document_title: History of anthropology

question_text: when was anthropology established as an academic discipline

question_tokens: when was anthropology established as an academic discipline

text: History of anthropology

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The term anthropology ostensibly is a produced compound of Greek ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos, "human being" (understood to mean "humankind" or "humanity"), and a supposed -λογία -logia, "study."[1] The compound, however, is unknown in ancient Greek or Latin, whether classical or mediaeval. It first appears sporadically in the scholarly Latin anthropologia of Renaissance France, where it spawns the French word anthropologie, transferred into English as anthropology. It does belong to a class of words produced with the -logy suffix, such as archeo-logy, bio-logy, etc., “the study (or science) of.”

text: The mixed character of Greek anthropos and Latin -logia marks it as New Latin.[2] There is no independent noun, logia, however, of that meaning in classical Greek. The word λόγος (logos) has that meaning.[3] James Hunt attempted to rescue the etymology in his first address to the Anthropological Society of London as president and founder, 1863. He did find an anthropologos from Aristotle in the standard ancient Greek Lexicon, which he says defines the word as “speaking or treating of man.”[4] This view is entirely wishful thinking, as Liddell and Scott go on to explain the meaning: “i.e. fond of personal conversation.”[5] If Aristotle, the very philosopher of the logos, could produce such a word without serious intent, there probably was at that time no anthropology identifiable under that name.

text: The lack of any ancient denotation of anthropology, however, is not an etymological problem. Liddell and Scott list 170 Greek compounds ending in –logia, enough to justify its later use as a productive suffix.[6] The ancient Greeks often used suffixes in forming compounds that had no independent variant.[7] The etymological dictionaries are united in attributing –logia to logos, from legein, “to collect.” The thing collected is primarily ideas, especially in speech. The American Heritage Dictionary says:[8] “(It is one of) derivatives independently built to logos.” Its morphological type is that of an abstract noun: log-os > log-ia (a “qualitative abstract”)[9]

text: The Renaissance origin of the name of anthropology does not exclude the possibility that ancient authors presented anthropogical material under another name (see below). Such an identification is speculative, depending on the theorist's view of anthropology; nevertheless, speculations have been formulated by credible anthropologists, especially those that consider themselves functionalists and others in history so classified now.

text: The science of history[edit]

text: Marvin Harris, a historian of anthropology, begins The Rise of Anthropological Theory with the statement that anthropology is “the science of history.”[10] He is not suggesting that history be renamed to anthropology, or that there is no distinction between history and prehistory, or that anthropology excludes current social practices, as the general meaning of history, which it has in “history of anthropology,” would seem to imply. He is using “history” in a special sense, as the founders of cultural anthropology used it:[11] “the natural history of society,” in the words of Herbert Spencer,[12] or the “universal history of mankind”, the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment objective.[10] Just as natural history comprises the characteristics of organisms past and present, so cultural or social history comprises the characteristics of society past and present. It includes both documented history and prehistory, but its slant is toward institutional development rather than particular non-repeatable historical events.

text: According to Harris, the 19th-century anthropologists were theorizing under the presumption that the development of society followed some sort of laws. He decries the loss of that view in the 20th century by the denial that any laws are discernable or that current institutions have any bearing on ancient. He coins the term ideographic for them. The 19th-century views, on the other hand, are nomothetic; that is, they provide laws. He intends “to reassert the methodological priority of the search for the laws of history in the science of man.” [13] He is looking for “a general theory of history.” [14] His perception of the laws: “I believe that the analogue of the Darwinian strategy in the realm of sociocultural phenomena is the principle of techno-environmental and techno-economic determinism,” he calls cultural materialism, which he also details in Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture.

text: Elsewhere he refers to “my theories of historical determinism,” defining the latter: “By a deterministic relationship among cultural phenomena, I mean merely that similar variables under similar conditions tend to give rise to similar consequences.”[15] The use of “tends to” implies some degree of freedom to happen or not happen, but in strict determinism, given certain causes, the result and only that result must occur. Different philosophers, however, use determinism in different senses. The deterministic element that Harris sees is lack of human social engineering: “free will and moral choice have had virtually no significant effect upon the direction taken thus far by evolving systems of social life.” [16]

text: Harris agrees with the 19th-century view that laws are abstractions from empirical evidence: “...sociocultural entities are constructed from the direct or indirect observation of the behavior and thought of specific individuals ....”[17] Institutions are not a physical reality; only people are. When they act in society, they do so according to the laws of history, of which they are not aware; hence, there is no historical element of free will. Like the 20th-century anthropologists in general, Harris places a high value on the empiricism, or collection of data. This function must be performed by trained observers.

text: He borrows terms from linguistics: just as a phon-etic system is a description of sounds developed without regard to the meaning and structure of the language, while a phon-emic system describes the meaningful sounds actually used within the language, so anthropological data can be emic and etic. Only trained observers can avoid eticism, or description without regard to the meaning in the culture: “... etics are in part observers’ emics incorrectly applied to a foreign system ....”[18] He makes a further distinction between synchronic and diachronic.[19] Synchronic (“same time”) with reference to anthropological data is contemporaneous and cross-cultural. Diachronic (“through time”) data shows the development of lines through time. Cultural materialism, being a “processually holistic and globally comparative scientific research strategy” must depend for accuracy on all four types of data.[20] Cultural materialism differs from the others by the insertion of culture as the effect. Different material factors produce different cultures.

