Green 2013 Borders and The Relocation of Europe

AN42CH20-Green ARI 18 September 2013 17:5
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Borders and the Relocation
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma de Madrid / Servicio De Documentacion on 04/18/15. For personal use only.
Click here for quick links to

Annual Reviews content online,
including:
of Europe
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles Sarah Green
• Top downloaded articles
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013.42:345-361. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Our comprehensive search Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland;
email: sarah.green@helsinki.fi
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:345–61 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on Europe, border dynamics, postsocialism, European Union, Balkans,
July 29, 2013
financial crisis
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: The current financial and fiscal crisis within the Eurozone is the latest in a
10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155457
series of events to have occurred in recent decades that have been altering
Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. the meaning, purpose, and form of European borders. These events include
All rights reserved
the multiple border-altering experiments of the European Union (EU), the
end of the Cold War, and the conflicts in former Yugoslavia. Cumulatively,
the position of Europe, as a place and as an idea, has been undergoing con-
siderable relocation as a result. This large-scale political reorganization of
spatial location has led to a shift in focus within European border studies:
The way the ground underneath people’s feet can be shifted turns out to be as
important as the way people themselves move from one place to another, or
the way people form politically inflected identities in relation to territories.
345
FINANCIAL EARTHQUAKES
One central issue affecting Europe and its relative location in the world at the time of this writing
is the financial crisis in the Eurozone. Discussions about what caused the crisis center around who
to blame—countries, institutions, systems, mentalities, “cultures”—and what went wrong with the
previous structural arrangements. Anthropology has both tracked this debate (Hart 2012, Hart
& Ortiz 2008) and contributed to analyses of its causes, including the suggestions that the crisis
is due to the toxic blending of neoliberalism and the postmodern turn (Graeber 2011) as well as
strange combinations of structural and cultural conditions that led to apparently illogical decisions
made at the highest levels of financial institutions (Ho 2009; Ouroussoff 2010; Tett 2009a,b). Hart
also argues that more long-term changes in monetary relations, combined with developments in
communications technologies, have been reshaping social and political relations across the globe
for a long time and that it was only for a relatively short period that currencies supported national
and state boundaries anyway (Hart 2000, 2009; see also Gregory 1997, for another perspective on
the same issue of what happens when states lose control over the value of their currencies).
Hart does not dwell on the border-altering implications of his argument, though he does refer
to it in passing in his discussion of the current euro crisis: “The tragedy of the euro,” he says, “is that
it arrived when money had already broken up into multiple forms and functions. The Europeans
hoped for political union as a result of centralising their currency. The present economic crisis has
shown how mistaken this aspiration was” (Hart 2012, p. 632). In short, Hart argues that changes
in the way money works had already disconnected money from any capacity to help build certain
kinds of political borders even before the euro was introduced.
EUROPEAN BORDER EXPERIMENTS

Other researchers focusing more directly on a rapid succession of transformations in European
political borders in recent years note that since its inception the European Union (EU) itself has
been centrally involved in the subdivision of borders into their “multiple forms and functions”
(Del Sarto 2010, p. 149). Figure 1 illustrates one aspect of this process: The formal and legal
functions of European political and economic borders have been divided, bunched, crosscut, and
distributed in somewhat bewildering combinations over the past three decades.
One can see in Figure 1 that at the time of this writing, the Eurozone has 17 states; of those, 15
are in the Schengen Area (i.e., countries that have no passport controls for crossing state borders
that are internal to the Schengen Area). Twelve other states are also in the Schengen Area but
are not in the Eurozone. Of these, five states are not even part of the EU: Switzerland, Iceland,
Norway, Monaco, and Liechtenstein. Three members of the EU are neither in the Eurozone nor
in the Schengen Area: Britain, Bulgaria, and Romania. And as always, the status of several states
in relation to the EU is currently under negotiation: for example, Kosovo, Serbia, and Turkey.
Thus this complexity in the EU’s border regime makes it difficult to say where Europe is located,
even in geographical terms. Abélès (2000) argues that the EU’s vision of Europe is that Europe
is a constantly evolving, never completed, project involving continual compromise that leaves the
meaning or value of Europe, as an idea, permanently indistinct. Even before the EU began these
multiple border experiments, Europeans had a reputation for regularly redrawing maps. This refers
not only to the redrawing of the location of borders, but also to mapping techniques, each of which
has a particular logic for defining the world and its internal and external divisions. This notion has
been observed both by researchers of mapping technologies (e.g., Cosgrove 1999, Monmonier
1996, Pickles 2004) and by those more interested in studying the political ideologies that guide
the mapping of parts of Europe (e.g., Jansen 2005, Wilkinson 1951, Wolff 1994). Nugent (2012),
346 Green
Central European
Free Trade Association
The Council
of Europe
ORR
A FORT
FORTIO
FO
VI
VIR
VIRTVS ITA
RTVS VNIT
VNITA
European EU
Union Customs
Union
European Eurozone
Economic
Area
European
Free Trade
Association
Schengen
Area
Agreement
with EU to
mint Euros
Figure 1
EU multiple border dynamics (from The Emirr). Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg
in fact, suggests that “Europe is the continent where international boundaries have had the most
tortured history” (p. 563). I too have argued that trying to establish any fixed location or meaning
of “Europe” is unlikely to produce a coherent answer (Green 2012a, pp. 286–87).
Part of the tortured history to which Nugent refers involves the colonial activities of many
European states, traces of which are still visible in contemporary maps of European territories. The
Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, Réunion in the Indian Ocean, Martinique, and
French Guiana are all currently part of the EU owing to their associations with Portugal, Spain,
and France; and several British, French, and Dutch territories have some level of rights in, or
associations with, the EU. Although Abélès (2000) suggests that people working in the European
Commission ignore history, behaving as if they are “driving without a rear-view mirror” (p. 32),
the maps of EU territories are nevertheless scribbled with the traces of these histories, visibly
challenging that distaste for looking back.
Wikipedia provides a fascinating, if difficult to decipher, account of the multiple historical traces
in relations among places in a regularly updated summary of ten different levels of being “in” and
www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 347

“out” of the EU and names all the countries and territories that have some association with the
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_
Union#Summary). This table graphically demonstrates that the question of where the borders of
Europe may be located is not a simple matter of locating the boundaries, the edges, of somewhere;
rather, it requires an understanding of both past and current relations among places (which could
be called “relative location”); an understanding of the classification system used to establish what
is to be included and excluded; and an understanding of the regional practices that either reinforce
or challenge the EU’s formal intended relationships among its various bits and parts.
EUROPEAN BORDER STUDIES

