Sevasti Trubeta,Physical Anthropology,Race and Eugenics in Greece (1880–1970s)

Reviewed by: Alexandra Barmpouti, Oxford Brookes University, UK

This is an original contribution to the study of the history of physical anthropology in Greece between 1880 and 1970, a particularly complex period in terms of historical events and socio-political changes.

The history of physical anthropology is discussed at three interrelated levels, each corresponding to three institutions: the chair of physical anthropology at the Medical School of Athens; the Laboratory and Anthropological Museum; and the Greek Anthropological Society. According to Trubeta, the transformation of the concept of race and eugenics had first emerged and developed in Greece via the above-mentioned anthropological institutions and their agents. This is why the history of race and eugenics are examined within the history of anthropology.

Although the field of physical anthropology emerged from the remit of medicine, it was short-lived and underestimated both by professors and students at the Medical School of Athens. As Trubeta rightly points out, there were no trained anthropologists in Greece until the early twentieth century. Anthropology was first introduced in Greece by Clon Stefanos, but mostly identified with his successor, Ioannis Koumaris. Trubeta then suggests that the history of physical anthropology could be divided into two eras, one identified with Stefanos’ work and the other with Koumaris’ (55–6). As a result, the work of both individuals dominates the book, irrespectively of the time period discussed. Their fundamental ideological difference was the perception of anthropology itself. Stefanos mostly focused on the Greek case, aiming at revealing the diachronic character of Hellenism through scientific, namely anthropological data (60). On the other hand, Koumaris developed a broader, universal perspective, which he envisaged disseminating to the public sphere through the Anthropological Museum (77).

Trubeta devotes a great deal of the conceptual analysis to the transformation and varied use of the notion of race in the Greek language and society during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Greek, the word ‘fili’ (ϕυλή) can be translated as either nation or race, and its meaning changed according to author and context. Various concepts of race are analysed with a particular emphasis on debates on Greek ancestry, which includes the problematic of racial purity and/or continuity. Moreover, the idea of race is also discussed in the context of the eugenics movement in Greece.

Regarding the methodology, the author develops her argument primarily based on Foucauldian theory and the works of Pierre Bourdieu and George W. Stocking. Furthermore, she avoids writing a ‘neutral’ history of science by developing her own socio-political perspective. In addition, from the very beginning, the author discussed the significance of the actors’ agency in producing scientific discourse (9). Apart from the central roles of Stefanos and Koumaris in the rise and fall of physical anthropology in Greece, other authors discussed in length include Stavros Zuruktzoglou, Konstantinos Moutoussis and Nikolaos Louros.

Repetition of words and meanings throughout the text is certainly a drawback, which, while it does not diminish the quality of the research, might be wearing for the reader. In addition, there is a disproportionate wealth of research between the pre- and the post-war periods, with the former occupying most of the book. Also, regarding post-war Greek eugenics, for example, there are some inaccuracies. Louros was not the founder and first president of the Greek Eugenics Society, as alleged here (264), but followed Athanasios Mantellos, president of the Athens Medical Association. It is true, however, that the Greek Eugenics Society gained publicity and became more active under Louros’ leadership. Furthermore, the statement that post-war eugenics was assimilated to ‘new genetics’ (18) is at least imprecise. This claim has its merits, but it was only after the 1960s that eugenics in Greece became identified with genetics, in particular ‘liberal eugenics’, which focuses on the individual. As far as the premarital medical certification is concerned, the book stops in 1962, not in 1970, as the title suggests. Although the author claims that it was never imposed by the state (245), premarital health certification was made obligatory on 24 February 1968.

Furthermore, Trubeta insists on the connection between the ‘social question’ and the ‘population question’ which was provoked by the sudden increase in the population of the 1920s and 1930s, while the alleged degeneration of society was attributed to the poverty of the lower social classes. During the post-war period, however, degeneration was mostly attributed to irresponsible child bearing and to the lack of preventive medicine. Therefore, post-war Greek eugenicists focused on the protection of pregnant women and the proper raising of children, without regard to their social status. Moreover, there is no reference to the major problem of (illegal) abortions and family planning, which were central topics of debate amongst the Greek eugenicists during the post-war period.

Notwithstanding these weaknesses, this book is a substantial contribution to the history of Greek physical anthropology and a useful source for future research into the history of eugenics in Greece.