From a methodological perspective, contemporary anthropology originated in the fieldwork methods employed by figures such as Bronisław Malinowski (1922/1961) and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1922/1967) in the early 1920s. Regarded as the founding fathers of modern anthropology, these researchers fundamentally distinguished themselves from earlier “armchair anthropologists,” who had relied on second-hand data collected by explorers, travelers, and other writers. In the eyes of contemporary anthropologists, however, even these modern ethnographies were severely tainted by Eurocentrism. Once fieldwork had become an essential method of research, anthropologists from Europe and North America flocked to colonies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, or to indigenous reservations within their own countries, to conduct field investigations as the basis for writing ethnographies and for constructing an anthropological discourse through engagement with sociocultural theory. In these ethnographies, the research subjects were often described as “savage,” “uncivilized,” or “primitive” peoples. It is not difficult to understand that in making such determinations, anthropologists were using European society and culture as their points of reference—that is, their standards for what counted as “civilized,” “enlightened,” and “modern.” Under the influence of Eurocentrism, the spatially delimited other was theoretically abstracted into a temporal difference: the fieldwork subjects of “modern” anthropology were treated as the “past” of Europeans. In such a framework, the “scientific” nature of these conclusions seemed to require no further justification. The specter of Eurocentrism lurks between the lines of anthropological discourse. It relies on the irrational forces of superstition, rather than the rational logic of deduction, to obscure the logical fissure between spatial and temporal displacement, while simultaneously proclaiming itself to be entirely persuasive.