People in Motion: - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

People in Motion:
Introduction to
Transnational Movements
and Transwar Connections
in the Anthropological
and Genetic Study of
Human Populations

Iris Clever
Institute on the Formation of
知识, 芝加哥大学

Jaehwan Hyun
Institute of General Education,
Pusan National University

Elise K. Burton
Institute for the History and
Philosophy of Science and Technology,
多伦多大学

The essays in this special issue shed new light on the transnational move-
ment and exchange of researchers, 数据, 理论, and scientiﬁc objects in
the anthropological and genetic study of human populations in the twen-
tieth century. Historians have long stressed how the study of race and
human populations in this period served to create a national identity for
emerging nation states. 最近, historical narratives of anthropology
and human genetics have emphasized the global scale of research networks
in these sciences. This issue explores the speciﬁc routes, 交叉口, 和
interactions between national and international contexts prompted by
the study of races and populations. The essays reveal not only how trans-
national scientiﬁc practices were strongly connected to national aspirations
and projects, but also how unequal social and geopolitical power relations

科学观点 2022, 卷. 30, 不. 1
© 2022 由麻省理工学院

https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_e_00400

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

enabled and obstructed the transnational movement of both people and
scientiﬁc knowledge.

While we frequently invoke the global, the transnational, and the interna-
tional together in this issue, we distinguish between these concepts following
the general outline described by Sebastian Conrad (2016, PP. 44–8). 在这个
框架, “international” refers more speciﬁcally to phenomena akin to
international relations, IE。, diplomacy between countries, including formal
multilateral scientiﬁc cooperation as well as professional organizations and
conferences in which scientists frequently behaved as representatives of
national scientiﬁc communities. 相比之下, the “global” is a contested
moving target for historians, but generally applies to forms of connected his-
tory that trace, 例如, the exchange of commodities, ideas, or practices
across long distances and different kinds of political entities, 包括
empires and colonies as well as nation-states (see Poskett 2019). 在这个问题上,
we foreground “transnational” as a ﬂexible term that incorporates internation-
救世主 (in the shape of international scientiﬁc organizations and conferences)
while also enabling us to highlight particular features of scientiﬁc studies of
human populations in the twentieth century. Engagement in such studies was
never “limited to state actors and not bound by state borders,” and in fact
required the movement of people, 数据, and equipment across nation-state
边界; yet at the same time, these studies served to reinforce identity
claims made by the nation-state (康拉德 2016, p. 45).

Transnationalism in anthropology and genetics raised fundamental dis-
putes over disciplinary authority as well as the representation and indepen-
dence of national scientiﬁc communities. The special issue highlights the
manifold circumstances shaping transnational exchanges and stresses the
deeply interdisciplinary nature of the study of human populations by
reﬂecting on the practices of physical anthropologists, physicians, geneti-
cists, biologists, 生理学家, and state ofﬁcials. The papers examine
how these actors worked to leverage transnational entanglements to their
advantage in a range of debates involving racial identity, 殖民化,
national sovereignty, and scientiﬁc internationalism. A particular strength
of the special issue is its geographical breadth, revealing the shared concerns
of scientists from Portugal and Greece to India and Japan in projecting their
authority at home and abroad, and comparing the distinctive strategies and
gestures they developed to navigate both national and international pres-
确定. 而且, the unstable and contested nature of transnational collab-
orations between North America and Western Europe with Asia and the
Eastern Mediterranean often provoked controversy and conﬂict, requiring
personal negotiations and professional adaptations. The papers integrate
archival research and oral histories to assess these historical collaborations
and conﬂicts.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

1. Historiographical Interventions
This issue aims to join in conversation important new developments in two
historical subﬁelds: transnational histories of modern science, and histories
of racial science bridging physical anthropology and human genetics. 我们
draw inspiration from two recent edited volumes: How Knowledge Moves:
Writing the Transnational History of Science and Technology (Krige 2019)
and National Races: Transnational Power Struggles in the Sciences and Politics
of Human Diversity, 1840–1945 (麦克马洪 2019). We link the innova-
tions of these two volumes together through an expanded timescale that
emphasizes the continuity of scientiﬁc networks and practices before,
期间, and after the Second World War, and situating the study of
human classiﬁcation, evolution, and heredity at the center of the broader
question of how knowledge moves. Our reasoning for the latter is based on
a commitment to recognizing human knowledge as always mediated
through human bodies, and that knowledge in motion reﬂects people(s)
in motion.1 By focusing on anthropology and human genetics, we analyze this
notion of moving embodied knowledge on two fronts: the human as a knower
and as the thing to be known. We also adapt Nikolai Krementsov’s observa-
tions about interwar genetics to argue that the inherent relationality of data
used by physical anthropology and human heredity studies meant that
the “very subject of these disciplines transcends national borders and
[……] required continuous cooperation and constant exchange of data
among scientists from different countries” (Krementsov 2005, p. 8).