text: Harris, like many other anthropologists, in looking for anthropological method and data before the use of the term anthropology, had little difficulty finding them among the ancient authors. The ancients tended to see players on the stage of history as ethnic groups characterized by the same or similar languages and customs: the Persians, the Germans, the Scythians, etc. Thus the term history meant to a large degree the “story” of the fortunes of these players through time. The ancient authors never formulated laws. Apart from a rudimentary three-age system, the stages of history, such as are found in Lubbock, Tylor, Morgan, Marx and others, are yet unformulated.

text: Proto-anthropology[edit]

text: Eriksen and Nielsen use the term proto-anthropology to refer to near-anthropological writings, which contain some of the criteria for being anthropology, but not all. They classify proto-anthropology as being "travel writing or social philosophy," going on to assert "It is only when these aspects ... are fused, that is, when data and theory are brought together, that anthropology appears."[21] This process began to occur in the 18th century of the Age of Enlightenment.

text: Classical Age[edit]

text: Many anthropological writers find anthropological-quality theorizing in the works of Classical Greece and Classical Rome; for example, John Myres in Herodotus and Anthropology (1908); E. E. Sikes in The Anthropology of the Greeks (1914); Clyde Kluckhohn in Anthropology and the Classics (1961), and many others.[22] An equally long list may be found in French and German as well as other languages.

text: Herodotus[edit]

text: Herodotus was a 5th-century BC Greek historian who set about to chronicle and explain the Greco-Persian Wars that transpired early in that century. He did so in a surviving work conventionally termed the History or the Histories. His first line begins: “These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus ....”

text: The Achaemenid Empire, deciding to bring Greece into its domain, conducted a massive invasion across the Bosphorus using multi-cultural troops raised from many different locations. They were decisively defeated by the Greek city-states. Herodotus was far from interested in only the non-repeatable events. He provides ethnic details and histories of the peoples within the empire and to the north of it, in most cases being the first to do so. His methods were reading accounts, interviewing witnesses, and in some cases taking notes for himself.

text: These “researches” have been considered anthropological since at least as early as the late 19th century. The title, “Father of History,” (pater historiae) had been conferred on him probably by Cicero.[23] Pointing out that John Myres in 1908 had believed that Herodotus was an anthropologist on a par with those of his own day, James M. Redfield asserts: “Herodotus, as we know, was both Father of History and Father of Anthropology.”[24] Herodotus calls his method of travelling around taking notes “theorizing.” Redfield translates it as “tourism” with a scientific intent. He identifies three terms of Herodotus as overlapping on culture: diaitia, material goods such as houses and consumables; ethea, the mores or customs; and nomoi, the authoritative precedents or laws.

text: Tacitus[edit]

text: The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote many of our only surviving contemporary accounts of several ancient Celtic and Germanic peoples.

text: Middle Ages[edit]

text: Another candidate for one of the first scholars to carry out comparative ethnographic-type studies in person was the medieval Persian scholar Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī in the eleventh century, who wrote about the peoples, customs, and religions of the Indian subcontinent. According to Akbar S. Ahmed, like modern anthropologists, he engaged in extensive participant observation with a given group of people, learnt their language and studied their primary texts, and presented his findings with objectivity and neutrality using cross-cultural comparisons.[25] Others argue, however, that he hardly can be considered an anthropologist in the conventional sense.[26] He wrote detailed comparative studies on the religions and cultures in the Middle East, Mediterranean, and especially South Asia.[27][28] Biruni's tradition of comparative cross-cultural study continued in the Muslim world through to Ibn Khaldun's work in the fourteenth century.[25][29]

text: Medieval scholars may be considered forerunners of modern anthropology as well, insofar as they conducted or wrote detailed studies of the customs of peoples considered "different" from themselves in terms of geography. John of Plano Carpini reported of his stay among the Mongols. His report was unusual in its detailed depiction of a non-European culture.[30]

text: Marco Polo's systematic observations of nature, anthropology, and geography are another example of studying human variation across space.[31] Polo's travels took him across such a diverse human landscape and his accounts of the peoples he met as he journeyed were so detailed that they earned for Polo the name "the father of modern anthropology."[32]

text: Renaissance[edit]

text: The first use of the term "anthropology" in English to refer to a natural science of humanity was apparently in Richard Harvey's 1593 Philadelphus, a defense of the legend of Brutus in British history, which, includes the passage: "Genealogy or issue which they had, Artes which they studied, Actes which they did. This part of History is named Anthropology."

text: The Enlightenment roots of the discipline[edit]

text: Many scholars consider modern anthropology as an outgrowth of the Age of Enlightenment (1715–89),[33] a period when Europeans attempted to study human behavior systematically, the known varieties of which had been increasing since the fifteenth century as a result of the first European colonization wave. The traditions of jurisprudence, history, philology, and sociology then evolved into something more closely resembling the modern views of these disciplines and informed the development of the social sciences, of which anthropology was a part.