These complex European border dynamics have attracted the attention of scholars from many
disciplines; anthropologists are rarely alone in the European region. To name just a few, one can
find studies of border communities and explorations of the concept of European borders from
within cultural studies (e.g., Armbruster et al. 2003, Eder 2006, Robinson 2007) and from sociology
(e.g., Buckel & Wissel 2010; Delanty & Rumford 2005, Rumford 2006a, O’Dowd 2002); studies of
border dynamics from within human geography (e.g., Lunden 2006, Scott & van Houtum 2009);
and commentaries from philosophers about the shifting meaning of borders (e.g., Balibar 1998).
Anthropology has contributed its share, focusing mostly on ethnographic studies of border regions
and people living with border conflicts (e.g., Bray 2005, Donnan & Wilson 2003, Myrivili 2004,
Wilson & Donnan 2005). This work has played an important part in the development of border
studies within anthropology in recent years, considerably extending the pioneering work done
in the regions surrounding the US–Mexico border (Alvarez 1995, Anzaldúa 1987). Whereas the
US–Mexican borderlands studies focused particularly on migration and other forms of crossing
the border, Donnan & Wilson (1994) led the field in studying issues such as nationalism and other
elements of state involvement in the establishment of identities. What has significantly changed in
more recent years is an additional focus on the borders themselves as borders. More specifically,
this discussion has involved an interest in the diverse ways political borders become involved in
reclassifying the spaces they demarcate and not only in classifying the people.
The more recent shift of focus within studies involving European borders is also reflected in
Alvarez’s position, which changed since he wrote his Annual Review of Anthropology piece in 1995
about the US–Mexican border and the making of “borderland studies” in anthropology (Alvarez
1995). In 1995, Alvarez argued that borders are sites where cultural differences meet and where
political assertions of the cultural homogeneity of each side are inevitably challenged. Around
borders, Alvarez suggested, “We need to examine paradox, conflict, contradiction, and contrasts”
(p. 462). Borderlands provided an opportunity to take a poke at the idea of cultures as somehow
fixed, self-contained, and self-referential entities. Borderlands, and especially the migrants who
pass through them, demonstrated the flaws in this idea. Alvarez’s article implied that all political
borders are inherently challenging in this way, simply by being places where differences that are
normally kept separate actually meet and are crossed.
By 1999, Alvarez had concluded that the US–Mexican border could no longer be used as a
template for border studies across the world because of the rapidly changing, and highly diverse,
conditions existing in border regions elsewhere, particularly in Europe and South Africa (p. 225).
By 2012, he suggested that an understanding of what constitutes a border in the first place needs
more careful attention. He pointed to the relative neglect of maritime borders within border studies
(possibly as a result of the earlier focus on the US–Mexican border, which is a land border) and
again noted that the diversity of borders around the world and the rapidity with which borders have
changed demands more of a focus on the meaning of borders as such (p. 550). I have suggested
348 Green
much the same thing (Green 2010). And outside anthropology, Balibar (1998) made a similar
suggestion: “We are living in a conjuncture of the vacillation of borders . . . that is at the same time
a vacillation of the very notion of border, which has become particularly equivocal” (p. 216).
Two elements are noted here. First, changes in borders not only alter people’s relations with
a place, but also redefine the actual places that borders mark, draw together, and separate. And
second, researchers on borders have been increasingly interested in the historical variability of
the form and purpose of borders. Thus the focus has shifted more to how places, locations, and
spatial relations are being reclassified as border regimes change; in a sense, research has turned
more toward shifts in the ground underneath everyone’s feet.
This is a significant intellectual development. Until recently, border studies research focused
strongly on the relationship between borders and people’s identities. This work studied either the
effects of people moving across borders or the way state borders often carried a powerful ideological
load that identified the people included and excluded by those borders. There has been a wealth
of literature on these topics. Examples include work discussing questions of nationalism (e.g.,
Assmuth 2003, Brown 2003, Donnan & Wilson 1999, Galasinska 2006, Nikiforova 2005, Wilson
& Donnan 1998), ethnicity and gender (e.g., Assmuth 2005, Banerjee 2010, Donnan 2005, Hart
1999, Kaiser & Nikiforova 2006, Kisielowska-Lipman 2002, Nitsiakos 2010, Pelkmans 2006,
Rösler & Wendl 1999), and the hybrid and shifting identities of borderland populations (e.g.,
Anzaldúa 1987, Ballinger 2003, Danforth 1995, Douglass 1998, Green 2005, Helms 2008, Zartman
2010). Studies on different forms of crossing have been equally diverse, ranging from studies of
migration (e.g., Douglass 1984, Grillo & Pratt 2002, Jordan & Duvell 2002), to trafficking (e.g.,
Andrijasevic 2007), gendered migration (Anthias & Lazaridis 2000, Antoun 2009), diaspora (e.g.,
Brah 1997), refugees (e.g., Capo 2007, Malkki 1992, Malkki 1995), and racism (e.g., Cole 1997),
among others. In all these studies, the focus has been on forms of engagement between people
and border regimes; the borders themselves, as borders, tended to be left unexamined. This is the
additional issue that has been explored more recently, particularly by those working on European
border dynamics (e.g., Bechev & Nicolaidis 2010, Green 2012b, van Houtum et al. 2005). The
sense that changes in border regimes also involve reclassifying the spaces that they demarcate
recasts borders as knowledge practices. Borrowing a concept from Mackenzie (2006), this implies
that borders could be both an engine (creating the places that they mark) and a camera (reflecting
the character of those places). In either case, exploring how this works in practice, and especially
the study of changes in border regimes across time, allows researchers to analyze the ongoing,
power-inflected remaking of the spatial worlds (including the relations and separations between
its bits and parts) in which people, animals, and things live, move, and interact.
HISTORIES OF BORDER ALTERING

Although this widespread shift toward a focus on how borders contribute toward the remaking of
spatial location is recent, one can find some earlier precedents for this approach. Two in particular
are worth mentioning: Sahlins’s (1989) historical and ethnographic study of the French-Spanish
border in the Pyrenees (Sahlins 1989); and Cole & Wolf ’s (1999 [1973]) classic ethnographic and
historical text on South Tyrol, another remote mountainous region, this time in the Alpine valley
in northern Italy. In both cases, the authors focused on what was driving the active division between
one place and another, taking into account the interplay between social, political, historical, and
ecological factors. Sahlins (1989) argued, quite radically at the time, that the people living in the
peripheries, the borderlanders, themselves developed the nationalism that gave the border in the
Pyrenees its particular moral and political flavor [see also Sahlins (1998); and see Douglass (1998)
in the same volume for a suggestion that the same dynamic did not hold across the whole of the

