د "انسان پيژندنه" د بڼو تر مېنځ توپير

* [[Biological anthropology|'''Biological''']] or '''physical anthropology''' seeks to understand the physical human being through the study of genetics, inherited traits and variations thereof, evolution, adaptation, etc. Subfields or related fields include [[primatology]], [[anthropometrics]], [[forensic anthropology]], [[osteology]], [[nutritional anthropology]], and [[human genetics|human]] and [[population genetics]].

* '''Socio-cultural anthropology''' is the investigation, often through long term, intensive field studies (including participant-observation methods), of the culture and social organization of a particular people: language, economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, [[kinship]] and family structure, gender relations, childrearing and socialization, religion, mythology, symbolism, etc. (U.S. universities more often use the term [[cultural anthropology]]; British universities have tended to call the corresponding field [[social anthropology]], and for much of the 20th century emphasized the analysis of social organization more than cultural symbolism.) In some European countries, socio-cultural anthropology is known as [[ethnology]] (a term also used in English-speaking countries to denote the comparative aspect of socio-cultural anthropology.) Subfields and related fields include [[psychological anthropology]], [[folklore]], [[anthropology of religion]], [[ethnic studies]], [[cultural studies]], [[anthropology of media]] and [[anthropology of cyberspace|cyberspace]], and study of the [[diffusion (anthropology)|diffusion]] of social practices and cultural forms.

* [[Linguistic anthropology|'''Linguistic anthropology''']] seeks to understand the processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation in [[language]] across time and space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture. It identifies the many subtle elements of the world's languages, and documents their structure, function and history. Subfields include [[anthropological linguistics]]. Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields including [[sociolinguistics]], [[cognitive linguistics]], [[semiotics]], [[discourse analysis]], and [[narrative]] analysis.<ref>Salzmann, Zdeněk. (1993) ''Language, culture, and society: an introduction to linguistic anthropology''. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.</ref>

* [[Archaeology|'''Archaeology''']] studies the contemporary distribution and form of artifacts (materials modified by past human activities), with the intent of understanding distribution and movement of ancient populations, development of human social organization, and relationships among contemporary populations; it also contributes significantly to the work of population geneticists, historical linguists, and many historians. Archaeology involves a wide variety of field techniques (remote sensing, survey, geophysical studies, coring, excavation) and laboratory procedures (compositional analyses, dating studies ([[radiocarbon]], [[Optical dating|optically stimulated luminescence dating]]), measures of formal variability, examination of wear patterns, residue analyses, etc.). Archaeologists predominantly study materials produced by prehistoric groups but also includes modern, historical and ethnographic populations. Archaeology is usually regarded as a separate (but related) field outside North America, although closely related to the anthropological field of [[material culture]], which deals with physical objects created or used within a living or past group as a means of understanding its cultural values.

* The claim that the discipline grew out of colonialism, perhaps was in league with it, and derived some of its key notions from it, consciously or not. (See, for example, Gough, Pels and Salemink, but cf. Lewis 2004).<ref name=Gellner>Gellner, Ernest (1992) ''Postmodernism, Reason, and Religion''. London/New York: Routledge. Pp: 26-29.</ref> It is often assumed that an example of this exploitative relationship can be seen in the relationship between British anthropologists and colonial forces in Africa, yet this assumption has not been supported by much evidence.<ref>Desai, Gaurav. (2001) ''Subject to Colonialism: African self-fashioning and the colonial library''. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.</ref><ref>Asad, Talal, ed. (1973) Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.</ref>

* The idea that social and political problems must arise because anthropologists usually have more power than the people they study; it is a form of colonialist theft in which the anthropologist gains power at the expense of subjects (Rabinow, Dwyer, McGrane). Anthropologists, they argue, can gain yet more power by exploiting knowledge and artifacts of the people they study while the people they study gain nothing, or even lose, in the exchange (for example, Deloria). Little critical writing has been published in response to these wide-ranging claims, themselves the product of the political concerns and atmosphere of their own times. (See Trencher for a critique.)

* It is claimed the discipline was ahistorical, and dealt with its "objects" (sic) "out of time," to their detriment (Fabian). It is often claimed that anthropologists regularly "exoticized 'the Other,'" or, with equal assurance, that they inappropriately universalized "Others" and "human nature."<ref>Lewis, Herbert S. (1998) "The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and its Consequences." ''American Anthropologist'' 100:" 716-731</ref><ref>Lutz, Catherine (1985) "Ethnopsychology Compared to What? Explaining behavior and consciousness among the Ifaluk.," in G. White and J. Kirkpatrick, eds. ''Person, Self, and Experience: Exploring Pacific Ethnopsychologies''. Pp. 35-79. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.</ref>

* Other more explicitly political concerns have to do with anthropologists’ entanglements with government intelligence agencies, on the one hand, and anti-war politics on the other. Franz Boas publicly objected to US participation in [[World War I]], and after the war he published a brief expose and condemnation of the participation of several American archeologists in espionage in Mexico under their cover as scientists. But by the 1940s, many of Boas' anthropologist contemporaries were active in the allied war effort against the "Axis" (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). Many served in the armed forces but others worked in intelligence (for example, [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS) and the [[Office of War Information]]). David H. Price's work on American anthropology during the Cold War provides detailed accounts of the pursuit and dismissal of several anthropologists for their vocal left-wing sympathies. On the other hand, attempts to accuse anthropologists of complicity with the CIA and government intelligence activities during the Vietnam War years have turned up surprisingly little. (Anthropologists did not participate in the stillborn [[Project Camelot]], for example. See Lewis 2005) On the contrary, many anthropologists (students and teachers) were active in the antiwar movement and a great many resolutions condemning the war in all its aspects were passed overwhelmingly at the annual meetings of the [[American Anthropological Association]] (AAA). In the decades since the Vietnam war the tone of cultural and social anthropology, at least, has been increasingly politicized, with the dominant liberal tone of earlier generations replaced with one more radical, a mix of, and varying degrees of, Marxist, feminist, anarchist, post-colonial, post-modern, Saidian, Foucauldian, identity-based, and more.<ref>D'Andrade, Roy (1995) "Moral Models in Anthropology." ''Current Anthropology'' 36: 399-408.</ref>