodrigues de, 2, 64, 90n87 aryanism, 139, 151, 228 Aryan, 139–140, 174n93, 175n108, 227 Association of Portuguese Archaeologists, 30, 317 Athayde, Alfredo Mendonça da Costa, 70– 71, 90n89, 220, 223, 302, 315, 318 Atlantis (myth of ), 123, 163, 171n67 Azevedo, Ayres de, 254n93 Azores (islands), 230, 299n36 B Bahia, Maria do Carmo, 19, 20, 37n11, 37n13 Bandung Conference, 219, 244 Barreira, João Baptista, 64 Barros e Cunha, João Gualberto de, 74–75 Bastian, Adolf, 159 Basto, Álvaro José da Silva, 59 Bastos, Álvaro Teixeira, 37n9, 87n38, 96, 181 Bastos, Henrique Teixeira, 61 Bégouen, Count of, 73, 105, 123, 171, 334 Benedict, Ruth, 6, 173n92, 245, 246, 256n118, 319 Berbers, 135–136 Berlin Conference (1884‒85), 206, 302

Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 72 Bertillon method, 99, 180 Biasutti, Renato, 40n59, 210, 310 Biography, 1, 6–11, 13–14, 15n2, 15n13 intellectual biography, 2, 6, 10, 307 biological anthropology, 6, 43, 47, 56, 64, 106, 109, 148, 161–162, 306, 312, 319, 326 Bissaya-Barreto, Fernando, 205, 251n37 Blair, James, 195 blood, 75, 105, 137, 155, 226, 255n98 blood groups, 75, 124, 153–154, 157, 162, 176n129, 212, 247, 306, 308 Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich, 44, 95, 120, 153, 174n97, 176n126 Boas, Franz, 3–4, 16n9, 29, 44, 46–47, 84n2, 100, 106, 142, 153, 158, 173n92, 174n100, 214, 228, 234, 248, 314, 326 Bocage Museum (National Museum of Natural History), 53 Boléo, José de Oliveira, 143, 173n82 Bombarda, Miguel, 196, 204, 250n13, 252n45, 257 Bordeaux, Henry, 278 Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro, 73, 116, 118, 121, 133, 171n63, 318 Bottazzi, Filippo, 277, 299n29 Boule, Marcellin, 72, 105, 116, 168n29 Braga, Teófilo, 49, 52–53, 65, 84n4, 86n31, 128–129, 134, 136, 223, 272, 302, 318 Brazil, 29, 34, 36n2, 41n69, 56–67, 83, 91n92, 105, 162–164, 177n150, 178n151, 199, 226–228, 244, 246, 249, 249n9, 254n87, 254n90, 254n91, 264, 269–270, 272, 296, 313 Brazilian League of Mental Hygiene, 31, 163, 199–200 Breuil, Henri de, 40n59, 40n60, 72, 74, 104–105, 114–115, 118, 121, 171n63, 171n64, 310, 321, 332, 334 Brinton, Daniel Garrison, 50 Brites, Father Claudino Nazareth, 71 Broca, Paul, 50, 62, 66, 86n32, 93, 95–96, 139, 147–148, 150, 175n118, 177n150, 305 Brown, Óscar, 226, 254n90

Index • 369

Brunhes, Jean, 174n102, 269, 278 Bukavu, 29–30, 310, 323 Burnett, James (Lord Monboddo), 44 C Cambournac, Francisco José Carrasqueiro, 256n117 Caetano, Marcelo, 214, 235, 279 Calmon, Pedro, 40n59, 73, 89n67, 226, 264 Camper, Petrus, 44, 95, 148, 167n8 Campos, Ezequiel de, 32, 263, 277 Cândido, Armando, 279 Cape Verde, 162, 230, 232–233, 239, 244, 279, 288, 291, 311 Carlos Ribeiro Society, 60, 64, 66–68, 83, 88n54, 167n11, 303 Carmona, Óscar, 21, 37n16 Carqueja, Bento, 68, 71, 88n61, 89n69 Cartailhac, Émile, 65, 67, 73, 89n68, 89n69, 118, 335 Cartography Commission, 206, 214 Carvalho, Anselmo Ferraz de, 142, 251 Celts, 132, 170n54, 173n80, 175n108 Centennial Celebrations (1940), 27, 126, 265–267, 272, 296, 310 Central Youth Centre of Porto, 92 Centre for Demographic Studies of the National Statistics Board (INE), 27, 278–279 cephalic index, 59, 85n8, 96, 99–100, 115, 139, 144–145, 150–154, 167n10, 167n16, 169n36, 232 Chagas, Manuel Pinheiro, 53, 128, 178n152 Chamberlain, H.S., 139 Childe, Vere Gordon, 111, 168n33, 318 child care and protection, 193, 199, 201, 205, 250n21, 250n26, 258–261, 279, 281, 298n2, 308, 329n10 Choffat, León Paul, 87n48, 89n69, 335 Cinatti, Ruy, 220–221, 300n45 cinema, 269–270, 275–276, 296 classification (classification systems of the humanity), 44, 63, 94–95, 97, 99, 106, 112, 116, 120, 126, 143, 145–149, 151, 153, 170n58, 197, 250n14, 256n111, 307 clitoridectomy, 240