Pyrenees]. And Cole & Wolf (1999 [1973]), in one of the founding texts that established border
studies in Europe, argued that the historical traces of the relations and divisions between German
and Italian political regimes in the past could still be discerned in the social, political, and even
farming practices of the people of two neighboring towns located in the South Tyrol area of Italy:
the German-speaking town of St. Felix and the Italian-speaking town of Tret.
By focusing so strongly on shifting historical and political conditions and combining them with
social and ecological conditions, these two studies echo elements in recent research that focuses
more directly on the way borders are made, remade, and unmade. Although they still centrally
focused on identity as the key reason to be interested in borders, these authors’ work was prescient
of more recent developments. Both argued, as Donnan & Wilson did after them, that the wider
political context and people’s social identities were historically changing and mutually constitutive;
but their focus on shifts in borders and ecology led them to also include a reclassification of place
as part of their analysis.
BORDERS AS TECHNIQUE
Once attention turned toward borders themselves, some researchers rapidly began to redefine
borders as an ongoing project, an activity, and a process, rather than as an entity or object.
Borders regarded as objects, whether symbolic or material, are imagined as having thing-like
qualities and are most often understood as mental or physical barriers or bridges. The borders-as-
process approach argues instead that borders are, in effect, a technique: bordering, or the process
of classifying and ordering space and relations between here and elsewhere in the world (van
Houtum et al. 2005). Ethnographic studies taking that kind of approach regularly include rich
historical research. Such studies include Ballinger’s work on cross-border relations in the Julian
March area in Istria, a border region between Italy, Croatia, and Slovenia (Ballinger 2003), as
well as Berdahl’s (1999) work, through her study of Kella, a former East German town, on the
reunification of Germany. Berdahl (1999) argues that sometimes borders often feel like “places
of intense and inflexible lucidity” (p. 8), which starkly contrasts with the more frequent argument
that borderlands are places of fluidity, hybridity, and transgression. Berdahl was speaking of a
border that had been tightly controlled, both physically and symbolically, during the period of
the Cold War. Others studying similar borders have noted much the same point: Sometimes
borderlands and the residents who live near them are highly effective in both maintaining and
helping to generate the separations that they mark (e.g., Pelkmans 2006; Donnan 2005, 2010). In
those circumstances, when political conditions change and border controls are suddenly relaxed,
the effect can be shocking, almost as if the landscape has been literally rearranged. This effect has
been noted in Pelkmans’s (2006) work on the Turkish-Georgian border and in my own work on
the Greek-Albanian border (Green 2005). These kinds of studies point to the need to think a little
more carefully about how borders come to take on certain forms and about the resulting effects.
During the 2000s, analysis of borders as process and technique, particularly European borders,
rapidly developed, and this spatial turn drew anthropology’s attention to the work of political
geographers. Examples include the work of Rumford, Paasi, Scott, and Hassner on EU border
experiments (Hassner 2002; Paasi 2011; Rumford 2006a,b, 2007; Scott 2006), as well as work by
van Houtum and others, which considered the hierarchical ordering of space that border regimes
generate from a political geography perspective (Scott & van Houtum 2009, van Houtum 2012,
van Houtum & van Naerssen 2002).
This shift of emphasis toward what counts as “here” and what counts as “somewhere else” has
considerably widened the possible objects and subjects analyzed by border studies anthropologists:
Once scholars regard bordering as a technique that classifies and reclassifies both places and persons
350 Green
and their relations, the next logical step is to extend that thought to other entities, such as financial
instruments. The financial and fiscal crisis in Europe at the time of this writing has, among many
other things, centrally concerned a rearrangement of the relations between regions and places
and between the EU and elsewhere. These rearrangements can be regarded as border techniques,
processes that alter the meaning, value, moral status of, and relations between, here and elsewhere.
The phrase borrows from Mauss’s (1973) essay on “Techniques of the Body,” which outlined the
idea that the shape and form of bodies are molded by socially learned techniques that vary across
space and time.
This change in emphasis can be seen in many other recent ethnographies charting changes
within the European region. These include studies of the way people are strategically selecting to
which part of Europe to “belong” (Assmuth 2005); research on the way both people and places
are variously “emplaced” and “displaced” (Ballinger 2003, 2012; Bray 2011; Jansen & Löfving
2009); studies on the interplay between location and identity in conflicts between peoples (Candea
2006, Demetriou 2007); research on how particular infrastructures and things in the landscape
alter the relations between here and elsewhere (Dalakoglou 2010, Donnan 2005, 2010, Papadakis
2005); and studies of the affective power that spatial rearrangements can generate (Navaro-Yashin
2012). Much of this research describes how the making and defining of borders in the European
region, which now also entail the performative classification of space and spatial relations, are not
something that the authorities who create political borders have ever entirely controlled. Studies
of people living near borders that suddenly change (Berdahl 1999, Borneman 1992, Green 1998,
Pelkmans 2006, Theodosiou 2003) or those who cross them without the correct documentation
(Khosravi 2009, Navaro-Yashin 2003, Navaro-Yashin 2007) and studies of those who use creative
means to generate diverse forms of relations and separations between one place and another
(Cowan 2000, Demetriou 2007, Reeves 2007) all examine the interplay between people’s everyday
lives and the making, marking, and altering of borders in one way or another.
THE RECLASSIFICATION OF EUROPE

This emergent focus on the reclassification of places within border studies has particularly con-
cerned the European region. This process relates not only to the EU’s ongoing bordering ex-
periments and the current financial crisis, but also to the Cold War and its aftermath, especially
the subsequent conflicts in former Yugoslavia, the expansion of the EU into former socialist re-
gions, and the resulting rapid economic changes. Moreover, these border shifts have also been
relocating intellectual debates, including those in anthropology. The end of the Cold War called
into question some of the intellectual and moral compass points on which political and economic
anthropologists previously relied. So whereas many anthropologists began charting the changes
in the landscape brought about by the end of the Cold War (e.g., Burawoy & Verdery 1998, Hann
2002, Verdery 1996a), others began to assess critically the degree to which the Cold War border
had affected what had been visible on each side (e.g., De Soto & Dudwick 2000, Fraser 1997,
Kürti 2000, Kürti & Skalnı́k 2009).
Whereas the disappearance of the Iron Curtain generated a lengthy, and still unfinished, re-
assessment of the vantage point from which Cold War research had been conducted, the sub-
sequent conflicts in former Yugoslavia raised different kinds of questions, this time concerning
long-dormant questions about the Balkan region and its relationship to ideas of Europe. Bakić-
Hayden (1995) famously coined the phrase “nesting orientalisms” to refer to the habit of defining
the country next door as being “more Balkan” than one’s own. Ballinger also noted that the Balkans
appeared to be “somewhere else” to such a degree that it was possible the region did not exist
at all (Ballinger 1999); Todorova carried out a now classic study on the invention of the idea

