For our readers not too familiar with the history or current state of anthropology, you could find much more useful resources, but why bother? Consult Uncyclopedia’s article on ‘anthropology,’ a muddled mess of baseless assertions and inaccuracies; in other words, probably as good a definition as any other.

Wizened anthropologists will notice all sorts of crucial elements that are still missing from the entry; our friends on the Australian Anthropological Society mailing list have pointed out that perhaps the most famous recently-deceased anthropologist, Michel Foucault, is missing from the un-entry. I also noted the absence of any discussion of the role of hallucinogens in the production of anthropological theory, from the early crucial inspiration of absinthe to the later influence of Amazonian pharmacology and performance-enhancing peyote, to more recent experimentation with endo-generated narcotics such as extreme reflexivity and disciplinary megalomania/self-castigation bipolarism.

Also mysteriously missing is any mention of thesis-related slavery in the teaching of anthropology, chunky ethnic jewelry or hemp clothing, or any word with the prefix ‘post-‘. In other words, the uncyclopedia entry on anthropology is a work in progress, but definitely not likely to become the least bit more accurate or reflect the field in a favourable light. I’d heartily recommend that you click on the link to visit the site so that someone might fall under the illusion from the page traffic that anthropology has a larger audience than it actually has, or you could maliciously hack the page and suggest that the field is closely related to sociology.

Photo archived at: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Harryhausen_skeletons_2.jpg