Coelho, Adolfo, 51–52, 65, 113, 128, 134, 194, 223, 302, 318 Coelho, José, 33 Coimbra, Leonardo, 24, 38n36, 310 Coimbra School of Anthropology, 34, 53, 61–62, 80, 87n42, 214, 248, 310, 327 College of Orphans, 259–260 ‘colonial anthropology’, 15, 98, 179, 205, 208–213, 224, 247–248, 251n29, 303, 311, 326 colonial exploitation, 137, 208, 219, 222 colonial law citizenship, 245, 291-294, 297 Colonial Act, 209, 244, 287, 291–292, 294 Constitution, 88n56, 209, 244, 252, 267, 291–294, 297 Overseas Organic Law (Organic Charter of the Portuguese Colonial Empire), 291, 294 Colonial School, 206–207 colonial war, 247 Columbia University, 160, 168n31 Committee for Geologic Works, 58–59, 95, 116, 315 Geological Committee, 85n19 compulsory cultures and forced labour, 244 Comte, Auguste, 48–49 Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques, 27, 66, 75, 87n41, 95, 113, 120, 123, 148 Congresses of the Portuguese World, 27, 30, 75, 125–126, 132, 165, 177n149, 200, 202, 213, 215, 226, 233, 253n53, 266, 329n11 Conseil International de Recherches, 27 Corrêa Barata, Francisco Augusto, 61, 86n29 Correia, Germano da Silva, 225 Correia, Virgílio, 70, 71, 96, 119, 170n60, 172n68, 328n6 Cortesão, Jaime, 38n36, 172n78 Cortez, Fernando Russell, 218, 328n6, 332, 335 Costa, Alexandre Alves, 20 Costa, Ana José Guedes da, 259 Costa, António Pereira da, 59, 85n19, 95, 113

370 • Index

Costa, Don Aleixo da (Francisco da Costa Aleixo), 282, 299n39 Costa, Henrique Alves, 275 Costa, João Carrington da, 32, 316, 323, 332 Costa, Maria Irene Leite da, 88n63, 315, 329n10, 332 craniology, 75, 95–96, 107, 124, 139, 148, 175n18, 176n126, 211, 304–305 criminal anthropology, 23, 26, 28, 59, 63, 66, 74, 78, 90n79, 92, 96, 134, 163–164, 179, 180–181, 186–187, 190–191, 194, 247, 303 crime and prisons, 184, 186–187 violence, 184, 187 Cro-Magnon, 46, 89n65, 116, 119, 136, 150 Cruz, António Alves da, 217 Cruz, João Machado, 40n63, 319, 329n7 Cuevillas, Florentino López, 71, 265, 335 cultural anthropology, 43–44, 47, 50, 54, 57, 64, 79–80, 120, 133, 159–160, 162, 177n150, 191, 234, 243, 246, 305–306, 309, 312, 318–319, 326– 327 culturalism, 47, 222, 228 Cunha, Xavier da, 63 Cuvier, Georges, 44, 95–96, 101, 111, 168n23, 208 D d’Aranzadi, Telesforo, 72, 75–76, 89n65, 89n72, 337 dactyloscopic identification, 99, 191 Damásio, António, 195 Dantas, Júlio, 40n59, 202, 253n53, 267 Darot, Aimé, 238 Darwin, Charles, 45, 65, 84n7, 102, 106, 108, 138, 168n22, 200 Darwin, Erasmus, 101 Daubenton, Louis, 95 Déchelette, Joseph, 118, 331–332, 335 deforestation, 109 degeneration, 134, 137, 183, 186–187, 191–192, 195, 201, 226–227, 249n12, 255n93 Delgado, Nery, 59, 95, 113, 315