of the Balkans as a place that was neither the self nor the other, but a bit of both (Todorova
1997); and ethnographers such as Helms looked at the parodies and gendered interplay involved
in reclassifying the difference between here and elsewhere in the Balkan region (Helms 2008).
These relatively recent debates are different from the earlier critiques of orientalism presented
by scholars whose research predated the conflicts in former Yugoslavia (e.g., Abu-Lughod 1989,
Chakrabarty 1992, Herzfeld 1987, Said 1991, Wolf 1982, Wolff 1994). The earlier studies demon-
strated that a strong, ideologically inflected orientalist rhetoric had been generated within Europe
and was used to construct an understanding of Europe as a particular kind of historical, moral,
and philosophical entity that was separate from this imagined Orient. This earlier literature de-
scribed how the internal debate within the Western side of this West-East division resulted in deep
stereotypes for those who were on the other side of the self-other coin. The conflicts in former Yu-
goslavia highlighted the implicit spatial mapping of these ideologically constructed divisions: One
part of the ideological map represented (occidental) Europe, and this region was neatly separated
from the other part, which represented the (oriental) other place (Pickles 2004, pp. 73, 123). The
breakup of former Yugoslavia demonstrated that this assumption was perhaps more the result of
a bordering technique than it was a reflection of clearly identifiable spatial divisions between one
place and another. The importance of this point is not simply that an asserted dichotomy has once
again been shown to be an idea rather than a reflection of a social reality; it also highlights the way
such dichotomies crucially rely on asserted spatial divisions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, researchers
working in former Yugoslavia have focused particular attention on this issue. Jansen & Löfving
(2009) summarize their view of the importance of the spatial element in understanding the changes
occurring in the region: “[R]ather than propagating a free-floating placeless paradigm, we empha-
size the need to critically investigate the unequal, differential and contested processes by which
persons come to be (dis)associated—and (dis)associate themselves—with or from a place” (p. 6).
Overall, then, the key issues that have occupied the attention of anthropologists studying border
dynamics in the European region more recently relate to questions of relocation in the relations
between places, people, ideas, and ideologies, which has included the relocation and reclassification
of places, as well as people. And as implied by the discussion so far, the key areas of this focus
have been the EU’s bordering activities; the implications of postsocialism for the realignment of
the European region’s internal and external relations; and the reemergence of the idea of “the
Balkans” following the end of the Cold War. The final section of this article briefly summarizes
some of the key issues that have arisen in each of these areas.
EUROPEAN UNION
Wilson (2012) recently argued that “the EU represents what is perhaps the greatest experiment in
postnational and supranational polity building in the world today, and the greatest reconfiguration
in political space since the days of the British Empire” (p. 169). This experiment has inevitably
attracted considerable anthropological attention. Some of the most notable areas studied are
research on the ideological and bureaucratic workings of the EU, including analysis of the idea of
Europe underlying these practices (e.g., Bellier & Wilson 2000; Borneman & Fowler 1997; Kohli
2000; McDonald 1996, 2005); the effects of EU policies in practice, including the unintended
consequences, and studies of particular border regions affected by the EU’s various debordering
and rebordering projects (e.g., Andrijasevic 2007, Bacas 2005, Bacas & Kavanagh 2013, Goddard
et al. 1994). In earlier years, particular attention was directed toward the political philosophy
behind ideas such as subsidiarity and “integralism” (Holmes 2000a,b; Shore 1993, 2000). Holmes
and Shore, though from different positions, argued that the EU was being developed by a particular
political elite within the region. Holmes proposed that evidence of the type of elite involved was
352 Green
reflected in the policies of the EU as an institution and in the EU’s promotion of neoliberal forms
of capitalism; and Shore proposed that it involved the ideals of a certain sector of the continental
bourgeoisie. Both authors imply that the attempt to centralize power and remove internal borders
between EU member states involved a relatively unspoken ulterior motive that would benefit some
powerful interests against others—mostly economic interests in the case of Holmes and political
interests in the case of Shore.
In more recent years, more attention has been given to particular aspects of EU bordering
policies, such as the European Neighbourhood Policy (e.g., Del Sarto 2010, Green 2012a, Kølvraa
2012, Liikanen & Virtanen 2006, Smith 2005), maritime border policies (Bacas 2005, Scott 2002),
and regionalism as a policy (Leontidou 2004, Scott 2006, Seguy 1998, Wilson 2012, Wilson &
Donnan 2005). Wilson suggests that the EU’s tendency to promote the concept of European
“regions” as a means to counteract the bordering techniques of individual states has resulted in a
proliferation of new borders rather than a reduction in them (Wilson 2012, p. 174).
It is currently too early to summarize research on the border-altering effects of the financial and
fiscal crisis because the crisis is still ongoing. However, a couple of preliminary points can be made.
The first is to note how quickly much of the media reconfigured the divisions in the European re-
gion from an emphasis on West-East differences (both of the postsocialist and orientalist varieties)
to an emphasis on North-South differences. As Borneman & Fowler (1997), Herzfeld (1987), and
others have noted, both sets of hierarchically ordered divisions have existed for a long time in the
European region. Indeed, these ideologically informed compass points appear to behave fractally
so that what happens at the European level as a whole is often imagined to be replicated at a much
smaller level. Schneider’s (1998) edited collection, Italy’s ‘Southern’ Question: Orientalism in One
Country, is an example of that process: The relationship between northern Europe and southern
Europe is replicated in the relationship between northern Italy and southern Italy. Nevertheless,
whereas rhetoric concerning the East-West axis has dominated in recent decades, the financial
crisis appears to have brought about a switch in orientation toward the North-South axis. Such
labels are of course partially deceiving because this shift in orientation inevitably also involves
a reclassification of the meaning of those relative locations (nothing is ever exactly replicated).
Second, the crisis appears to have accelerated debates about the possibility of political territories
breaking apart. This speculation includes not only the possibility that some current members of
the EU will leave (Greece and Britain, for different reasons, are the two EU member states most
often mentioned in that context), but also the possibility that parts of some states will break apart
(e.g., Scotland and Catalonia breaking away from Britain and Spain respectively). The debate itself
appears to be shifting the relative location of these places in rhetorical terms, irrespective of the
eventual outcome of the debates.
POSTSOCIALIST BORDER WORK

From one vantage point, it seems strange that so few ethnographic studies carried out in the
European region during the period of the Cold War (roughly from 1947 to 1991) paid much
attention to the fact that the region was starkly divided by highly managed borders that separated
socialist Europe from its opponent (and as an aside, the lack of a familiar phrase to collectively
describe the states that were not part of the socialist bloc is worth noting). Again, there were
a couple of notable exceptions. One of them was Borneman’s (1992) study of Berlin as a city
of two sides that was simultaneously a city of two countries. The ethnographic fieldwork was
carried out just before that most iconic of Cold War walls fell, and the book was published after
the wall had been knocked down. In the book, Borneman reproduces the 1988 bus and metro
maps of eastern and western Berlin (S-Bahn and U-Bahn, pp. 26–27). The map produced by the