text: It took Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 25 years to write one of the first major treatises on anthropology, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798), which treats it as a branch of philosophy.[34] Kant is not generally considered to be a modern anthropologist, as he never left his region of Germany, nor did he study any cultures besides his own.[35] He did, however, begin teaching an annual course in anthropology in 1772. Developments in the systematic study of ancient civilizations through the disciplines of Classics and Egyptology informed both archaeology and eventually social anthropology, as did the study of East and South Asian languages and cultures. At the same time, the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment produced thinkers, such as Johann Gottfried Herder[36] and later Wilhelm Dilthey, whose work formed the basis for the "culture concept," which is central to the discipline.[citation needed]

text: Institutionally, anthropology emerged from the development of natural history (expounded by authors such as Buffon) that occurred during the European colonization of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Programs of ethnographic study originated in this era as the study of the "human primitives" overseen by colonial administrations.

text: There was a tendency in late eighteenth century Enlightenment thought to understand human society as natural phenomena that behaved according to certain principles and that could be observed empirically. In some ways, studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was not unlike studying the flora and fauna of those places.

text: Early anthropology was divided between proponents of unilinealism, who argued that all societies passed through a single evolutionary process, from the most primitive to the most advanced, and various forms of non-lineal theorists, who tended to subscribe to ideas such as diffusionism.[37] Most nineteenth-century social theorists, including anthropologists, viewed non-European societies as windows onto the pre-industrial human past.

text: Overview of the modern discipline[edit]

text: Marxist anthropologist Eric Wolf once characterized anthropology as "the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the social sciences." Understanding how anthropology developed contributes to understanding how it fits into other academic disciplines. Scholarly traditions of jurisprudence, history, philology and sociology developed during this time and informed the development of the social sciences of which anthropology was a part. At the same time, the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment produced thinkers such as Herder and later Wilhelm Dilthey whose work formed the basis for the culture concept which is central to the discipline.

text: These intellectual movements in part grappled with one of the greatest paradoxes of modernity: as the world is becoming smaller and more integrated, people's experience of the world is increasingly atomized and dispersed. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels observed in the 1840s:

text: All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations.

text: Ironically, this universal interdependence, rather than leading to greater human solidarity, has coincided with increasing racial, ethnic, religious, and class divisions, and new – and to some confusing or disturbing – cultural expressions. These are the conditions of life with which people today must contend, but they have their origins in processes that began in the 16th century and accelerated in the 19th century.

text: Institutionally anthropology emerged from natural history (expounded by authors such as Buffon). This was the study of human beings - typically people living in European colonies. Thus studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was more or less equivalent to studying the flora and fauna of those places. It was for this reason, for instance, that Lewis Henry Morgan could write monographs on both The League of the Iroquois and The American Beaver and His Works. This is also why the material culture of 'civilized' nations such as China have historically been displayed in fine arts museums alongside European art while artifacts from Africa or Native North American cultures were displayed in Natural History Museums with dinosaur bones and nature dioramas. Curatorial practice has changed dramatically in recent years, and it would be wrong to see anthropology as merely an extension of colonial rule and European chauvinism, since its relationship to imperialism was and is complex.[citation needed]

text: Drawing on the methods of the natural sciences as well as developing new techniques involving not only structured interviews but unstructured "participant-observation" – and drawing on the new theory of evolution through natural selection, they proposed the scientific study of a new object: "humankind," conceived of as a whole. Crucial to this study is the concept "culture," which anthropologists defined both as a universal capacity and propensity for social learning, thinking, and acting (which they see as a product of human evolution and something that distinguishes Homo sapiens – and perhaps all species of genus Homo – from other species), and as a particular adaptation to local conditions that takes the form of highly variable beliefs and practices. Thus, "culture" not only transcends the opposition between nature and nurture; it transcends and absorbs the peculiarly European distinction between politics, religion, kinship, and the economy as autonomous domains. Anthropology thus transcends the divisions between the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities to explore the biological, linguistic, material, and symbolic dimensions of humankind in all forms.

text: National anthropological traditions[edit]

text: As academic disciplines began to differentiate over the course of the nineteenth century, anthropology grew increasingly distinct from the biological approach of natural history, on the one hand, and from purely historical or literary fields such as Classics, on the other. A common criticism was that many social sciences (such as economists, sociologists, and psychologists) in Western countries focused disproportionately on Western subjects, while anthropology focuseed disproportionately on the "other".[38]

text: Britain[edit]

text: Museums such as the British Museum weren't the only site of anthropological studies: with the New Imperialism period, starting in the 1870s, zoos became unattended "laboratories", especially the so-called "ethnological exhibitions" or "Negro villages". Thus, "savages" from the colonies were displayed, often nudes, in cages, in what has been called "human zoos". For example, in 1906, Congolese pygmy Ota Benga was put by anthropologist Madison Grant in a cage in the Bronx Zoo, labelled "the missing link" between an orangutan and the "white race" – Grant, a renowned eugenicist, was also the author of The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Such exhibitions were attempts to illustrate and prove in the same movement the validity of scientific racism, which first formulation may be found in Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races (1853–55). In 1931, the Colonial Exhibition in Paris still displayed Kanaks from New Caledonia in the "indigenous village"; it received 24 million visitors in six months, thus demonstrating the popularity of such "human zoos".