Democratic Republic of Congo (former Belgian Congo), 40, 287, 289, 310 Deniker, Joseph, 63, 89, 120, 146, 210, 220, 321, 332, 335 descriptive characters, 37n20, 149, 169n36 DeVore, Irven, 109 Dias, Ferreira, 277 Dias, Jorge, 7, 56, 133–135, 160, 220, 222– 224, 246–247, 249, 254n82, 256n118, 256n119, 256n120, 318–319, 323, 326–327, 330n14, 332–333 Dias, Margot, 223, 247, 256n119, 319, 323 Dubois, Eugène, 78, 108 Duchemin, Georges, 238 Durkheim, Émile, 44, 57, 145, 146, 170n54, 251n27 E education, 49, 82, 193–195, 198, 307 children’s education, 192, 196–197, 255n102, 281, 298n2 (at) hospital, 280 Institutes for Scientific Research in Angola and Mozambique, 288 preventive medicine, 281 private education, 281 professional conditions of graduate people, 282, 290 science and research, 280 sex education, 198, 202 teaching in the colonies, 254n84, 270, 281, 284–285, 288, 297, 300n43 training and education, 258, 262–263 emigration, emigrants, 202, 225, 272, 279, 282, 296 Enlightenment, 43, 44, 45, 47, 207 environment (influence of ), 101–102, 124, 140–141, 143, 149, 160, 174n98, 176n131, 185, 191, 200, 202, 228 Estado Novo, 3, 7, 26–27, 38n41, 40n55, 86n31, 133, 199, 207, 210, 230, 248, 252n45, 252n50, 256n114, 258, 280, 295, 298n9, 299n26, 299n33, 310, 324, 327 Estermann, Carlos, 41n72 ethnic psychology, 134–135, 142–143 ‘ethnogeny’, 52, 114, 128, 130, 136–137, 163

Index • 371

Ethnographia or Ethnographie, 44 ethnological anthropology, 50, 62, 63 Evans-Pritchard, 44, 61 evolutionism, 45–48, 52, 60, 65, 93, 104– 105, 109, 111, 125, 138, 146, 158, 168n22, 200, 234, 308, 327 eugenics, 154, 191, 200–205, 227, 251n36 betterment of the race, 102, 150, 200 euthanasia, 203 hygiene, 15, 182, 192, 195–196, 199– 200, 251n33 perfectioning of race, 104 pre-nuptial exam, 202 race improvement, 225, 324 social hygiene, 39n53, 198, 202, 204, 260 sterilization, 196, 201–205, 251n36 Exhibition of the Portuguese World, 75, 172n73 exhibitions (world fairs and exhibitions), 72, 180, 211, 218, 220–221, 233, 255n104 F Faculty of Medicine of the University of Lisbon (FMUL), 60, 70, 76, 88n63, 203, 204 Fernandes, Barahona, 203–204, 252, 329n14 Ferreira, António Aurélio da Costa, 59–60, 68, 70, 74, 86n23, 96, 118, 197, 302, 330n22 Ferreira, António José de Liz, 109, 160, 168n31, 217, 304 Ferreira, José da Rocha, 26, 70–71, 88n61 Ferreira, José Júlio Bethencourt, 59–60, 80, 96, 263, 315, 330n22, 332 Ferreira, Octávio da Veiga, 137, 316–317, 330n25 Ferreira, Vicente, 225, 246 Ferri, Enrico, 249n10 fine arts, 263, 270, 276, 296 First World War, 45, 74, 140, 143, 210, 213, 235 First National Congress of Colonial Anthropology in Porto (1934), 27, 211, 214 First Portuguese Colonial Exhibition, 212, 298n7, 329n10

Firth, Raymond, 61 Fischer, Eugen, 153, 203 Fischer, Theobald, 143 folklore, 44, 47, 52, 79, 90n83, 93, 128, 138, 143, 170n59, 171n64, 263–264, 272, 283, 287, 296, 309, 320–321 folk traditions, 44, 51–52 popular medicine, 309 Fonseca Cardoso, Artur Augusto da, 7, 60, 64, 66–67, 83, 87n42, 87n45, 95–96, 118, 144, 174n99, 177n138, 197, 209–210, 213, 302–303, 331 Fontes, Joaquim, 32, 60, 70–71, 95, 117 Fontoura, Álvaro da, 221 Forbes, Henry, 221 Fortes, José Tomás Ribeiro, 67, 70–71, 83, 89n69, 95 França, José Camarate, 316–317, 328n6, 333 Freud, Sigmund, 159, 188 Freyre, Gilberto, 29, 226, 228, 244–245, 255n95, 256n116, 299n40 Frobenius, Leo, 218, 232 Furtado, Francisco Arruda, 59, 96 G Galhano, Fernando, 223, 319, 330n16 Gall, François-Joseph, 50 Galton, Francis, 98, 200–201 Galvão, Henrique, 289, 300 Garcia, Irene, 218 Garrett, António de Almeida, 23, 32, 326 Garrett, João Batista da Silva Leitão de Almeida, 40n65, 51, 178n152 gender, 3, 195, 198, 255n102 voting rights to women, 166, 272–273, 314 genealogical method, 20, 253n55 Geographical Missions and Colonial Research Board (JMGIC), 27, 164, 214–217, 219–221, 223–224, 235, 248, 253n57, 255n96, 280–281, 283, 286, 297, 321 Geographical Missions and Overseas Research Board (JMGIU), 27, 40n57, 221, 223, 246, 253n79, 254n81, 254n82, 323–324 Gini, Corrado, 251n39, 252n43