east highly emphasized the division between the two sides, whereas the map produced by the
west hardly marked the division at all. Borneman spends some time in the book examining the
complexities of the politically inflected spatial geometry of the city.
For the most part, however, ethnographies from the Cold War period do not dwell on the
spatial aspects of the way Europe had been politically divided into two halves. Perhaps the highly
visible and daily performance of the difference between the two sides in terms of border regulation
was so obvious to everyone that it was not worth studying. Certainly, the fact that it was so difficult
to cross many of those borders (with the very notable exception of the Yugoslav border during
the period of Tito) meant that almost all research was literally one-sided. Or perhaps the lack of
interest in borders in themselves during this period led investigators to neglect studying the spatial
effects of border regimes, even where they were obviously dividing the whole European region
and thus shaping what it was literally possible to see of that region. The fact that the more recent
turn toward trying to think about borders in themselves came after the advent of the EU, the end
of the Cold War, and the subsequent war in former Yugoslavia at the very least mildly implies that
the previous border regimes were assumed to be “forever until they were no more,” to borrow an
excellent book title from Yurchak’s (2006) ethnography of the postsocialist transition in Russia: the
Cold War borders were part of the landscape; few expect landscapes to be completely rearranged.
Once the Cold War ended, all of these assumptions began to unravel. The previously strongly
promoted ideals of the difference between West and East began to look like ideologically inflected
rhetoric from both sides of the former divide. Previously, critiques of each side came mostly
from the perspective of the other side; now, accounts from both sides appeared equally partial.
Berdahl and colleagues’ (2000) Altering States as well as Yurchak’s (2006) post-Cold War studies
both amply describe how this earlier blind spot worked. Although the ideological rhetoric of each
side produced accounts of the other side as “the opposite” in moral and ideological terms, in
practice, the rhetoric of both sides had more in common than it had differences. Such research has
highlighted the great lengths to which political regimes on both sides went to make the border
appear to mark opposites rather than variations of the same thing.
Some critics suggested that postsocialist ethnographies being written by authors from the
western side were simply reproducing the now removed border in their interpretations (Kürti
2000), and some responded by generating collections carried out by scholars based on the eastern
side (e.g., Kürti & Skalnı́k 2009). Others began piecing together the heterotopic (Foucault 1986)
qualities of the border regimes that had existed previously: studies of the way the Cold War borders
had, on all sides, generated mirror-like spaces created out of looking at the other side. Both in
detailed descriptions of particular experiences in different areas (Assmuth 2005, Galasinska 2006,
Green 1997, Hann 2002, Nikiforova 2003, Nitsiakos 2010) and in more lengthy analyses of these
issues (Borneman 1997; Humphrey 1998, 2003, 2004; Ssorin-Chaikov 2003; Verdery 1996b), the
research demonstrates a shift toward questioning the previous intellectual, as well as geopolitical,
divisions that had existed in the past.
CONTESTED BORDERS
More recent research particularly around borders that are openly contested or involve the after-
math of conflict attracted the attention of researchers interested in border techniques. Research in
former Yugoslavia focused in particular on the new forms of East-West questions arising out of the
country’s implosion, and some also considered the way many media commentators began to revisit
old assumptions about this part of the world. One example was the, until then, relatively untouched
myth that the Balkan region was a toxic powder keg of mutual ethnic hatreds liable to generate
world wars unless controlled (Todorova 1997). Studies of these questions pointed to the way border
354 Green
dynamics were shot through with ideological assumptions about Europe’s character, often backed
up with political power, that ended up being self-fulfilling prophecies (e.g., Bakić-Hayden & Bakić-
Hayden 1992, Capo 2007, Cowan 2000, Hayden 2000, Helms 2008, Irvine & Gal 2000, Karakasi-
dou 1997). Bringa (1995), in a study of Bosnians, barely disguised her irritation at the way such
assumptions had pervaded academic work: “[A]cademic barriers based on false assumptions about
what ‘Europe’ implies . . . need . . . to be dissolved. The only other alternative is either to define
people like the Bosnian Muslims as not European, or as European, but not really Muslim” (p. 7).
Research elsewhere, most notably in Cyprus (e.g., Dikomitis 2005, Navaro-Yashin 2012,
Papadakis 2005, Papadakis et al. 2006, Sant Cassia 2005), the Irish borderlands (e.g., Donnan
2005, Donnan & Simpson 2007, Feldman 1991), and parts of the former socialist states (e.g.,
Verdery 1999), but also a variety of other contested peripheries such as Corsica (e.g., Candea
2010), has particularly drawn out the complex material and embodied aspects of border dynam-
ics: the way borders can be made and marked and intrude into people’s everyday lives. Here, in
the realm of materiality, the interplay between border identities and people’s identities becomes
especially heterotopic. Verdery’s (1999) study of the reburial of the dead in many parts of former
socialist Europe and Sant Cassia’s (2005) research on the endless search for “the missing” from
the earlier conflicts in Cyprus illustrate the complex relationships among location, place, and em-
bodiment in these border dynamics. The process through which both places and people are often
literally relocated in the making of borders, also noted in studies of enforced movement of peoples
(Hirschon 2003), has highlighted the degree to which the making and marking of borders not only
occur at the edges of places, but also are scattered across both territories and written into bodies.
BORDER REGIMES AND BORDER TECHNIQUES

Finally, the most recent foci in border studies concern research on both formal and informal
border techniques. If border regimes are forms of classificatory systems and knowledge practices
that define the places in which people live and move, then the techniques used to actually build,
maintain, control, and alter borders require some further understanding, and several researchers
have begun to address this need. Research on visas, passports, and other bureaucratic and legal
regulations and processes, new surveillance technologies, and the management of border regimes
has begun to demonstrate the degree to which such techniques work to define and control places
and spatial relations. These studies draw on, but also extend, the pioneering work of Liisa Malkki
(1992) and Hannah Arendt (1958, 1963) before her. Both of these scholars, in different ways,
considered how largely bureaucratic techniques were used by states to control, define, and exclude
displaced people—techniques that also acted to define these people as displaced in the first place.
Social historians such as Caplan, Torpey, and Salter have also been researching how the historical
creation of visas, passports, and citizenship regulations actively defines the relationship between
all people and places, and not only the statuses of those who come to be defined as “misplaced”
or “displaced” (Caplan & Torpey 2001, Salter 2004). Others such as Brown (2010) and Weizman
(2007) have noted, along with the EU scholars discussed earlier, that far from disappearing since
the era of globalization and the Internet, borders and the techniques used to mark, maintain, and
control them have been proliferating. More recent ethnographic studies of these types of regimes
include Jansen’s (2005, 2009) research on passports and statistics, Navaro-Yashin’s (2003, 2007,
2012) work on the ambiguous legal instruments in the Republic of Northern Cyprus, McCall’s
(2012) study of the “deterritorialization” of border regimes in the United Kingdom, Smart &
Smart’s (2012) work on the historical and current controls over the transportation of nonhuman
life across borders, and Dalakoglou’s (2010) work on EU funds used to build new border region
roads in Albania.