同时, these sciences have a uniquely close relationship to
discriminatory processes of imperialism, colonialism, and nation-building.
An abundant literature traces how craniometry, 人体测量学, serological
遗传学, and other scientiﬁc methodologies (including racialized medi-
cine) have been deployed in the service of European imperialism and white
settler colonial domination.2 McMahon and the contributors to National
Races emphasize that the transnational networks and classiﬁcation practices
of racial anthropology were key elements not only for establishing white
supremacy in overseas colonies, but also for the historical development of
nationalisms and racial hierarchies within Europe prior to World War II
(麦克马洪 2019, PP. 18–20).3 同时地, another strong thread of
scholarship analyzes transnational networks of postwar human geneticists,
whose approaches to studying human populations shared many practical

For an incisive critique of science studies frameworks that grant equal weight to
humans and non-humans as actors in knowledge circulation, see Mukharji 2020, p. 530.
2. To cite only a few examples: Sysling 2016; Widmer and Lipphardt 2016; Effros

2017; 安德森 2006, 2020; Mak 2020; 赛斯 2018; Mukharji 2014.

See also Mattson 2014.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

continuities with prewar anthropology.4 This special issue synthesizes
these trends with contributions tracing not only transnational networks
within Europe (the primary focus in National Races), but also transregional
and transimperial circuits to Asia and North America. We therefore locate
this issue among new works demonstrating that anticolonial nationalists
beyond Europe not only embraced racial anthropology and genetics for
their own political ends, but also shaped international understandings of
racial difference and evolution ( Wade et al. 2014; Suárez-Díaz 2017;
Hyun 2019; Burton 2021). 的确, several of the papers in this issue dem-
onstrate that distinct scientiﬁc “modes of racialization” initiated under
imperial and colonial governance intensiﬁed under nationalist rule, 相当
than fading away (see Anderson and Roque 2018).

此外, we aim to challenge (as others have) the lingering ten-
dency in transnational histories of science to treat separately the interwar
period and the Cold War period, casting the Second World War as a water-
shed moment of equal importance both for scientiﬁc networks and prac-
tices and for global geopolitics. 相比之下, the contributions in this issue
that focus predominantly on the interwar and wartime periods in Norway,
希腊, and the North Atlantic highlight unresolved issues about genetic
expertise and credibility, anthropometric standardization, and the national
belonging of refugees that continued well into the postwar era. 意思是-
尽管, the papers focusing on the postwar period in Japan, 印度, 和
the Portuguese empire likewise show the enduring postwar prominence
of anthropologists trained in the interwar period, demonstrating the need
for more “transwar” histories of science as modeled by Miriam Kingsberg
Kadia (2019). Although many politicians’ and bureaucrats’ careers may
have ended in 1945, the same was not generally true for anthropologists
and geneticists, regardless of their wartime political afﬁliations.

We therefore return to the notion of knowledge as embodied in indi-
vidual people, whose career status shifted over time and space, and who
therefore cannot be reduced to nodes and edges in abstract and static
网络. As Krige contends, the transnational movement of scientiﬁc
knowledge is best understood in terms of “social achievements,” in order
to foreground “the contingency and the labor required for scientiﬁc and
technological knowledge and ‘knowledgeable bodies’ … to cross borders”
(Krige 2019, p. 5). Such contingency and labor are never simply a matter
of physical distance to be overcome by technologies of long-distance com-
munication and transportation, but rather a feature of global structural

