{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027803521779425393, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.506024096385542, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anthropological Theory and the Mysterious Disappearance of Historical Societies

If one were to characterize anthropology by its relation to history, one might say that: first there was speculative history (evolutionism, diffusionism); then there was only history of the immediate known past (structural-functionalism); then there was only mythic history or no history at all (structuralism); then there was an equation of history with the colonial period, as if history could only be measured by Europe’s contact with non-Europeans; then there was a combination of the absence of social and world history with an infinite number of personal histories (postmodernism); and, finally, there was endless talk of crisis. Anthropologists appear to have bestowed on themselves an unpalatable, even paralyzing, choice. They can either talk only about themselves and their intellectual positions, or they can cling to a paradigm which takes historical societies into account. Whichever route they choose, they do so knowing that other anthropologists will find their choice damnable. The