Clearly, much more is still to come from this emerging field of research, which is building
on the previous work that questioned the historically variable relationship between the entity
(border) that marks the difference between here and somewhere else and the techniques used to
achieve and maintain that difference. The process through which the idea of Europe as a spatial
entity has undergone several relocations in recent decades has turned out to be an important
element in that development.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my warm thanks to the students of a 2012 University of Helsinki course that covered ma-
terial for this article: Their questions and comments have assisted considerably in the organization
and focus of the text. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their very insightful comments.
Of course, I remain responsible for any errors or omissions.
LITERATURE CITED
Abélès M. 2000. Virtual Europe. See Bellier & Wilson 2000, pp. 31–52
Abu-Lughod JL. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250–1350. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press
Alvarez RR Jr. 1995. The Mexican-US border: the making of an anthropology of borderlands. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 24:447–70
Alvarez RR Jr. 1999. Toward an anthropology of borderlands: the Mexican-U.S. border and the crossing of
the 21st century. See Rösler & Wendl 1999, pp. 225–38
Alvarez RR Jr. 2012. Reconceptualizing the space of the Mexico-US borderline. See Wilson & Donnan 2012,
pp. 538–56
Andrijasevic R. 2007. Problematizing trafficking for the sex sector: a case of Eastern European women in the
EU. In Women and Immigration Law: New Variations on Classical Feminist Themes, ed. S van Walsung, T
Spijkerboer, pp. 86–103. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish
Anthias F, Lazaridis G. 2000. Gender and Migration in Southern Europe: Women on the Move. Oxford, UK: Berg
Antoun RT. 2009. Documenting Transnational Migration: Jordanian Men Working and Studying in Europe, Asia,
and North America. Oxford/New York: Berghahn
Anzaldúa G. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute
Arendt H. 1958. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Meridian
Arendt H. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. London: Faber & Faber
Armbruster H, Rollo C, Meinhof UH. 2003. Imagining Europe: everyday narratives in European border
communities. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 29:885–900
Assmuth L. 2003. Nation building and everyday life in the borderlands between Estonia, Latvia and Russia.
Focaal 41:59–70
Assmuth L. 2005. To which state to belong? Ethnicity and citizenship at Russia’s new EU-borders. See Wilson
& Donnan 2005, pp. 255–88
Bacas JL. 2005. Mechanisms of boundary construction on the Greek-Turkish maritime border. See Wilson
& Donnan 2005, pp. 55–80
Bacas JL, Kavanagh W, eds. 2013. Border Encounters: Asymmetry and Proximity at Europe’s Frontiers. Oxford,
UK: Berghahn
Bakić-Hayden M. 1995. Nesting orientalisms: the case of former Yugoslavia. Slav. Rev. 54:917–31
356 Green
Bakić-Hayden M, Bakić-Hayden RM. 1992. Orientalist variations on the theme “Balkans”: symbolic geography
in recent Yugoslav cultural politics. Slav. Rev. 51:1–15
Balibar E. 1998. The borders of Europe. In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, ed. P Cheah,
B Robbins, pp. 216–29. Minneapolis/London: Univ. Minn. Press
Ballinger P. 1999. Definitional dilemmas: southeastern Europe as “culture area”? Balkanologie 3:73–91
Ballinger P. 2003. History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Princeton, NJ/Woodstock,
UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Ballinger P. 2012. Borders and the rhythms of displacement, emplacement and mobility. See Wilson & Donnan
2012, pp. 389–404
Banerjee P. 2010. Borders, Histories, Existences: Gender and Beyond. Los Angeles/London: SAGE
Bechev D, Nicolaidis K, eds. 2010. Mediterranean Frontiers: Borders, Conflict and Memory in a Transnational
World. London: Tauris Acad. Stud.
Bellier I, Wilson TM, eds. 2000. An Anthropology of the European Union: Building, Imagining and Experiencing
the New Europe. Oxford, UK: Berg
Berdahl D. 1999. Where the World Ended: Re-Unification and Identity in the German Borderland. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Berdahl D, Bunzl M, Lampland M, eds. 2000. Altering States: Ethnographies of Transition in Eastern Europe and
the Former Soviet Union. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Borneman J. 1992. Belonging in the Two Berlins: Kin, State, Nation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Borneman J. 1997. Settling Accounts: Violence, Justice, and Accountability in Postsocialist Europe. Princeton,
NJ/Chichester, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Borneman J, Fowler N. 1997. Europeanization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:487–514
Brah A. 1997. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London/New York: Routledge
Bray Z. 2005. The new frontiers in a borderless Europe: the case of Bidasoa-Txingudi. See Wilson & Donnan
2005, pp. 321–47
Bray Z. 2011. Living Boundaries: Frontiers and Identity in the Basque Country. Reno, NV: Cent. Basque Stud.
Bringa T. 1995. Being Muslim the Bosnian Way: Identity and Community in a Central Bosnian Village. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Brown K. 2003. The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Brown W. 2010. Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. New York: Zone
Buckel S, Wissel J. 2010. State Project Europe: the transformation of the European border regime and the
production of bare life. Int. Polit. Sociol. 4:33–49
Burawoy M, Verdery K, eds. 1998. Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World.
Lanham, MD/Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield
Candea M. 2006. Resisting victimhood in Corsica. Hist. Anthropol. 17:369–84
Candea M. 2010. Corsican Fragments: Difference, Knowledge, and Fieldwork. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
Caplan J, Torpey JC, eds. 2001. Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern
World. Princeton, NJ/Chichester, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Capo Zmegac J. 2007. Strangers Either Way: The Lives of Croatian Refugees in Their New Home. New
York/Oxford, UK: Berghahn
Chakrabarty D. 1992. Provincializing Europe: postcoloniality and the critique of history. Cult. Stud. 6:337–57
Cole J. 1997. The New Racism in Europe: A Sicilian Ethnography. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Cole JW, Wolf ER . 1999 [1973]. The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley. Berkeley/
London: Univ. Calif. Press
Cosgrove DE, ed. 1999. Mappings. London: Reaktion
Cowan JK, ed. 2000. Macedonia: The Politics of Identity and Difference. London: Pluto
Dalakoglou D. 2010. The road: an ethnography of the Albanian-Greek cross-border motorway. Am. Ethnol.
37:132–49
Danforth LM. 1995. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Delanty G, Rumford C. 2005. Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. London:
Routledge

Del Sarto RA. 2010. Borderlands: the Middle East and North Africa as the EU’s southern buffer zone. See
Bechev & Nicolaidis 2010, pp. 149–65
Demetriou O. 2007. To cross or not to cross? Subjectivization and the absent state in Cyprus. J. R. Anthropol.
Inst. 13:987–1006
De Soto HG, Dudwick N. 2000. Fieldwork Dilemmas: Anthropologists in Postsocialist States. Madison/London:
Univ. Wis. Press
Dikomitis L. 2005. Three readings of a border. Anthropol. Today 21:7–12
Donnan H. 2005. Material identities: fixing ethnicity in the Irish borderlands. Identities 12:69–106
Donnan H. 2010. Cold War along the Emerald Curtain: rural boundaries in a contested border zone. Soc.
Anthropol. 18:253–66
Donnan H, Simpson K. 2007. Silence and violence among Northern Ireland border protestants. Ethnos 72:5–28
Donnan H, Wilson TM, eds. 1994. Border Approaches: Anthropological Perspectives on Frontiers. Lanham,
MD/London: Univ. Press Am.
Donnan H, Wilson TM. 1999. Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State. Oxford: Berg
Donnan H, Wilson TM. 2003. Territoriality, anthropology, and the interstitial: subversion and support in
European borderlands. Focaal 41:9–20

Douglass WA. 1984. Emigration in a South Italian Town: An Anthropological History. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Univ. Press
Douglass WA. 1998. A western perspective on an eastern interpretation of where north meets south: Pyrenean
borderland cultures. See Wilson & Donnan 1998, pp. 62–95
Eder K. 2006. Europe’s borders: the narrative construction of the boundaries of Europe. Eur. J. Soc. Theory
9:255–71
Feldman A. 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland.
Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
Foucault M. 1986. Of other spaces. Transl. J Miskowiec. Diacritics 16:22–27
Fraser N. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. New York: Routlege
Galasinska A. 2006. Border ethnography and post-communist discourses of nationality in Poland. Discourse
Soc. 17:609–26
Goddard V, Llobera JR, Shore C, eds. 1994. The Anthropology of Europe: Identity and Boundaries in Conflict.
Oxford, UK/Herndon, VA: Berg
Graeber D. 2011. Debt: The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House
Green S. 1997. Post-communist neighbours: relocating gender in a Greek–Albanian border community. In
Surviving Post-Socialism: Local Strategies and Regional Responses in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet
Union, ed. S Bridger, F Pine, pp. 80–105. London: Routledge
Green S. 1998. Relocating persons and places on the Greek–Albanian border. In Incontri di Etnologia Europea/
European Ethnology Meetings, ed. C Papa, G Pizza, FM Zerelli, pp. 259–81. Perugia, Italy: Ed. Sci. Ital.
Green S. 2010. Performing border in the Aegean: on relocating political, economic and social relations.
J. Cult. Econ. 3:261–78
Green S. 2012a. Replacing Europe. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Anthropology, ed. R Fardon, O Harris,
T Marchand, M Nuttall, C Shore, et al., pp. 286–308. London: Sage
Green S. 2012b. A sense of border. See Wilson & Donnan 2012, pp. 573–92
Green SF. 2005. Notes from the Balkans: Locating Marginality and Ambiguity on the Greek–Albanian Border.
Princeton, NJ/Oxford, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Gregory CA. 1997. Savage Money: The Anthropology and Politics of Commodity Exchange. Amsterdam/London:
Harwood Acad.
Grillo RD, Pratt JC, eds. 2002. The Politics of Recognizing Difference: Multiculturalism Italian-Style. Aldershot,
UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Hann CM, ed. 2002. Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia. London/New York: Routledge
Hart LK. 1999. Culture, civilization, and demarcation at the northwest borders of Greece. Am. Ethnol. 26:196–
220
Hart K. 2000. The Memory Bank: Money in an Unequal World. London: Profile Books
Hart K. 2009. Money in the making of world society. In Market and Society: The Great Transformation Today,
ed. C Hann, K Hart, pp. 91–105. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
358 Green
Hart K. 2012. The financial crisis and the history of money. In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, ed. JG
Carrier, pp. 626–38. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. 2nd Ed.
Hart K, Ortiz H. 2008. Anthropology in the financial crisis. Anthropol. Today 24:1–3
Hassner P. 2002. Fixed borders or moving borderlands? A new type of border for a new type of entity. In
Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union, ed. J Zielonka, pp. 38–50.
London/New York: Routledge
Hayden RM. 2000. Rape and rape avoidance in ethno-national conflicts: sexual violence in liminalized states.
Am. Anthropol. 102:27–41
Helms E. 2008. East and West kiss: gender, orientalism, and Balkanism in Muslim-majority Bosnia–
Herzegovina. Slavic Rev. 67:88–119