See especially Bangham and Chadarevian (编辑。) “Heredity and the Study of Human
Populations After 1945” (2014), as well as Reardon 2005; Lipphardt 2010; Radin 2017;
Bangham 2020; Lindee and Santos 2012.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

inequalities shaping the possibilities for participation in scientiﬁc research.
因此, Krige notes, we must “imagine networks as lumpy, 三-
dimensional structures made up of hierarchical interpersonal encounters”
(Krige 2019, p. 9). 的确, the encounters experienced by the historical
actors in our contributions were not always cooperative: we witness many
instances in which scientists of particular professional, national, and gen-
der identities confronted disciplinary gatekeeping and bureaucratic red-
tapism by others, who used such tactics to leverage their own situational
力量 (which sometimes reinforced, and sometimes subverted, the geopo-
litical power structures in which these personal encounters took place).
最后, “networks are not rigid struts but dynamic relationships that
evolve over time and that persist only as long as the networked participants
reap some beneﬁt from them” (Krige 2019, p. 9). This understanding of
scientiﬁc networks as transactional and transitory, rather than inevitable
and predictable pathways toward the advancement of knowledge, 亲-
foundly shape our analyses in the papers that follow.

2. Major Themes and Connections
Transnational anthropological collaborations were ostensibly about recon-
structing a universal shared history of human evolution, but ultimately
magniﬁed human differences especially at the national level. These differ-
ences implicated not only the physical features of human bodies, 但是也
the scientiﬁc techniques and apparatus used to measure them. 国际的
efforts to standardize anthropological measurement procedures sought to
rectify local idiosyncrasies of practice, considering the incomparability of
data to undermine the legitimacy of anthropometric research. Iris Clever’s
work on British biometrician Miriam Tildesley uncovers how nationalist
and sexist sentiments thwarted attempts to universalize measurement prac-
tices in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century. Even though many scientists
supported the standardization of anthropometric data, they nevertheless
defended their localized research practices from outside inﬂuences, 这样的
as the international standardization committee headed by Tildesley. 然而,
as Clever reveals, the lack of standardization ultimately did not hinder
the production and comparison of anthropometric data.

The reluctance of national scientiﬁc communities to signiﬁcantly
change their own practices to conform to an international standard brings
into focus the powerful role of anthropological sciences in (关于)building
national identities in the twentieth century. Anthropological research
deﬁned the racial status not only of a nation’s population(s), but also that
of its colonial subjects or others excluded from national belonging. Ageliki
Lefkaditou shows how Greek anthropologist John Koumaris used racial
blood group studies to integrate refugees from Asia Minor displaced by

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) into the Greek nation. Motivated
by domestic nationalist ambitions, Koumaris turned to the emerging
international science of racial serology to demonstrate that mainland Greek
people and the Mikrasiates together constituted a homogeneous Greek race.
Lefkaditou further shows how Koumaris positioned himself as the central
authority on serology in Greece and legitimized his scientiﬁc claims through
membership in foreign organizations as well as through transnational
exchanges of instruments, 数据, and publications.

These kinds of transnational engagements and collaborations bolstered
anthropologists’ political legitimacy within the nation; 然而, they did
not guarantee domestic scientiﬁc authority. Jon Røyne Kyllingstad’s paper
explores competing claims to scientiﬁc authority in interwar Norway. Jon
Alfred Mjøen, a respected ﬁgure in the international eugenics movement,
found his overseas stature dismissed at home, where Norwegian geneticists
of international repute dismissed his racial views as “pseudoscientiﬁc” and
obstructed him from becoming a credible voice in scientiﬁc debates about
heredity and eugenics within Norway. In response to Mjøen’s international
活动, his opponents founded the Norwegian Association for Heredity
研究, which became the central scientiﬁc venue for Norwegian discus-
sions about heredity. 然而, the Association never assumed the role of
interlocutor between the international eugenics movement and interwar
Norwegian heredity research.

In the second half of the twentieth century, as imperial states confronted
pressures to accede to the self-determination of anticolonial nationalist
movements, anthropologists trained in imperial contexts solidiﬁed their
own nationalist commitments while clinging onto former colonial net-
works and territories. Ricardo Roque’s paper explores how Portuguese
racial anthropologists navigated international access to the colonial ﬁeld
sites that were foundational to their own research community. 尽管
denying foreign scientists access to these spaces, Portuguese scholars also
increasingly became internationalist in their scientiﬁc activities, building
connections with foreign scientists and international scientiﬁc organiza-
系统蒸发散. Roque conceptualizes this tension as “transnational isolationism,”
or the desire and practice to “become transnational in their outlooks with-
out giving the imperial nation away.”