372 • Index

Girão, Amorim, 142, 269 Giuffrida-Ruggeri, Vicenzo, 72–73, 76, 78, 89n69, 116, 118 Glozel, 120, 122–123, 170n62, 171n64, 171n65, 331 Goa Medical School, 63, 86n35 Gobineau, Count Arthur de, 139–140, 173n93, 254n87 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 95, 101, 185 Grant, Madison, 139 Grave, João, 29, 71 Guerreiro, Manuel Viegas, 58, 223, 256, 323 Guimarães, Querubim, 268, 295 Guinea, 29, 40n59, 75, 88n63, 161, 210–211, 215–216, 220, 230, 235, 238–240, 242, 244–245, 283–285, 290, 299n43, 304, 306, 313 Bafatá, 240, 300 Bainuks, 239–240 Balantas, 240 Bayots, 239 Biafadas, 239–240 Bijagós, 161, 239–240 Bissau, 161, 239–240, 283, 290, 299n43, 300n48 Bolama, 238–240, 284, 299 Felupes, 239 Fulas, 240, 244 Mandinkas, 240 Manjaks, 240 Nalus, 240 Papels, 239–240 Günther, Hans, 139, 154, 155, 173n87 H Haddon, Alfred, 213 Heleno, Manuel, 33, 85n16, 116–118, 124–125, 136, 317–318, 329n13 Herculano, Alexandre, 40n65, 51, 124–125, 128–129, 131–132, 162, 178n152, 320 Herder, Johann Gottfried von, 44, 54 heredity, 64, 75, 78, 97, 100, 102–105, 126, 141, 143–144, 147, 152–154, 171n64, 185–186, 191, 194, 198, 200–205, 234, 250

heritage, 82, 219, 264–265, 270–271, 295–296, 324 cave art (Mozambique), 287 museums, 272, 274 museums for art and indigenous traditions and African museums, 287 overseas heritage, 286, 314 Herskovits, Melville Jean, 40, 173n92 Hervé, Georges, 72, 74–75, 87n50, 89, 118 Higher Institute of Overseas Studies (ISEU), 27, 223, 254n81, 254n83, 319, 324 Hippocrates, 94, 141, 168n24, 184 history of anthropology, 1–7, 11, 94, 187, 248, 301, 318, 326, 328 Homo afer taganus, 114–117 Homo europaeus mediterraneus, 135 Homo neanderthal, 114, 116, 119, 136 homosexuals, 181, 249n8, 251n34 Hourcade, Pierre, 264 Hrdlička, Aleš, 16n9, 72, 89n69, 210, 331–332, 336 human ecology, 62, 106, 312 human evolution, 77–78, 92, 106, 162, 305, 312 human genetics, 106, 311, 319 human palaeontology, 46, 61, 74, 105 human physical growth, 106 Hunter, John, 44, 174n97 Huxley, T.H., 106 I Iberian Peninsula, 114–115, 120, 122, 128–129, 132, 136–137, 169n44, 232, 298n12 immigration, 139, 173n92, 203, 226 Immorality Act, 156 Inquisition, 137 Indígena statute and Indigenato, 209, 244– 245, 252n52, 284–285, 287, 291–294, 297, 314 Institut (Francais) Fondamental de l’Afrique Noire (IFAN), 29, 39n44, 235, 238, 240, 287 Institute for Brain Research (Buch, Berlin), 184 Institut International d’Anthropologie, 27, 63, 74–76, 86n27, 89n74, 169n40, 171n64, 174n101

Index • 373

Institute for Archaeological Studies (Portugal), 329n12 Institute of African and Oriental Languages, 225, 243 intellectual biography, 2, 6, 10, 11, 307 International African Institute, 30, 40n59, 55, 235, 290 International Conference of West Africanists, 239 International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 55, 243, 290 Isidoro, Agostinho, 328n6, 332 J Jacquart, Henri, 95 Jalhay, Eugénio, 71, 105, 117, 162, 169n45, 317, 328n6, 332, 336 Jews, 130, 137, 151, 172n76, 174n93, 176n124 Joire, J., 238 Jordan, David, 103 Jorge, Artur Ricardo, 60, 77 Jorge, Ricardo de Almeida, 198, 309 Jung, Carl, 188 Júnior, José do Nascimento Ferreira Dias, 299n31 Junqueiro, Abílio Guerra, 29, 36n8, 39n47, 266 Jubainville, Henry Arbois de, 173n80 Junod, Henri, 159 K Kate, Herman ten, 72, 221, 254n89 Keith, Arthur, 72, 78, 174n96, 221 Kehl, Renato, 73, 163, 199, 251n30, 336 Kenya, 245, 296 Kikuya, 245 Korschinski, Sergei Iwanowitsch, 103 Kretschmer, Ernest, 185, 250n14, 256n111 Kroeber, Alfred Louis, 173n92, 319 Krüger, Fritz Otto, 264 L Lacerda, Aarão Ferreira de (senior), 26, 38n28, 68, 70–71, 88n61, 89n69 Lacerda, Aarão Soeiro Moreira de, 24, 263 language

