In January 2006, the international community of anthropologists was confronted with a surprising piece of news. France's principal funding body, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), was contemplating striking anthropology out of its disciplinary list, attributing to it a subsidiary position within the field of history. A heated debate ensued concerning anthropology's independent position within the CNRS funding structure. One does not know whether it was thought that anthropology always had been a branch of history or whether it was thought that it always should have been or, alternatively, if the idea was that it was simply irrelevant! Ultimately, in the face of national and international outcry, the proposal was dropped and the change was not implemented. We were all very pleased about that outcome. Many of us, however, remained preoccupied by it all, feeling that a misunderstanding on that scale should not be treated as an isolated event. Rather, it should be seen as a sign that the public understanding of anthropology is not what it should be, that the issue is in bad need of further debate. 1 How ironic that this mishap should have occurred on the turf of Marcel Mauss and Lévi-Strauss, where modern anthropology was born! Now, let it be clear from the start that anthropologists have nothing against history or historians -to the contrary. Never has the dialogue between the two disciplines been richer than over the past two decades. Their disciplinary history, however, remains radically distinct. Their contributions to the humanities and the social sciences are not in competition; rather they are mutually indispensable parts of the more general socio-scientific field that modernity has launched.Today, socio-cultural anthropology is emerging out of the crisis of self-doubt that attacked it during the post-colonial era. In the Portuguese-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and German-speaking worlds, the discipline is once again demonstrating a heightened capacity for renovation and for dealing with highly topical, fully contemporary issues. In France too, anthropologists are a lively lot, being fully integrated into global scientific interchanges. Theoretically they are active, methodologically they have provided new and creative responses to the issues of the day, geographically they cover an impressively large area of the ethnographic map.What is disturbing about the CNRS event is how easily 'anthropology', as a field of disciplinary endeavour with a long and valuable history, could be misrepresented so as (a) not to take into account its distinct theoretical legacy, which differentiates it from history and the other sciences sociales et humaines, and (b) to fail to perceive the nature of anthropology's engagement with temporality. It could be argued that anthropologists are a type of 'contemporary historian' -as our standard methodology is ethnography with participant observation. That, however, is missing the point that anthropology is not and has never been bound by a discourse of temporal (and...