Scholarly disciplines are ever-changing and continuously debated constellations of intellectual heritage and contemporary issues. This article discusses debates over anthropological nomenclature, anthropometric indices, and museum exhibit design in the development of European and American anthropology from its ethnological beginnings in the 1840s through nineteenth-century evolutionism to the establishment of the Boasian historical particularist approach after 1904. It also outlines the impacts of those debates and disagreements on the subsequent development of the “four-field approach” in American-university-based anthropology programs. The transitions from ethnology to evolutionism to particularism can be followed through arguments over nomenclature, anthropometrics, and the content and design of museum exhibits, as nascent anthropologists defined and redefined their subfield(s) of study and attempted to become part of the burgeoning Science Establishment of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Europe and North America. The arguments and their (sometimes) resolutions laid the foundations for twentieth-century university-based anthropology programs and ethnographic and archaeological exhibits in anthropology and natural history museums. The article is, thus, a contribution to the developmental history of anthropology in Europe and North America.

中文翻译：

---

命名之战：民族学家和人类学家寻求成为科学家，1840-1910

学术学科是不断变化和不断争论的知识遗产和当代问题的星座。本文讨论了欧洲和美国人类学从 1840 年代的民族学开始到 19 世纪进化论到 1904 年后建立博阿斯历史特殊主义方法的发展过程中关于人类学命名法、人体测量指标和博物馆展览设计的争论。它还概述了这些争论和分歧对美国大学人类学项目“四场方法”的后续发展的影响。从人种学到进化论再到特殊论的转变可以通过对命名法、人体测量学以及博物馆展品的内容和设计的争论来追踪，随着新生的人类学家定义和重新定义他们的研究子领域，并试图成为 19 世纪和 20 世纪初欧洲和北美新兴科学机构的一部分。这些论点及其（有时）决议为 20 世纪以大学为基础的人类学课程以及人类学和自然历史博物馆的民族志和考古展览奠定了基础。因此，这篇文章是对欧洲和北美人类学发展史的贡献。这些论点及其（有时）决议为 20 世纪以大学为基础的人类学课程以及人类学和自然历史博物馆的人种学和考古学展览奠定了基础。因此，这篇文章是对欧洲和北美人类学发展史的贡献。这些论点及其（有时）决议为 20 世纪以大学为基础的人类学课程以及人类学和自然历史博物馆的人种学和考古学展览奠定了基础。因此，这篇文章是对欧洲和北美人类学发展史的贡献。