African and Western Languages Institute, 286 Arabic language, 217, 285, 299n43 Creole, 284 Portuguese language, 145, 160, 166n1, 193, 263, 270–271, 284–285, 296, 324 Quimbundo, 285 Lapouge, Vacher de, 139–140, 173n90 Lautensach, Hermann, 143, 264, 269, 310, 321, 329n14, 332, 336 Lavater, Johann Caspar, 168n30 Leach, Edmund, 44 Leakey, Louis, 168 Leal, Cunha, 209 Leça, Armando, 79, 263 Leclerc, Georges-Louis (Comte de Buffon), 44, 95, 101, 141, 167n21, 174n97, 176n126 Leitão, António Nascimento, 29 Lestrade, Gerard Paul, 217, 290 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 44, 57, 61, 246 Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien, 61 Lima, Américo Pires de, 23, 38n23, 213– 214, 263, 315 Lima, Joaquim Alberto Pires de, 23, 78, 86n27, 88n63, 181, 251n37, 263, 315, 320, 331–332 linguistics, 45, 47–48, 66, 79–80, 82, 94– 95, 110, 139, 146–147, 152, 212, 214, 243, 255n108, 287, 290, 326 Linnaeus, Carl, 44, 95, 101, 166n7 literature, 48, 52, 128–129, 134, 145–147, 175n119, 206, 252n42, 263–264, 271 Livi, Ridolfo, 66 Locke, John, 43 Lombroso, Cesare, 66, 180, 182–183, 185, 191, 194–195, 250n12 Lopes, Armando, 90n83 Loureiro, João Avelar Maia de, 204, 252n44, 277–278 Lubbock, John, 138 Lucretius, 111 Lusitanians, 14, 85n22, 124–133, 145, 167n11, 173n81, 314 lusotropicalism, 246 Lyell, Charles, 65, 84n7, 101, 112

374 • Index

M Macao, 29, 63, 212, 230, 244, 283, 288, 290, 304 Macedo, Francisco Ferraz de, 59, 61, 66, 85n22, 96 Machado, Bernardino, 7, 15n1, 42, 59, 60– 62, 86n30, 86n31, 87n42, 178n152, 209, 332 Machado, Francisco Vieira, 214, 280 Madeira (island), 230, 299n36 Magalhães, Alfredo de, 26 Magalhães, António de Miranda, 71, 79 Magalhães, António Leite de, 71, 77, 79 Magalhães Basto, Artur de, 20–21, 25, 38n31, 38n37, 263 Magalhães, Hugo de, 220, 332 Magno, David, 79 Maia, Celestino da Costa, 38n23 Makonde, 56, 214, 220, 246, 323–324 male birth rate, 162 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 16n8, 61, 235–237, 239, 242–243 Malthus, Thomas, 102, 200, 202–203, 279 Marques, Eduardo Augusto, 252n51, 268 Martial, René, 152 Martin, Rudolf, 50, 73, 210 Martins, J. P. Oliveira, 36n8, 53, 60, 96, 124–125, 128, 255n103 Mascarenhas, Constâncio, 315, 332 material culture, 46, 61, 63, 93, 111, 124, 161, 166n5, 219, 255n100, 307, 309 Mateus, Amílcar de Magalhães, 29, 88n63, 215, 217, 235, 238–240, 315, 331 Mateus, Emília Duarte de Oliveira de Magalhães, 217–218 Matos, Júlio de, 59, 64–66, 84n4, 162, 196, 204, 250n13, 252n45, 254n89, 257 Matos, Norton de, 208–209, 225 Maudsley, Henry, 249n12 Mauss, Marcel, 61, 145–146, 159 Mead, Margaret, 6, 160, 168n31 Medical and Surgical School (of Porto), 18, 22, 64–65, 87n44, 118, 302 Medical and Surgical Schools (of Porto and Lisbon), 36n7, 48 megalithic culture, 120–121, 135, 169n44 Mendel, Gregor, 201 Mendes Correia, António Maria Esteves, 17–18, 82

