In his new book, Anthropologists in the Stock Exchange, the economic historian Marc Flandreau revisits the heavily discussed history of Victorian anthropology. His aim is to remap a familiar story about the anthropological schism of the 1860s by showing that the debates between anthropologists and ethnologists were not simply about ideological differences, as previous scholars have argued, but also about socioeconomic priorities. Flandreau believes that in order to fully represent the history of Victorian anthropology, one needs to understand how economic and financial interests shaped the activities of researchers. In principle, such an approach seems to offer a fresh perspective on a well-known tale. After all, Peter Kjaergaard's recent focus section in the journal Isis, “Follow the Money” (2012), convincingly showed how an emphasis on money sheds important new light on the history of science. Yet despite its promising historiographical focus, what emerges in Flandreau's book is nothing more than a crude misunderstanding of the subtleties of Victorian anthropology.

In the introduction Flandreau sets out to establish a new framework for understanding Victorian anthropology. Flandreau calls it the “stock-exchange modality” (8)—the idea that one cannot separate the disciplinary formation of British anthropology in the nineteenth century from the larger economical context of the British Empire. The ups and downs of the stock market, he argues, had a direct impact on the development of British anthropology, leaving a deep imprint. Flandreau states that anthropology benefited greatly from the expansion of the empire, and researchers acted as cultural brokers for various parties. Such an argument is hardly new, and the relationship between anthropology, imperialism, and government policy is a staple within the secondary literature. One does not really get a sense of how Flandreau's new framework transforms the historiography in any significant way. Is it even necessary to create a new name for this analytical model? After all, historians of science routinely show in their work how researchers are influenced by all sorts of sociopolitical factors, without appealing to a “modality.”

Then there is the issue of whether Flandreau follows through with his analytical model and substantiates his claims with evidence. In the first chapter, for example, he devotes much attention to forming links between key members of the ethnological community and big business throughout the empire. The banker and scientific naturalist John Lubbock, a leading figure within British ethnology, is framed as a partisan figure. We are told that Lubbock's involvement in the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders is significant and that it prejudicially influenced his activities in learned bodies such as the Anthropological Institute, where he became president in 1871. However, Flandreau does not provide any firm evidence to show how Lubbock's involvement in these two organizations prejudicially affected one another. We are told that it must have, but there is no illustrative example provided. The result is a rather flat argument. Moreover, for a book on the economic history of anthropology, there is a surprising lack of tabulated information showing the amount of financial investment the discipline was receiving from different sources. If this data were included, the book would be strengthened considerably.

Flandreau's overview of the disciplinary debates between the Ethnological Society of London and the Anthropological Society of London is also poorly executed—not least, the stock-exchange modality is almost completely absent from this analysis. Moreover, his treatment of both the race question and woman question suggests a lack of understanding of the subtleties involved in these controversies. He does not, for instance, see the woman question—for example, whether women should be allowed to attend the meetings of the Ethnological Society of London or the Anthropological Society of London—as an important concern. He also believes that historians, as a way of villainizing the Anthropological Society of London, have overstated the issue. According to Flandreau, barring women from learned societies was a fairly common practice in the nineteenth century and thus does not provide a good example of how the Anthropological Society of London was sexist. Yet, as many historians have shown, allowing women to participate at either of the two society's meetings was far more complex and linked both to anthropology's disciplinary reform tactics and larger sociocultural issues.

There is, however, buried beneath the economic history, an interesting narrative, one that argues convincingly that the historiography on Victorian anthropology has tended to focus on a rather small group of researchers, and that by extending the gaze beyond this small coterie of figures, we begin to see that there is a whole cast of characters that greatly contributed to the disciplinary development of British anthropology. Had this story been brought to the fore, Flandreau's book would have more impact on the historiography. His examination of the philologist, engineer, and ethnologist Hyde Clarke is a genuinely significant contribution to our understanding of British anthropology's past. Through Flandreau's analysis of the periodical press, he shows how active Clarke was in reforming British anthropology. He underscores the key role Clarke played in both publicly exposing the corruption occurring at the Anthropological Society of London and negotiating the formation of the Anthropological Institute in 1871. Similar praise applies to Flandreau's discussion on the explorer and geographer Richard Francis Burton. Though Burton (an unignorable personality) is regularly mentioned in passing in the secondary literature, very little scholarship has shown how important he was for the Anthropological Society of London. He was not simply the celebrity poster boy for the society; he was an important networker, connecting British anthropology to elite circles in Victorian Britain and beyond. His numerous contributions to the society's publications also helped to establish the credibility of British anthropology's research program. It is a real shame that Flandreau did not do more with these overlooked figures in Victorian anthropology. Had personalities and social networks been the focus of the book, instead of the application of the stock-exchange modality to the history of anthropology, its value would have been much greater.