text: Anthropology grew increasingly distinct from natural history and by the end of the nineteenth century the discipline began to crystallize into its modern form - by 1935, for example, it was possible for T.K. Penniman to write a history of the discipline entitled A Hundred Years of Anthropology. At the time, the field was dominated by 'the comparative method'. It was assumed that all societies passed through a single evolutionary process from the most primitive to most advanced. Non-European societies were thus seen as evolutionary 'living fossils' that could be studied in order to understand the European past. Scholars wrote histories of prehistoric migrations which were sometimes valuable but often also fanciful. It was during this time that Europeans first accurately traced Polynesian migrations across the Pacific Ocean for instance - although some of them believed it originated in Egypt. Finally, the concept of race was actively discussed as a way to classify - and rank - human beings based on difference.

text: E.B. Tylor and James Frazer[edit]

text: Edward Burnett Tylor (2 October 1832 – 2 January 1917) and James George Frazer (1 January 1854 – 7 May 1941) are generally considered the antecedents to modern social anthropology in Britain. Although Tylor undertook a field trip to Mexico, both he and Frazer derived most of the material for their comparative studies through extensive reading, not fieldwork, mainly the Classics (literature and history of Greece and Rome), the work of the early European folklorists, and reports from missionaries, travelers, and contemporaneous ethnologists.

text: Tylor advocated strongly for unilinealism and a form of "uniformity of mankind".[39] Tylor in particular laid the groundwork for theories of cultural diffusionism, stating that there are three ways that different groups can have similar cultural forms or technologies: "independent invention, inheritance from ancestors in a distant region, transmission from one race  [sic] to another."[40]

text: Tylor formulated one of the early and influential anthropological conceptions of culture as "that complex whole, which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by [humans] as [members] of society."[41] However, as Stocking notes, Tylor mainly concerned himself with describing and mapping the distribution of particular elements of culture, rather than with the larger function, and he generally seemed to assume a Victorian idea of progress rather than the idea of non-directional, multilineal cultural development proposed by later anthropologists.

text: Tylor also theorized about the origins of religious beliefs in human beings, proposing a theory of animism as the earliest stage, and noting that "religion" has many components, of which he believed the most important to be belief in supernatural beings (as opposed to moral systems, cosmology, etc.). Frazer, a Scottish scholar with a broad knowledge of Classics, also concerned himself with religion, myth, and magic. His comparative studies, most influentially in the numerous editions of The Golden Bough, analyzed similarities in religious belief and symbolism globally. Neither Tylor nor Frazer, however, was particularly interested in fieldwork, nor were they interested in examining how the cultural elements and institutions fit together. The Golden Bough was abridged drastically in subsequent editions after his first.

text: Bronislaw Malinowski and the British School[edit]

text: Toward the turn of the twentieth century, a number of anthropologists became dissatisfied with this categorization of cultural elements; historical reconstructions also came to seem increasingly speculative to them. Under the influence of several younger scholars, a new approach came to predominate among British anthropologists, concerned with analyzing how societies held together in the present (synchronic analysis, rather than diachronic or historical analysis), and emphasizing long-term (one to several years) immersion fieldwork. Cambridge University financed a multidisciplinary expedition to the Torres Strait Islands in 1898, organized by Alfred Cort Haddon and including a physician-anthropologist, William Rivers, as well as a linguist, a botanist, and other specialists. The findings of the expedition set new standards for ethnographic description.

text: A decade and a half later, Polish anthropology student Bronisław Malinowski (1884–1942) was beginning what he expected to be a brief period of fieldwork in the old model, collecting lists of cultural items, when the outbreak of the First World War stranded him in New Guinea. As a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire resident on a British colonial possession, he was effectively confined to New Guinea for several years.[42]

text: He made use of the time by undertaking far more intensive fieldwork than had been done by British anthropologists, and his classic ethnography, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) advocated an approach to fieldwork that became standard in the field: getting "the native's point of view" through participant observation. Theoretically, he advocated a functionalist interpretation, which examined how social institutions functioned to satisfy individual needs.

text: British social anthropology had an expansive moment in the Interwar period, with key contributions coming from the Polish-British Bronisław Malinowski and Meyer Fortes[43]

text: A. R. Radcliffe-Brown also published a seminal work in 1922. He had carried out his initial fieldwork in the Andaman Islands in the old style of historical reconstruction. However, after reading the work of French sociologists Émile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, Radcliffe-Brown published an account of his research (entitled simply The Andaman Islanders) that paid close attention to the meaning and purpose of rituals and myths. Over time, he developed an approach known as structural functionalism, which focused on how institutions in societies worked to balance out or create an equilibrium in the social system to keep it functioning harmoniously. (This contrasted with Malinowski's functionalism, and was quite different from the later French structuralism, which examined the conceptual structures in language and symbolism.)