Herzfeld M. 1987. Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hirschon R, ed. 2003. Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange Between
Greece and Turkey. New York/Oxford: Berghahn
Ho K. 2009. Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press
Holmes DR. 2000a. Integral Europe: Fast Capitalism, Multiculturalism, Neofascism. Princeton, NJ/Oxford:
Princeton Univ. Press
Holmes DR. 2000b. Surrogate discourses of power: the European Union and the problem of society. See
Bellier & Wilson 2000, pp. 93–118
Humphrey C. 1998. Marx Went Away–But Karl Stayed Behind. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Humphrey C. 2003. Stalin and the blue elephant: paranoia and complicity in post-Communist metahistories.
In Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, ed. HG West, T Sanders,
pp. 175–203. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press
Humphrey C. 2004. Cosmopolitanism and kosmopolitizm in the political life of Soviet citizens. Focaal 2004:138–
54
Irvine JT, Gal S. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies,
Polities, and Identities, ed. PV Kroskrity, pp. 35–83. Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press; Oxford: James
Currey
Jansen S. 2005. National numbers in context: maps and stats in representations of the Post-Yugoslav wars.
Identities: Glob. Stud. Power Cult. 12:45–68
Jansen S. 2009. After the red passport: towards an anthropology of the everyday geopolitics of entrapment in
the EU’s ‘immediate outside.’ J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 15:815–32
Jansen S, Löfving S, eds. 2009. Struggles for Home: Violence, Hope and the Movement of People. New York/Oxford:
Berghahn
Jordan B, Duvell F. 2002. Irregular Migration: The Dilemmas of Transnational Mobility. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar
Kaiser R, Nikiforova E. 2006. Borderland spaces of identification and dis/location: multiscalar narratives and
enactments of Seto identity and place in the Estonian-Russian borderlands. Ethn. Rac. Stud. 29:928–58
Karakasidou AN. 1997. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870–1990.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Khosravi S. 2009. An Ethnography of Migrant ‘Illegality’ in Sweden: Included yet Excepted? Presented at Glob.
Justice, Bord. Migr., Bristol
Kisielowska-Lipman M. 2002. Poland’s eastern borderlands: political transition and the ‘ethnic question’. Reg.
Fed. Stud. 12:133–54
Kohli M. 2000. The battlegrounds of European identity. Eur. Soc. 2:113–38
Kølvraa C. 2012. Imagining Europe as a Global Player. Brussels: Peter Lang
Kürti L. 2000. Uncertain anthropology: ethnography of postsocialist Eastern Europe. A review article. Ethnos
65:405–20
Kürti L, Skalnı́k P, eds. 2009. Postsocialist Europe: Anthropological Perspectives from Home. New York/Oxford:
Berghahn
Leontidou L. 2004. The boundaries of Europe: deconstructing three regional narratives. Identities: Glob. Stud.
Cult. Power 11:593–617
Liikanen I, Virtanen P. 2006. The new neighbourhood: a ‘constitution’ for cross-border cooperation? See
Scott 2006, pp. 113–30

Lundén T, ed. 2006. Crossing the Border: Boundary Relations in a Changing Europe. Eslöv: Förlags ab Gondolin
MacKenzie D. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press
Malkki L. 1992. National geographic: the rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity
among scholars and refugees. Cult. Anthropol. 7:24–44
Malkki LH. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania.
Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press
Mauss M. 1973. Techniques of the body. Econ. Soc. 2:70–88
McCall C. 2012. Debordering and rebordering the United Kingdom. See Wilson & Donnan 2012, pp. 214–29
McDonald M. 1996. ‘Unity in diversity’. Some tensions in the construction of Europe. Soc. Anthropol. 4:47–60
McDonald M. 2005. EU policy and destiny: a challenge for anthropology. Anthropol. Today 21:3–4
Monmonier MS. 1996. How to Lie with Maps. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Myrivili E. 2004. The liquid border: subjectivity at the limits of the nation-state in southeast Europe (Albania, Greece,
Macedonia). PhD thesis. Columbia Univ., New York
Navaro-Yashin Y. 2003. Legal/illegal counterpoints: subjecthood and subjectivity in an unrecognized state.

In Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements, ed. RA
Wilson, JP Mitchell, pp. 70–92. London: Routledge
Navaro-Yashin Y. 2007. Make-believe papers, legal forms, and the counterfeit: affective interactions between
documents and people in Britain and Cyprus. Anthropol. Theory 7:79–98
Navaro-Yashin Y. 2012. The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Postwar Polity. Durham, NC: Duke
Univ. Press
Nikiforova E. 2003. Contested borders and identity revival among Setos and Cossacks in the Russian-Estonian
borderland. Focaal 41:71–82
Nikiforova E. 2005. Narrating ‘national’ at the margins: Seto and Cossack identity in the Russian-Estonian
borderlands. See Wilson & Donnan 2005, pp. 191–228
Nitsiakos V. 2010. On the Border: Transborder Mobility, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries Along the Albanian–Greek
Frontier. Berlin: LIT
Nugent P. 2012. Border towns and cities in comparative perspective. See Wilson & Donnan 2012, pp. 557–72
O’Dowd L. 2002. The changing significance of European borders. Reg. Fed. Stud. 12:13–36
Ouroussoff A. 2010. Wall Street at War: The Secret Struggle for the Global Economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Paasi A. 2011. A border theory: an unattainable dream or a realistic aim for border scholars? See Wastl-Walter
2011, pp. 11–32
Papadakis Y. 2005. Echoes from the Dead Zone: Across the Cyprus Divide. London: I.B. Tauris
Papadakis Y, Peristianis N, Welz G, eds. 2006. Divided Cyprus: Modernity, History, and an Island in Conflict.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. 235 pp.
Pelkmans M. 2006. Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of Georgia. Ithaca,
NY/London, UK: Cornell Univ. Press
Pickles J. 2004. A History of Spaces: Cartographic Reason, Mapping, and the Geo-Coded World. London: Routledge
Reeves M. 2007. Unstable objects: corpses, checkpoints and “chessboard borders” in the Ferghana valley.
Anthropol. East Eur. Rev. (Spec. Issue: The Movement of Goods and Identities Within and Beyond the Former
Socialist World) 25:72–84
Robinson R. 2007. Narratives of the European Border: A History of Nowhere. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan
Rösler M, Wendl T, eds. 1999. Frontiers and Borderlands: Anthropological Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang
Rumford C. 2006a. Rethinking European spaces: territory, borders, governance. Comp. Eur. Polit. 4:127–40
Rumford C. 2006b. Theorizing borders. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 9:155–70
Rumford C. 2007. Does Europe have cosmopolitan borders? Globalizations 4:327–39
Sahlins P. 1989. Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley/Oxford: Univ. Calif.
Press
Sahlins P. 1998. State formation and national identity in the Catalan borderlands during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. See Wilson & Donnan 1998, pp. 31–61
360 Green
Said EW. 1991. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Salter MB. 2004. Passports, mobility, and security: How smart can the border be? Int. Stud. Perspect. 5:71–91
Sant Cassia P. 2005. Bodies of Evidence: Burial, Memory and the Recovery of Missing Persons in Cyprus. New
York/Oxford: Berghahn
Schneider J, ed. 1998. Italy’s ‘Southern’ Question: Orientalism in One Country. Oxford, UK: Berg
Scott J. 2002. Cross-border governance in the Baltic Sea region. Reg. Fed. Stud. 12:135–53
Scott JW, ed. 2006. EU Enlargement, Region Building and Shifting Borders of Inclusion and Exclusion. Aldershot,
UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Scott JW, van Houtum H. 2009. Reflections on EU territoriality and the ‘bordering’ of Europe. Polit. Geogr.
28:271–73
Seguy R. 1998. The Euro-region: an economic space under construction? Hommes Terres Du Nord: 171–74
Shore C. 1993. Inventing the ‘People’s Europe’: critical approaches to European community ‘cultural policy.’
Man 28:779–800
Shore C. 2000. Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London/New York: Routledge
Smart A, Smart J. 2012. Biosecurity, quarantine and life across the border. See Wilson & Donnan 2012,
pp. 354–70
Smith KE. 2005. The outsiders: the European neighbourhood policy. Int. Aff. 81:757–73
Ssorin-Chaikov NV. 2003. The Social Life of the State in the Subarctic Siberia. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press. 261 pp.
Tett G. 2009a. Fool’s Gold: How Unrestrained Greed Corrupted a Dream, Shattered Global Markets and Unleashed
a Catastrophe. London: Little Brown
Tett G. 2009b. Icebergs and ideologies: how information flows fuelled the financial crisis. Anthropol. News
50:6–7
Theodosiou A. 2003. Authentic performances and ambiguous identities: Gypsy musicians on the Greek–Albanian
border. PhD thesis. Univ. Manch.
Todorova MN. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
van Houtum H. 2012. Remapping borders. See Wilson & Donnan 2012, pp. 405–18
van Houtum H, Kramsch OT, Zierhofer W, eds. 2005. B/Ordering space. Aldershot, UK/Burlington, VT:
Ashgate
van Houtum H, van Naerssen T. 2002. Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 93:125–36
Verdery K. 1996a. What Was Socialism, and What Comes Next? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Verdery K. 1996b. What was socialism, and why did it fall? See Verdery 1996a, pp. 19–38
Verdery K. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press
Wastl-Walter D, ed. 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies. Farnham, UK: Ashgate
Weizman E. 2007. Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso
Wilkinson HR. 1951. Maps and Politics: A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool Univ. Press
Wilson T. 2012. The Europe of regions and borderlands. In A Companion to the Anthropology of Europe, ed.
U Kockel, M Nic Craith, J Frykman, pp. 163–80. Chichester, UK/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
Wilson TM, Donnan H, eds. 1998. Border Identities: Nation and State at International Frontiers. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Wilson TM, Donnan H, eds. 2005. Culture and Power at the Edges of the State: National Support and Subversion
in European Border Regions, Vol. 3. Munster: LIT
Wilson TM, Donnan H, eds. 2012. A Companion to Border Studies. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Wolf ER. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: Univ. Calif. Press
Wolff L. 1994. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Yurchak A. 2006. Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation. Princeton,
NJ/Oxford, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Zartman IW. 2010. Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and in Motion. Athens: Univ. Ga.
Press

AN42-FrontMatter ARI 18 September 2013 17:41
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents Volume 42, 2013

Perspective
Ourselves and Others
André Béteille p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Power and Agency in Precolonial African States
J. Cameron Monroe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit Economies
Alexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology
Zoë Crossland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
Biomolecular Archaeology
Keri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Biological Anthropology
Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology
Eric Alden Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103
Teeth and Human Life-History Evolution
Tanya M. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
Comparative Reproductive Energetics of Human
and Nonhuman Primates
Melissa Emery Thompson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287
Significance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes
in Human Evolution
John Hawks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Ethnographic Research on Modern Business Corporations
Greg Urban and Kyung-Nan Koh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
vii
Language Management/Labor
Bonnie Urciuoli and Chaise LaDousa p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 175
Jurisdiction: Grounding Law in Language
Justin B. Richland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Francophonie
Cécile B. Vigouroux p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379
Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective

Joel Kuipers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399
International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Anthropologizing Afghanistan: Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters

Alessandro Monsutti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Borders and the Relocation of Europe
Sarah Green p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345
Roma and Gypsy “Ethnicity” as a Subject of Anthropological Inquiry
Michael Stewart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 415
Sociocultural Anthropology
Disability Worlds
Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53
Health of Indigenous Circumpolar Populations
J. Josh Snodgrass p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p69
The Anthropology of Organ Transplantation
Charlotte Ikels p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p89
The Anthropology of International Development
David Mosse p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts
Jonathan Marks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247
Globalization and Race: Structures of Inequality, New Sovereignties,
and Citizenship in a Neoliberal Era
Deborah A. Thomas and M. Kamari Clarke p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 305
The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure
Brian Larkin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 327
The Anthropology of Radio Fields
Lucas Bessire and Daniel Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
viii Contents
Theme: Evidence
The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit Economies
Alexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology
Zoë Crossland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
Biomolecular Archaeology
Keri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Teeth and Human Life-History Evolution

Tanya M. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts
Jonathan Marks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247

Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective
Joel Kuipers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399
Significance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes
in Human Evolution
John Hawks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 33–42 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 33–42 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents ix
Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.
New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago
The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.
Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.
table of contents:
• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, • Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
Patrick B. Ryan • Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
David A. van Dyk Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections, Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting, Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
Matthias Katzfuss • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent Susan A. Murphy
Variable Models, David M. Blei • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems: Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.
Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org

Green 2013 Borders and The Relocation of Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Green 2013 Borders and The Relocation of Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green 2013 Borders and The Relocation of Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN42CH20-Green ARI 18 September 2013 17:5

Click here for quick links to

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:345–61 Keywords

EUROPEAN BORDER EXPERIMENTS

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 347

EUROPEAN BORDER STUDIES

HISTORIES OF BORDER ALTERING

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 349

THE RECLASSIFICATION OF EUROPE

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 351

POSTSOCIALIST BORDER WORK

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 353

BORDER REGIMES AND BORDER TECHNIQUES

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 355

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 357

European borderlands. Focaal 41:9–20

Herzegovina. Slavic Rev. 67:88–119

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 359

Navaro-Yashin Y. 2003. Legal/illegal counterpoints: subjecthood and subjectivity in an unrecognized state.

www.annualreviews.org • Borders and the Relocation of Europe 361

Contents Volume 42, 2013

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Anthropologizing Afghanistan: Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters

Teeth and Human Life-History Evolution

Jonathan Marks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 33–42 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

New From Annual Reviews:

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

You might also like

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University