Mendes Correia, Humberto, 18, 20, 37n15, 170n59, 299n27 mental health, 192, 196, 324 Mesolithic, 87n40, 173n88, 232, 303, 328n7, 329n12 miscegenation, 14, 127, 135–137, 147, 155–157, 201, 225–228, 233, 246– 247, 254n87, 254n93, 308, 310, 312 miscellanies, 79, 319–321 Mission for the Study of Ethnic Minorities in Overseas Portugal (MEMEUP), 256n119, 323 Mitra, 252n46 Möbius, Paul, 250n12 Moniz, Egas, 204, 257 Moniz, Jorge Botelho, 277 Monod, Théodore, 29–30, 39n44, 238–240, 310 monogenism, 100, 104 Montandon, George, 152, 158, 210 Monteiro, Hernâni, 23, 37n9, 37n21, 75, 78, 81, 315, 331 morality, 49, 188–190, 194–195, 203, 250n20, 291, 307–308 Moreau, Jacques-Joseph (Moreau de Tours), 183, 249n12 Moreira, Adriano, 39n49, 310, 319, 321, 323, 325–326 Moreira, Francisco de Almeida, 122 Morel, Benedict-Auguste, 249n12, 254n89 Moron, 90, 124 morphology, 50, 63, 107, 109, 149, 153, 179, 185–186, 194, 196, 232, 305 Mortillet, Gabriel de, 50, 62, 112, 169n39 Morton, Samuel George, 95, 167 Moura, Elísio de, 205, 251n37 Movement ‘Renascença Portuguesa’ (Portuguese Renaissance), 26, 38n36, 257 Municipal Orphanage, 259–260 Muge, 19, 87n41, 87n50, 90n78, 114–118, 124–125, 136–137, 150, 169n39, 232, 303, 306, 316, 329n12, 330n25 Múrias, Manuel, 276 music, 258, 263, 270, 274, 297 fado, 134, 272, 275 folklore of Lunda, 287 (see also folklore) opera, 274–275 Muzio, Giovanni, 266 Myers, C.S., 213

Index • 375

N National Committee for Demographic and Sanitary Statistics, 27 National Committee for Excavations and Antiquities, 26 National Education Committee, 26, 38n39, 77, 90n86 National Museum of Archaeology, 86n25, 88n59 National Museum of Ethnology, 324 national purposes (for anthropology), 165 nationalist, 14, 38n36, 52, 66, 118, 121, 126, 130, 134, 142, 150, 164, 172n73, 173n83, 196, 206, 209, 225, 257, 264, 266, 270, 295–297, 307 nationalist and liberation movements, 243 Neolithic, 66, 111–115, 118–120, 124, 136 Neiva, João Manuel Cotelo, 316, 331, 332 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 49, 182, 188–190, 256n118 Nobre, Augusto Pereira, 23, 38n27, 41n67, 214 Nordau, Max, 250n12 norm and deviation, 193 beggars, 185–186, 188, 250, 251n34, 252n46, 258, 308 prostitutes, 186, 194, 208, 250n26, 258 thieves, 183 O Obermaier, Hugo, 73, 118, 121, 171n63, 310, 332, 336 Oliveira, Ernesto Veiga de, 52, 82, 223, 319, 327 Oliveira, José Maria de, 78 Oliveira, Lôbo de, 226, 254n90 Oliveira, Francisco de Paula e, 118 Oliveira Viana, Francisco José de, 73, 163, 226, 254n90 Osório, Baltasar, 60, 70, 74 Overseas Council, 27 P Pacheco, Duarte, 265–266 Pacheco, Eduardo Hernández, 72, 75, 269, 310 Paço, Afonso do, 117, 317, 332, 336 Pales, Léon, 238, 332, 336