同时, transnational scientiﬁc networks of education and
research enabled anticolonial nationalists to play an inﬂuential role in
anthropological research. Thiago Pinto Barbosa’s paper traces the transna-
tional scientiﬁc trajectory of Indian anthropologist Irawati Karvé, 显示
how Karvé applied her race science training in Germany (based on German
colonial skull collections from East Africa and New Guinea) to study human
difference in decolonizing South Asia. Through Karvé, transnational

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

understandings of race were folded into Indian categories of difference, 这样的
as caste, tribe, and religion, and became wrapped up in debates around the
emerging nation-state. This complex entanglement, Pinto Barbosa argues,
helps us better understand both the political and scientiﬁc stakes of the
ongoing racialization and essentialization of human difference, in India
and beyond.

The issue concludes with Jaehwan Hyun’s paper on postwar Japanese
research on “hybrid children” (konketsuji) and miscegenation. Hyun shows
how Japanese anthropologists developed a negative perspective on of racial
mixing, stressing its biological harm in Japanese publications, but down-
played that language when presenting their work in an international con-
text that disavowed such discourse. 的确, they successfully integrated
konketsuji anthropology into the International Biological Program Human
Adaptability (IBP-HA) 部分, which required a “double play” between
maintaining their racial anthropology program at home while at the same
time becoming members of a new international scientiﬁc program. Hyun
emphasizes that the postwar international trend of comparative racial
studies of human growth rates, rather than the ﬁelds of population genetics
or physical anthropology, enabled the continuity of racial research in
日本. This insight prompts our recommendation for further historical
analyses of other branches of human biology—beyond the now well-
trodden paths of medicine, 遗传学, and anthropology—to examine how
racialized studies of human heredity not only survived but thrived after the
Second World War.

Several overarching themes connect the geographically diverse papers in
this issue. As Lindee and Santos (2012) point out, a broader range of
national contexts provides a deeper understanding of the historical devel-
opment of physical anthropology and genetics. The histories of Indian,
Japanese, Greek, Portuguese, and Norwegian scientists brought together
in this collection decenter a narrative that depicts entire countries (例如
美国) as scientiﬁc metropoles upon which “peripheral”
national scientiﬁc communities depended for training, equipment, 和
认出 (麦克马洪 2019). Our papers shift the spotlight to speciﬁc,
sometimes transitory sites that brought together people in motion, 这样的
as anthropological institutions and international conferences, where indi-
vidual social encounters and travel conditions reveal the power dynamics of
knowledge exchange at a ﬁner grain than that of geopolitics. One such site
was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, 和
Eugenics in Berlin, where many Asian anthropologists (including Karvé)
trained under the guidance of Eugen Fischer throughout the ﬁrst half of
二十世纪. Fischer’s Asian students learned to produce anthro-
pological data using the German craniometry system and brought it back

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

to their own countries, where they adapted German methodologies for
domestic anthropological goals. This globally dispersed production of
racial data using German guidelines pushed British biometrician Tildesley
to envision German anthropometry as the basis for international standard-
ization in the interwar period. While German anthropology was ﬁercely
criticized after World War II, German craniometry remained the core
methodology of physical anthropology in India and Japan.

International scientiﬁc congresses were another site where scientists
from research communities big and small solidiﬁed and transformed their
scientiﬁc reputation. 这里, scientists could bolster their domestic scientiﬁc
权威, as the cases of Greek anthropologist Koumaris and Norwegian
eugenicist Mjøen show. By participating in international events, 他们
could claim validation of their research outcomes from scientiﬁcally more
prestigious international colleagues. Yet these international engagements
also required less-privileged scientists to pay for recognition. Through
afﬁliation with the International Biological Program, Japanese anthropol-
ogists aimed to restore conﬁdence that their scientiﬁc capabilities were
worthy of the international research community. Entry into this commu-
本质, 然而, was only possible after they matched their ways of talking
about race to those of their American and European collaborators. 这是
unsurprising that the power dynamics involved in collaborations with
members of more powerful scientiﬁc communities heightened feelings of
professional vulnerability among anthropologists from Japan, Portugal,
and Greece.

