Abstract In classical anthropology, the term “ethnography” refers to the scientific description of races. Yet, Archie Mafeje uses the concept of ethnography in what seems to be two ways. On the one hand, ethnography, such as he conceives of it, has socio-cultural connotations. It is his preferred substitute for the nebulous concept of “culture”. On the other hand, by ethnography he seems to refer to the idea of non-disciplinarity. In other words, the concept of ethnography becomes the substitute candidate for the social sciences, as they are conventionally known. Either the concept carries both meanings or Mafeje simply equivocates. This article discusses Mafeje's concept of ethnography. First, the article contextualises the discussion by providing a broad outline of his theoretical orientation. Second, given that his use of the concept of ethnography departs from that of an anthropological research method, the concept is explained and outlined. The remainder of the article demonstrates how Mafeje sets this concept to work by discussing his study of the tributary mode of production of the pre-colonial interlacustrine kingdoms of the Great Lakes region.

中文翻译：

---

Mafeje 中的民族志概念

摘要 在古典人类学中，“民族志”一词是指对种族的科学描述。然而，Archie Mafeje 似乎以两种方式使用了民族志的概念。一方面，民族志，如他所设想的那样，具有社会文化内涵。这是他对“文化”这个模糊概念的首选替代品。另一方面，通过民族志，他似乎指的是非纪律性的想法。换句话说，民族志的概念成为社会科学的替代候选者，因为它们是众所周知的。要么这个概念具有两种含义，要么 Mafeje 只是模棱两可。本文讨论了 Mafeje 的民族志概念。首先，文章通过提供他的理论取向的大纲来将讨论背景化。第二，鉴于他对人种学概念的使用与人类学研究方法不同，因此对该概念进行了解释和概述。本文的其余部分通过讨论 Mafeje 对大湖区前殖民时期的湖间王国的支流生产方式的研究，展示了他如何使这一概念发挥作用。