Paris Colonial Exhibition (1931), 27, 38n31 Paris School of Anthropology, 50, 62, 72, 74, 76, 85n21, 87n50, 177n135 Pascoais, Teixeira de, 38n36, 134 Paulo, Leopoldina Ferreira, 72, 88n63, 89n64, 315, 319, 332 Pearson, Karl, 98, 251n31 Pedroso, Consiglieri, 52, 223, 302 Peixoto, Afrânio, 254n89, 255n103, 264, 310 Peres, Damião, 24–25, 33, 130, 133, 142– 144, 172n78, 172n79, 263 Pereira, Benjamim Enes, 223, 319, 326 Pereira, Judite dos Santos, 239 Permanent Cartography Committee for the African Territories, 27 Perthes, Jacques Boucher de, 111–112, 168n34, 337 Péry, Gérard, 193 Phosphorism, 19 photography, 99, 181, 233, 255n105 physical robustness coefficients, 99, 197, 219, 247 Piacentini, Marcello, 266 pigmentation, 141, 147, 149, 196 skin colour, 63, 85n8, 141, 147, 150, 153, 169n36, 217, 219, 232, 239, 255n97 chromatic tables/scales, 147, 196 Pina, Luís de, 26, 41n67, 181, 315, 331 Pinheiro, Alfredo Xavier, 64 Pinto, Álvaro, 38n36 Pinto, Roquette, 226, 254n90 Pinto, Rui Correia de Serpa, 36, 71, 88n60, 89n69, 90n82, 117, 120, 170n59, 206, 265, 302 Pithecanthropus, 46, 78 Pleistocene, 112, 118–119 polygenism, 95, 100 population policy, 195, 200, 233, 282 Porto Youth Detention Centre (Tutoria), 23, 26, 166, 192–193 Portuguese‒Brazilian relationship, 272–273 Portuguese Ethnographic Museum, 53, 58–59, 61 Portuguese Ethnologic Museum, 53, 59, 96, 136

376 • Index

Portuguese First Republic, 26, 58, 172n73, 207, 224 Portuguese India (Goa [67, 243–244, 330n22], Daman and Diu), 244 Portuguese Institute of Archaeology, History and Ethnology, 40n65 Portuguese Society of Eugenic Studies, 72, 177, 203–204, 251n33 Portuguese Youth (Mocidade Portuguesa), 32, 40n55, 260 positivism, 43, 47–49, 118, 138 pre-Roman Lusitania, 14, 131 Prichard, James Cowles, 174n97 primatology, 62, 106, 108–109, 168n32, 306, 312, 327 Proença, Raul, 38n36, 255n103 psychiatry, 23, 28, 48, 84n5, 92, 187, 250n13 Q Quatrefages, Armand de, 50, 87n41, 93, 101, 118, 139 Quental, Antero de, 53, 128 Quételet, Lambert Adolphe Jacques, 50, 98, 279, 299n35 R race eye and hair colour, 99, 255n97 racial purity, 144, 155 raciology, 14, 145, 151, 153 racism, 14, 126, 145, 151, 156, 172n76, 173n92, 246, 308 Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred, 44, 61 Rank, Otto, 188 Ratzel, Friedrich, 158, 174n95, 176n131, 282 Reclus, Élisée, 143 Refúgio, 192, 250n21 Regnault, 152 Reinach, Salomon, 67, 73–74, 89n69, 122–123, 159, 171n65, 171n66 religion Catholicism, 104–106, 173n84, 176, 199, 201, 205, 217, 242, 244, 251n32, 252, 283, 285, 288, 299n41 Concordat, 240, 256n112 Islam, 242

Missionary Statute, 284 Protestantism, 173n84 Quran, 285, 299n43 Relvas, José, 19, 170n61 Remédios, Joaquim Mendes dos, 53 Renan, Ernest, 126, 127 Republicanism, 48–49 Retzius, Andrés, 95, 167n10 Reynold, Gonzague de, 204, 252n41, 252n42 Ribeiro, Leonel, 122 Ribeiro, Orlando, 52, 58, 71, 88n63, 321, 332 Richert, Gertrud, 264 Ridgeway, William, 141, 210 Rivers, William H.R., 159, 213 Rocha Peixoto, António Augusto da, 51–52, 60, 64–68, 83, 87n42, 87n47, 95, 134, 213, 223, 318 Roche, Jean, 40n60, 137, 316, 328, 329n12 Rodenwaldt, Ernst, 225 Rodrigues, Nina, 91n92, 177n150 Romanticism, 43, 47, 51–52, 84, 84n3 Romero, Sílvio, 226, 321, 337 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 30, 32 S Saint-Hilaire, Étienne Geoffroy, 95, 102, 168n23 Sáinz, Luis de Hoyos, 321, 332, 337 Salazar, Abel de Lima, 70–71 Salazar, António de Oliveira, 21, 172n73, 209, 251n40, 252n51 Saldaña, Quintiliano, 73, 187, 210, 250n18, 310, 337 Sampaio, Alberto, 51, 53, 265 Santa-Olalla, Júlio Martinez de, 239, 337 Santa-Rita, Gonçalo de, 254n93 Santos Júnior, Joaquim Rodrigues dos, 36, 68, 72, 80–82, 120, 163, 171n64, 215, 218, 222, 253n72, 253n73, 287, 302– 303, 315, 318–319, 321, 326, 329n7, 330n15, 331–332 Santos Júnior, Norberto, 217, 253n66 Santos Rocha, António dos, 65, 95 São Tomé and Príncipe, 232, 304