Questions of geopolitical power require scrutiny of the variable impacts
of degenerating colonial networks on human heredity studies. Pinto
Barbosa shows that the end of the British Raj allowed Indian anthropolo-
gists like Karvé to take the place of white colonial scientists and pursue
population research for postcolonial nation-building. 然而, Karvé’s
training imprinted the legacies of multiple colonial contexts, 包括
German imperialism in Africa, upon Indian postcolonial anthropology
and its entanglements with racism and nationalist politics. Hyun’s paper
illuminates that the rearrangement of scientiﬁc networks happened con-
currently with post-imperial nation-building in Japan. Due to the collapse
of Japanese empire in 1945, Japanese anthropologists lost their colonial
networks spanning from Manchuria to Micronesia, where they studied
the “hybrid children” of Japanese colonizers and colonized Asians. 新的
connections with American racial anthropologists compelled Japanese
researchers to study postwar “hybrid children” produced by the US
occupation: the children of American G.I. fathers and Japanese mothers.
相比之下, Portuguese anthropologists kept a tight grip on colonial sites
and people and maintained Portugal’s imperial aspirations against the

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

postwar tide of postcolonial movements. Not only did the Portuguese
preserve their access to colonial networks of ﬁeld sites, human remains,
and living people, they also restricted the ability of researchers of other
nationalities to study the scientiﬁcally coveted “primitive” races of people
in East Timor.

These examples show that power relations between scientiﬁcally more-
privileged and less-privileged groups were not ﬁxed but ﬂuctuated in
different contexts. By regulating ﬁeld sites in East Timor and konketsuji
orphans in Japan, Portuguese and Japanese anthropologists strategically
controlled international access to “raw” human materials in exchange for
international recognition that in turn empowered their scientiﬁc authority
at home. The International Federation of Eugenic Organizations may have
determined the research agenda of scientists in various countries but was
only one voice in a broader societal conversation in Norway. 美国人
anthropology appeared as an isolated scientiﬁc outpost in discussions of
international standardization.

The empirical cases examined in this issue also offer opportunities to
further lines of investigation related to gender. The notable prominence
of women in this issue, both as scientists and as research subjects, raises
questions about whether physical anthropology and human genetics
offered more professional opportunities for women than other contempo-
rary scientiﬁc disciplines. 当然, the intimate nature of anthropometric
measurement meant that women were often recruited to measure female
research subjects (see Burton 2021). De Chadarevian (this issue) suggests
that the relatively lower scientiﬁc prestige of genetics and anthropology
during the prewar period enabled more women to enter these ﬁelds. 如何-
曾经, 在许多方面, the women scientists discussed by Clever, Kyllingstad,
and Pinto Barbosa were exceptional in their social circumstances and access
to supportive male mentors, accounting for their high degree of transna-
tional recognition. Many other women who participated in anthropometric
and genetic studies appear only in the acknowledgements of publications
or are known primarily as half of a professional couple (例如
Hirszfelds, discussed by Lefkaditou). Paying attention to the intersectional
identities of these women scientists will provide a deeper understanding
not only of their inﬂuence upon anthropological methods and theories,
but also of the historical development of human population studies across
disciplinary boundaries.

International congresses and central institutions underscore how key
issues and methods were shared across anthropological and genetic com-
社区. While certain countries had a much larger voice in these
transnational engagements than others, their power dynamics were not
unilaterally forced onto smaller scientiﬁc communities. 此外,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

方法, 问题, 理论, and data were transformed during these transna-
tional encounters. Despite the uneven travel of skulls, blood samples, 数据,
图书, 仪器, 和人, in the study of human populations
remained malleable and multifaceted as scientist around the world tried
to detect biological difference between people in a century of great com-
motion and people in motion, when borders between nations and colonies
were drawn and redrawn.

参考
安德森, Warwick. 2006. The Cultivation of Whiteness: 科学, 健康, 和
Racial Destiny in Australia. 达勒姆, NC: 杜克大学出版社.
安德森, Warwick. 2020. “From Racial Types to Aboriginal Clines.”
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 50 (5): 498–524. https://土井
.org/10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.498

安德森, Warwick, and Ricardo Roque. 2018. “介绍: Imagined
Laboratories: Colonial and National Racialisations in Island Southeast
Asia.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 49 (3): 358–371. https://土井
.org/10.1017/S0022463418000309

Bangham, Jenny, and Soraya de Chadarevian, 编辑. 2014. “Heredity and the
Study of Human Populations After 1945.” Special section in Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of
Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47, Part A: 45–190.