text: Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown's influence stemmed from the fact that they, like Boas, actively trained students and aggressively built up institutions that furthered their programmatic ambitions. This was particularly the case with Radcliffe-Brown, who spread his agenda for "Social Anthropology" by teaching at universities across the British Commonwealth. From the late 1930s until the postwar period appeared a string of monographs and edited volumes that cemented the paradigm of British Social Anthropology (BSA). Famous ethnographies include The Nuer, by Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard, and The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi, by Meyer Fortes; well-known edited volumes include African Systems of Kinship and Marriage and African Political Systems.

text: Post WW II trends[edit]

text: Max Gluckman, together with many of his colleagues at the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute and students at Manchester University, collectively known as the Manchester School, took BSA in new directions through their introduction of explicitly Marxist-informed theory, their emphasis on conflicts and conflict resolution, and their attention to the ways in which individuals negotiate and make use of the social structural possibilities.

text: In Britain, anthropology had a great intellectual impact, it "contributed to the erosion of Christianity, the growth of cultural relativism, an awareness of the survival of the primitive in modern life, and the replacement of diachronic modes of analysis with synchronic, all of which are central to modern culture."[44]

text: Later in the 1960s and 1970s, Edmund Leach and his students Mary Douglas and Nur Yalman, among others, introduced French structuralism in the style of Lévi-Strauss; while British anthropology has continued to emphasize social organization and economics over purely symbolic or literary topics, differences among British, French, and American sociocultural anthropologies have diminished with increasing dialogue and borrowing of both theory and methods. Today, social anthropology in Britain engages internationally with many other social theories and has branched in many directions.

text: In countries of the British Commonwealth, social anthropology has often been institutionally separate from physical anthropology and primatology, which may be connected with departments of biology or zoology; and from archaeology, which may be connected with departments of Classics, Egyptology, and the like. In other countries (and in some, particularly smaller, British and North American universities), anthropologists have also found themselves institutionally linked with scholars of folklore, museum studies, human geography, sociology, social relations, ethnic studies, cultural studies, and social work.

text: Anthropology has been used in Britain to provide an alternative explanation for the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 to the technical explanations rooted in economic and political theory. Dr. Gillian Tett, a Cambridge University trained anthropologist who went on to become a senior editor at the Financial Times is one of the leaders in this use of anthropology.

text: Canada[edit]

text: Canadian anthropology began, as in other parts of the Colonial world, as ethnological data in the records of travellers and missionaries. In Canada, Jesuit missionaries such as Fathers LeClercq, Le Jeune and Sagard, in the 17th century, provide the oldest ethnographic records of native tribes in what was then the Dominion of Canada. The academic discipline has drawn strongly on both the British Social Anthropology and the American Cultural Anthropology traditions, producing a hybrid "Socio-cultural" anthropology.

text: George Mercer Dawson[edit]

text: True anthropology began with a Government department: the Geological Survey of Canada, and George Mercer Dawson (director in 1895). Dawson's support for anthropology created impetus for the profession in Canada. This was expanded upon by Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, who established a Division of Anthropology within the Geological Survey in 1910.

text: Edward Sapir[edit]

text: Anthropologists were recruited from England and the USA, setting the foundation for the unique Canadian style of anthropology. Scholars include the linguist and Boasian Edward Sapir.

text: France[edit]

text: Anthropology in France has a less clear genealogy than the British and American traditions, in part because many French writers influential in anthropology have been trained or held faculty positions in sociology, philosophy, or other fields rather than in anthropology.

text: Marcel Mauss[edit]

text: Most commentators consider Marcel Mauss (1872–1950), nephew of the influential sociologist Émile Durkheim, to be the founder of the French anthropological tradition. Mauss belonged to Durkheim's Année Sociologique group. While Durkheim and others examined the state of modern societies, Mauss and his collaborators (such as Henri Hubert and Robert Hertz) drew on ethnography and philology to analyze societies that were not as 'differentiated' as European nation states.

text: Two works by Mauss in particular proved to have enduring relevance: Essay on the Gift, a seminal analysis of exchange and reciprocity, and his Huxley lecture on the notion of the person, the first comparative study of notions of person and selfhood cross-culturally.[45]

text: Throughout the interwar years, French interest in anthropology often dovetailed with wider cultural movements such as surrealism and primitivism, which drew on ethnography for inspiration. Marcel Griaule and Michel Leiris are examples of people who combined anthropology with the French avant-garde. During this time most of what is known as ethnologie was restricted to museums, such as the Musée de l'Homme founded by Paul Rivet, and anthropology had a close relationship with studies of folklore.

text: Claude Lévi-Strauss[edit]

text: Above all, Claude Lévi-Strauss helped institutionalize anthropology in France. Along with the enormous influence that his theory of structuralism exerted across multiple disciplines, Lévi-Strauss established ties with American and British anthropologists. At the same time, he established centers and laboratories within France to provide an institutional context within anthropology, while training influential students such as Maurice Godelier and Françoise Héritier. They proved influential in the world of French anthropology. Much of the distinct character of France's anthropology today is a result of the fact that most anthropology is carried out in nationally funded research laboratories (CNRS) rather than academic departments in universities

text: Other influential writers in the 1970s include Pierre Clastres, who explains in his books on the Guayaki tribe in Paraguay that "primitive societies" actively oppose the institution of the state. These stateless societies are not less evolved than societies with states, but chose to conjure the institution of authority as a separate function from society. The leader is only a spokesperson for the group when it has to deal with other groups ("international relations") but has no inside authority, and may be violently removed if he attempts to abuse this position.[46]

text: The most important French social theorist since Foucault and Lévi-Strauss is Pierre Bourdieu, who trained formally in philosophy and sociology and eventually held the Chair of Sociology at the Collège de France. Like Mauss and others before him, he worked on topics both in sociology and anthropology. His fieldwork among the Kabyle of Algeria places him solidly in anthropology, while his analysis of the function and reproduction of fashion and cultural capital in European societies places him as solidly in sociology.

text: United States[edit]

text: From its beginnings in the early 19th century through the early 20th century, anthropology in the United States was influenced by the presence of Native American societies.

text: Cultural anthropology in the United States was influenced greatly by the ready availability of Native American societies as ethnographic subjects. The field was pioneered by staff of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology, men such as John Wesley Powell and Frank Hamilton Cushing.

text: Late eighteenth century ethnology established the scientific foundation for the field, which began to mature in the United States during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). Jackson was responsible for implementing the Indian Removal Act, the coerced and forced removal of an estimated 100,000 American Indians during the 1830s to Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma; for insuring that the franchise was extended to all white men, irrespective of financial means while denying virtually all black men the right to vote; and, for suppressing abolitionists’ efforts to end slavery while vigorously defending that institution. Finally, he was responsible for appointing Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who would decide, in Scott v. Sandford (1857), that Negroes were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race.. . and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." As a result of this decision, black people, whether free or enslaved, could never become citizens of the United States.

text: It was in this context that the so-called American School of Anthropology thrived as the champion of polygenism or the doctrine of multiple origins—sparking a debate between those influenced by the Bible who believed in the unity of humanity and those who argued from a scientific standpoint for the plurality of origins and the antiquity of distinct types. Like the monogenists, these theories were not monolithic and often used words like races, species, hybrid, and mongrel interchangeably. A scientific consensus began to emerge during this period "that there exists a Genus Homo, embracing many primordial types of ‘species’." Charles Caldwell, Samuel George Morton, Samuel A. Cartwright, George Gliddon, Josiah C. Nott, and Louis Agassiz, and even South Carolina Governor James Henry Hammond were all influential proponents of this school. While some were disinterested scientists, others were passionate advocates who used science to promote slavery in a period of increasing sectional strife. All were complicit in establishing the putative science that justified slavery, informed the Dred Scott decision, underpinned miscegenation laws, and eventually fueled Jim Crow. Samuel G. Morton, for example, claimed to be just a scientist but he did not hesitate to provide evidence of Negro inferiority to John C. Calhoun, the prominent pro-slavery Secretary of State to help him negotiate the annexation of Texas as a slave state.

text: The high-water mark of polygenic theories was Josiah Nott and Gliddon’s voluminous eight-hundred page tome titled Types of Mankind, published in 1854. Reproducing the work of Louis Agassiz and Samuel Morton, the authors spread the virulent and explicitly racist views to a wider, more popular audience. The first printing sold out quickly and by the end of the century it had undergone nine editions. Although many Southerners felt that all the justification for slavery they needed was found in the Bible, others used the new science to defend slavery and the repression of American Indians. Abolitionists, however, felt they had to take this science on its own terms. And for the first time, African American intellectuals waded into the contentious debate. In the immediate wake of Types of Mankind and during the pitched political battles that led to Civil War, Frederick Douglass (1818–1895), the statesman and persuasive abolitionist, directly attacked the leading theorists of the American School of Anthropology. In an 1854 address, entitled "The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered," Douglass argued that "by making the enslaved a character fit only for slavery, [slaveowners] excuse themselves for refusing to make the slave a freeman.... For let it be once granted that the human race are of multitudinous origin, naturally different in their moral, physical, and intellectual capacities... a chance is left for slavery, as a necessary institution.... There is no doubt that Messrs. Nott, Glidden, Morton, Smith and Agassiz were duly consulted by our slavery propagating statesmen." (p. 287).

text: Lewis Henry Morgan in the USA[edit]

text: Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881), a lawyer from Rochester, New York, became an advocate for and ethnological scholar of the Iroquois. His comparative analyses of religion, government, material culture, and especially kinship patterns proved to be influential contributions to the field of anthropology. Like other scholars of his day (such as Edward Tylor), Morgan argued that human societies could be classified into categories of cultural evolution on a scale of progression that ranged from savagery, to barbarism, to civilization. He focused on understanding how cultures integrated and systematized, and how the various features of one culture indicate an evolutionary status in comparison with other cultures. Generally, Morgan used technology (such as bowmaking or pottery) as an indicator of position on this scale.

text: Franz Boas[edit]

text: Franz Boas established academic anthropology in the United States in opposition to this sort of evolutionary perspective. His approach was empirical, skeptical of overgeneralizations, and eschewed attempts to establish universal laws. For example, Boas studied immigrant children to demonstrate that biological race was not immutable, and that human conduct and behavior resulted from nurture, rather than nature.

text: Influenced by the German tradition, Boas argued that the world was full of distinct cultures, rather than societies whose evolution could be measured by how much or how little "civilization" they had. He believed that each culture has to be studied in its particularity, and argued that cross-cultural generalizations, like those made in the natural sciences, were not possible.

text: In doing so, he fought discrimination against immigrants, blacks, and indigenous peoples of the Americas.[47] Many American anthropologists adopted his agenda for social reform, and theories of race continue to be popular subjects for anthropologists today. The so-called "Four Field Approach" has its origins in Boasian Anthropology, dividing the discipline in the four crucial and interrelated fields of sociocultural, biological, linguistic, and archaic anthropology (e.g. archaeology). Anthropology in the United States continues to be deeply influenced by the Boasian tradition, especially its emphasis on culture.

text: Boas used his positions at Columbia University and the American Museum of Natural History to train and develop multiple generations of students. His first generation of students included Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Edward Sapir and Ruth Benedict, who each produced richly detailed studies of indigenous North American cultures. They provided a wealth of details used to attack the theory of a single evolutionary process. Kroeber and Sapir's focus on Native American languages helped establish linguistics as a truly general science and free it from its historical focus on Indo-European languages.

text: The publication of Alfred Kroeber's textbook, Anthropology, marked a turning point in American anthropology. After three decades of amassing material, Boasians felt a growing urge to generalize. This was most obvious in the 'Culture and Personality' studies carried out by younger Boasians such as Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict. Influenced by psychoanalytic psychologists including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, these authors sought to understand the way that individual personalities were shaped by the wider cultural and social forces in which they grew up.

text: Though such works as Coming of Age in Samoa and The Chrysanthemum and the Sword remain popular with the American public, Mead and Benedict never had the impact on the discipline of anthropology that some expected. Boas had planned for Ruth Benedict to succeed him as chair of Columbia's anthropology department, but she was sidelined by Ralph Linton, and Mead was limited to her offices at the AMNH.

text: Other countries[edit]

text: Anthropology as it emerged amongst the Western colonial powers (mentioned above) has generally taken a different path than that in the countries of southern and central Europe (Italy, Greece, and the successors to the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires). In the former, the encounter with multiple, distinct cultures, often very different in organization and language from those of Europe, has led to a continuing emphasis on cross-cultural comparison and a receptiveness to certain kinds of cultural relativism.[48]

text: In the successor states of continental Europe, on the other hand, anthropologists often joined with folklorists and linguists in building cultural perspectives on nationalism. Ethnologists in these countries tended to focus on differentiating among local ethnolinguistic groups, documenting local folk culture, and representing the prehistory of what has become a nation through various forms of public education (e.g., museums of several kinds).[49]

text: In this scheme, Russia occupied a middle position. On the one hand, it had a large region (largely east of the Urals) of highly distinct, pre-industrial, often non-literate peoples, similar to the situation in the Americas. On the other hand, Russia also participated to some degree in the nationalist (cultural and political) movements of Central and Eastern Europe. After the Revolution of 1917, views expressed by anthropologists in the USSR, and later the Soviet Bloc countries, were highly shaped by the requirement to conform to Marxist theories of social evolution.[50]

text: In Greece, there was since the 19th century a science of the folklore called laographia (laography), in the form of "a science of the interior", although theoretically weak; but the connotation of the field deeply changed after World War II, when a wave of Anglo-American anthropologists introduced a science "of the outside".[51]

text: In Italy, the development of ethnology and related studies did not receive as much attention as other branches of learning [52], but nonetheless included important researchers and thinkers like Ernesto De Martino [53].

text: Germany and Norway are the countries that showed the most division and conflict between scholars focusing on domestic socio-cultural issues and scholars focusing on "other" societies.[citation needed]. Some German and Austrian scholars have increased cultural anthropology as both legal anthropology regarding "other" societies and anthropology of Western civilization.[54]

text: The development of world anthropologies has followed different trajectories.

text: 20th-century developments[edit]

text: In the mid-20th century, American anthropology began to study its own history more systematically. In 1967 Marvin Harris published his The Rise of Anthropological Theory, presenting argumentative examinations of anthropology's historical developments, and George W. Stocking, Jr., established the historicist school, examining the historical contexts of anthropological movements.


document_title: Tea in the United Kingdom

question_text: where did putting milk in tea come from

question_tokens: where did putting milk in tea come from

root

text: Tea in the United Kingdom

text: History[edit]

text: Early mentions[edit]

text: The first record of tea written in English came from English merchants abroad. In 1615, Richard Wickham, who ran an East India Company office in Japan, wrote in a letter to merchants in Macao requesting that they bring him "a pot of the best sort of chaw". Peter Mundy, a traveller and merchant who came across tea in Fujian, China in 1637, wrote, "chaa – only water with a kind of herb boiled in it".[3]