Index • 377

Sarmento, Francisco Martins, 65, 95, 113, 129, 132–133, 167n11, 265, 317 Sarmento, Francisco Morais, 53 Sarmento Rodrigues, Manuel Maria, 32, 39n47, 235, 244, 288 saudade and saudosismo, 134 Schmerling, Philippe-Charles, 111 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 173n84 Schulten, Adolf, 73, 124 science and politics, 295 scientific nationalism, 307 Second World War, 55, 109, 151, 199, 227, 243, 262, 278, 311, 320, 329n14 Seiffert, Walter, 152 Seligman, G.C., 235 Sergi, Giuseppe, 73, 170n58, 321, 332, 337 Sergi, Sergio, 73, 76, 321, 337 Sérgio, António, 37n36, 134, 172n78 Serra, José Antunes, 63 Serrão, Eduardo da Cunha, 316, 320, 333 Severo, Ricardo, 60, 64–67, 83, 87n42, 88n63, 89n69, 95, 213, 303, 328n2, 328n6, 331 Shelter for Children (Abrigo dos Pequeninos), 260–261 Sinval, Câmara, 201–202 slang, 193 Sobral Cid, José de Matos, 196, 204, 250n13, 251 social anthropology, 43, 57, 82, 85n14, 104, 222, 234–235, 252n49, 255n102, 309, 327 social and cultural anthropology, 44, 54, 64, 66, 79–80, 312, 327 social regeneration, 26, 64, 192, 259, 270, 276 demography, 39, 63, 134, 162, 228, 276, 289–290, 296 food (nutrition), 80, 200, 252n44, 257, 259–260, 277–278, 290, 296, 311 housing, 161, 166, 255n100, 258–262, 265–266, 276, 278, 296–297, 314 Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 66, 95 Solano, Rodrigo, 29 Sömmerring, Samuel Thomas von, 44 SPAE, 68-84 Spaniards, 128, 144–145, 155, 175n105, 245, 330n25

Spencer, Herbert, 138, 168n25, 269 Spengler, Oswald, 278 statistical methods, 98 Strabo, 124 T tabancas, 239, 241 Tamagnini, Eusébio, 7, 34, 62–63, 70, 74, 86n36, 141–142, 196, 203, 225, 248, 251n33, 251n35, 254n89, 310 tattoos, 33, 61, 66, 119, 181, 193, 218, 238, 240 Tavares, Abel Sampaio, 81 Teixeira, Carlos, 88n63, 316, 328n6, 329n11, 330n14, 331–333 Teles, Basílio, 64–65 Teles, Francisco Silva, 142–143, 269 Thrunwald, Richard, 318 Timor, 29, 63, 87n45, 96, 125, 162, 210–212, 214–216, 220–222, 228, 230, 233, 243, 253n76, 256n116, 282, 288, 290, 300n45, 306, 328n3 Centre for Studies in Timor, 288 Topinard, Paul, 50, 63, 67, 86n32, 87n45, 93, 96, 120, 139, 166n3, 174n99, 190, 210 totem, totemism, 119, 170n54, 240 transformism, 100–105, 189, 252n41 Tutoria, 192–193, 250n21 Tylor, Edward Burnett, 3, 50, 138, 154 U Ulrich, Rui Enes, 32, 86n34, 323 V Valadares, Manuel, 70 Vallaux, Camille, 269, 282, 338 Vallois, Henri, 33, 116–117 van Gennep, Arnold, 136 Vasconcelos, Carolina Michaëlis de, 51, 89n64, 134, 318 Vasconcelos, Joaquim de, 22, 51, 53, 318 Vasconcelos, José Leite de, 29, 33, 39n46, 51–52, 58–61, 64–66, 70–71, 85n18, 85n22, 88n59, 95, 125, 129–130, 132–133, 136, 167n11, 171n65, 172n71, 223, 265, 302, 317–318, 326, 330n21, 331

378 • Index

Veiga, Estácio da, 95, 114, 120, 122 Verneau, René, 72, 74, 87, 119, 210 Viana, Abel, 316–317, 330n25, 332 Vicente, Eduardo Prescott, 316 Viegas, Luís Bastos de Freitas, 26, 68, 70–71, 77, 81, 88n59, 88n61, 89n69, 90n89, 180–181 Vilhena, Henrique de, 39n53, 60, 88n57, 251n37 Virchow, Rudolf, 87n45, 169n39 Völkerkunde, 44, 54, 84n1 Volkskunde, 44, 54 Vries, Hugo de, 103

W Wallace, Alfred Russel, 103, 221 Woltmann, Ludwig, 139 Washburn, Sherwood L., 109, 312 Weissmann, 103 Z Zbyszewski, Georges, 316–317, 330n14, 338 Zeller, Maria van, 273 Zimbabwe, 162, 206, 287, 300n44