Bangham, Jenny. 2020. Blood Relations: Transfusion and the Making of
人类遗传学. 芝加哥: 芝加哥大学出版社. https://doi.org
/10.7208/chicago/9780226740171.001.0001

Burton, Elise K. 2021. Genetic Crossroads: The Middle East and the Science of
Human Heredity. 斯坦福大学, CA: 斯坦福大学出版社. https://doi.org
/10.1515/9781503614574

康拉德, Sebastian. 2016. What Is Global History? 普林斯顿大学: 普林斯顿大学

大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc779r7

Effros, Bonnie. 2017. “Berber Genealogy and the Politics of Prehistoric
Archaeology and Craniology in French Algeria (1860s–1880s).“ 这
British Journal for the History of Science 50 (1): 61–81. https://doi.org
/10.1017/S0007087417000024, 考研: 28202101

Hyun, Jaehwan. 2019. “Blood Purity and Scientiﬁc Independence: Blood
Science and Postcolonial Struggles in Korea, 1926–1975.” Science in
Context 32 (3): 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889719000231,
考研: 31829298

Kadia, Miriam Kingsberg. 2019. Into the Field: Human Scientists of Transwar
日本. 斯坦福大学, CA: 斯坦福大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.1515
/9781503610620

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

Krementsov, Nikolai L. 2005. International Science between the World Wars:
The Case of Genetics. 伦敦: 劳特利奇. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203005668

Krige, 约翰, 编辑. 2019. How Knowledge Moves: Writing the Transnational
History of Science and Technology. Chicago/London: 芝加哥大学
按. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226606040.001.0001
Lindee, 苏珊, and Ricardo Ventura Santos. 2012. “The Biological Anthro-
pology of Living Human Populations: World Histories, National Styles,
and International Networks: An Introduction to Supplement 5.” Current
Anthropology 53 (S5): S3–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/663335

Lipphardt, Veronika. 2010. “The Jewish Community of Rome: An Isolated
Population? Sampling Procedures and Bio-Historical Narratives in
Genetic Analysis in the 1950s.” BioSocieties 5 (3): 306–329. https://土井
.org/10.1057/biosoc.2010.16

Mak, Geertje. 2020. “A Colonial-Scientiﬁc Interface: The Construction, Viewing,
and Circulation of Faces via a 1906 German Racial Atlas.” American
Anthropologist 122 (2): 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13386
Mattson, Greggor. 2014. “Nation-State Science: Lappology and Sweden’s
Ethnoracial Purity.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 56 (02):
320–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417514000061

麦克马洪, 理查德, 编辑. 2019. National Races: Transnational Power Struggles
in the Sciences and Politics of Human Diversity, 1840–1945. Lincoln: 大学-
versity of Nebraska Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf4cz

Mukharji, Projit Bihari. 2014. “From Serosocial to Sanguinary Identities:
Caste, Transnational Race Science and the Shifting Metonymies of
Blood Group B, India c. 1918–1960.” Indian Economic & Social History
审查 51 (2): 143–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019464614525711
Mukharji, Projit Bihari. 2020. “Bloodworlds: A Hematology of the 1952
Indo-Australian Genetical Survey of the Chenchus.” Historical Studies in
the Natural Sciences 50 (5): 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2020
.50.5.525

Poskett, James. 2019. Materials of the Mind: Phrenology, 种族, and the Global
History of Science, 1815–1920. 芝加哥: 芝加哥大学出版社.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226626895.001.0001

Radin, Joanna. 2017. Life on Ice: A History of New Uses for Cold Blood.
芝加哥: 芝加哥大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.7208/芝加哥
/9780226448244.001.0001

Reardon, Jenny. 2005. Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an Age of

Genomics. 普林斯顿大学: 普林斯顿大学出版社.

赛斯, Suman. 2018. Difference and Disease: 药品, Race and the Eighteenth-
Century British Empire. 纽约: 剑桥大学出版社. https://
doi.org/10.1017/9781108289726

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Introduction – People in Motion

Suárez-Díaz, Edna. 2017. “Blood Diseases in the Backyard: Mexican
‘Indígenas’ as a Population of Cognition in the Mid-1960s.” Perspectives
on Science 25 (5): 606–630. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00253
Sysling, Fenneke. 2016. Racial Science and Human Diversity in Colonial
印度尼西亚. 新加坡: National University of Singapore Press. https://
doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv9hj794

Wade, 彼得, Carlos López Beltrán, Eduardo Restrepo, and Ricardo
Ventura Santos, 编辑. 2014. Mestizo Genomics: Race Mixture, 国家, 和
Science in Latin America. 达勒姆, NC: 杜克大学出版社. https://
doi.org/10.1515/9780822376729

Widmer, Alexandra, and Veronika Lipphardt, 编辑. 2016. Health and
Difference: Rendering Human Variation in Colonial Engagements. 纽约:
Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr695k8

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
1
1
1
9
8
7
1
7
8
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
4
0
0
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf