Author:
,
, and
Quentin Gausset
Quentin Gausset
Department of Anthropology, Copenhagen University
quentin.gausset@anthro.ku.dk
Search for other papers by Quentin Gausset in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Quentin Gausset in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Justin Kenrick
Justin Kenrick
School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh
justinkenrick@yahoo.co.uk
Search for other papers by Justin Kenrick in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin Kenrick in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Robert Gibb
Robert Gibb
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow
robert.gibb@glasgow.ac.uk
Search for other papers by Robert Gibb in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Robert Gibb in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
All currencies in US Dollar
The term indigenous tends to be used for people who are already marginalised, while autochthonous is generally reserved for people who are dominant in a given area but fear future marginalisation. Anthropologists often sympathise with the former, while being highly critical of the latter, although a bitter debate opposes opponents and proponents of indigeneity and autochthony. We argue that the implicit criteria used in this debate need to be discussed explicitly if one wants to escape from the dead end in which the discussion finds itself today.