Global Journal of Human Social Science, D: History, Archaeology and Anthroplogy, Volume 23 Issue 3

reveals itself as a beginner´s work, with very little critical sense, Gunnar Landtman´s work is highly original and of a very strong sensibility. Gunnar Landtman´s work is a text of transition in the childhood of British scientific synchronic anthropology – functionalism and structural- functionalism – as it shows quite clearly how far it is possible to advance without explicitly modifying the theoretical framework: whereas Diamond Jenness´ ethnography (which he produced under the supervision of his missionary brother in law Andrew Ballantyne) is an advance in our empirical knowledge of social and cultural facts in this part of the world, it hardly contributes anything to our methodological tools of research. The two texts miss the necessary theoretical foundation in two different ways. In Diamond Jenness´ monograph it comes out as an unrestricted ethnocentrism, whereas in Gunnar Landtman´s work it comes out as a reflection of an evolutionst theory, which is another manifestation of ethnocentrism, and which was at that moment at the point of being outmoded and did not lend itself to fieldwork. Until this point we have been following Camilla Wedgwood´s critique of Gunnar Landtman´s monograph: “Dr. Landtman has confined himself to pure description. He refrains from theorizing as to the meaning of those things which he recounts or as to the cultural affinities of his people and other tribes of New Guinea” (Wedgwood, 1929: 41), a task that his tutor, Dr. Haddon, has completed, in an attempt to save his student´s reputation: “this last task has been undertaken by Dr. A. C. Haddon in a highly illustrative introduction, in which he discusses the relation between the Kiwai and other tribes” (ibidem). We can also follow Malinowski´s evaluation of the book: After his initial phrase, “Professor Landtman has written one of the best descriptions of one of the most interesting peoples of the world” (Malinowski, 1929: 109), Malinowski suddenly turns less enthusiastic, and criticizes various points in the book: “his descriptions and definitions lack, to a certain degree, what we could call the dynamic aspect” (Malinowski, 1929: 110). However, Malinowski´s general evaluation of the book is positive: “It would be impossible to do justice to this volume in a short review. It is a mine of information, it is extremely well written, and it offers us a clear, complete and attractive image of one of the most interesting primitive peoples ever described” (Malinowski, 1929: 111). But one point in particular puts off Malinowski: “in the way of criticism, it is regrettable that Dr. Landtman has remained satisfied with conducting his two years´ researches in that jargon. The Pidgin English is a carricature of human speach which gives to the native thinking a singular distorsion. Any person who approaches the Pidgin English from the point of view of correct English, will receive a false impression of native mentality. It is sometimes a necessary evil to work in pidgin, but then it is the investigator´s obligation to re- translate the declarations into a correct English”. To mitigate this accusation a bit, Malinowski adds in a hurry that “it must be said in extenuation for this slight blot that Dr. Landtman has, by giving us a chapter on the Pidgin in Kiwai, to a large extent minimized the drawbacks from his use of jargon” (Malinowski, 1929: 111). Malinowski adds in his characteristic modest way about the investigating scientific that “he alone can appreciate what the native feels un der the garbled sentences” (ibidem). These few sentences are interesting in that they say very little about Landtman, but a lot about Malinowski, in a way they foreshadow what was later to be revealed in his famous diary, it is very interesting to see the process of personal arrogance being metamorphosed into what we can call professional arrogance: the poor savages do not really understand what they think, and their possibilities of fathoming it are limited by their “garbled” language. Gunner Landtman defends the language: “P idgin English is a genuine language based on principles that, notwithstanding their simplicity, give the language its own fidtinctive character” (Landtman, 1918: 64). In spite of his critique, Malinowski ends his review with a strong recommendation of the book: “Dr. Landtman has throughout the book approached the subjective side of beliefs and folklore through the observation of collective behavior. In that he has acted as a competent anthropologist – in fact, he has revealed himself as one of the masters of the modern sociological method in fieldwork” (Malinowski, 1929: 112). In very general terms Gunnar Landtman is an extremely important anthropologist in the early period of British fieldwork oriented, more or less scientific anthropology, and his contributions to the advance of our discipline are many and varied. It may be that he contributed more spectacularly to ethnography than to fieldwork theory, but I think his great contribution was to show how ethnography is done, rather than write voluminous treatises on how it should be done. A noteworthy contribution is his solitary defense of the Pidgin English as a language in its own right. If this defense had not been completely forgotten, I think the ideas on bilinguism would have advanced. I remember that my first French grammar was called Le bon Usage by Maurice Grevisse, I really disliked it, as I am a great admirer of “le mal usage”, as Landtman was an admirer and user of English Pidgin. And I fdeel very much at ease in Mexican indigenous communities, as they never criticize my Spanish. Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 66 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D © 2023 Global Journals Gunnar Landtman (1878-1940)