tag: p

text: Green tea exported from China was first introduced in the coffeehouses of London shortly before the Stuart Restoration (1660); in 1657, tea was offered as an item in a London coffeehouse in Exchange Alley.[4] The owner Thomas Garraway had to explain the new beverage in a pamphlet, and an advertisement in Mercurius Politicus for 30 September 1658 offered "That Excellent, and by all Physicians approved, China drink, called by the Chinese, Tcha, by other nations Tay alias Tee, ...sold at the Sultaness-head, ye Cophee-house in Sweetings-Rents, by the Royal Exchange, London". [5] In London "Coffee, chocolate and a kind of drink called tee" were "sold in almost every street in 1659", according to Thomas Rugge's Diurnall.[6] Tea was mainly consumed by upper and mercantile classes: Samuel Pepys, curious for every novelty, tasted the new drink in 1660 and recorded the experience in his diary: [25 September] "I did send for a cup of tee, (a China drink) of which I had never had drunk before". Some years later, in 1667, Pepys noted that his wife was taking tea on medical advice – "a drink which Mr Pelling the Pottecary tells her is good for her colds and defluxions". The Royal College of Physicians debated whether any of the exotic new hot drinks would "agree with the Constitutions of our English bodies".[7]

text: Stuarts and Georgians[edit]

text: In 1660, two pounds and two ounces of tea bought from Portugal were formally presented to Charles II by the British East India Company.[8] The drink, already common in Europe, was a favourite of his new Portuguese bride, Catherine of Braganza, who introduced it at court after she married Charles II in 1662. As tea was her temperance drink of choice, it gained social acceptance among the aristocracy. Catherine of Braganza's choice of tea was also instrumental in the popularization of tea in Britain – because tea was introduced primarily through male-frequented coffee houses, there would have been far less social acceptability for women to drink this beverage had it not been for her example. Catherine of Braganza's use of tea as a court beverage, rather than a medicinal drink, influenced its popularity in literary circles around 1685.[9]

text: The British East India company made its first order for the importation of tea in 1667 to their agent in Bantam, and two canisters of tea weighing 143 lbs 8 oz arrived from Bantam in 1669.[10] In 1672, a servant of Baron Herbert in London sent his instructions for tea making, and warming the delicate cups, to Shropshire;

text: "The directions for the tea are: a quart of spring water just boiled, to which put a spoonful of tea, and sweeten to the palate with candy sugar. As soon as the tea and sugar are in, the steam must be kept in as much as may be, and let it lie half or quarter of an hour in the heat of the fire but not boil. The little cups must be held over the steam before the liquid be put in."[11]

text: The earliest English equipages for making tea date to the 1660s. Small porcelain tea bowls were used by the fashionable; they were occasionally shipped with the tea itself. Tea-drinking spurred the search for a European imitation of Chinese porcelain, first successfully produced in England at the Chelsea porcelain manufactory, established around 1743-45 and quickly imitated. See tea set.

text: Black tea overtook green tea in popularity in the 1720s when sugar and milk were added to tea, a practice that was not done in China. The growth in the import of tea parallels that of sugar in the 18th century.[12] Between 1720 and 1750 the imports of tea to Britain through the British East India Company more than quadrupled.[13] Fernand Braudel queried, "is it true to say the new drink replaced gin in England?"[14] By 1766, exports from Canton stood at six million pounds on British boats, compared with 4.5 on Dutch ships, 2.4 on Swedish, 2.1 on French.[15] Veritable "tea fleets" grew up. Tea was particularly interesting to the Atlantic world not only because it was easy to cultivate but also because of how easy it was to prepare and its ability to revive the spirits and cure mild colds.[16]

text: Thomas Twining opened the first known tea shop in 1706, which still remains at 216 Strand, London. In 1787, the company created its logo, still in use today, which is thought to be the world's oldest commercial logo that has been in continuous use since its inception.[17] Under Associated British Foods since 1964, Stephen Twining now represents the company's tenth generation. In 2006, Twinings celebrated its 300th anniversary with a special tea and associated tea caddies. Twining's is a Royal Warrant holder (appointed by HM The Queen).

text: Victorian and later[edit]

text: Some scholars suggest that tea played a role in British Industrial Revolution. Afternoon tea possibly became a way to increase the number of hours labourers could work in factories; the stimulants in the tea, accompanied by sugary snacks would give workers energy to finish the day's work. Further, tea helped alleviate some of the consequences of the urbanization that accompanied the industrial revolution: drinking tea required boiling the water, thereby killing water-borne diseases like dysentery, cholera, and typhoid.[18]

text: The popularity of tea occasioned the furtive export of slips, a small shoot for planting or twig for grafting to tea plants, from China to British India and its commercial cultivation there, beginning in 1840.

text: Between 1872 and 1884 the supply of tea to the British Empire increased with the expansion of the railway to the east. The demand, however, was not proportional, which caused the prices to rise. Nevertheless, from 1884 onward, due to innovation in tea preparation, the price of tea dropped and remained relatively low throughout the first half of the 20th century.

text: Soon afterwards London became the centre of the international tea trade.[19] With high tea imports also came a large increase in the demand for porcelain. The demand for tea cups, pots and dishes increased to go along with this popular new drink.[16]

text: Roger Fulford argues that tea rooms benefitted women in the Victorian era, in that these neutral public spaces were instrumental in the "spread of independence" for women and their struggle for the vote.[20] Paul Chrystal characterises tea rooms as "popular and fashionable, especially with women", providing them a dignified and safe place to meet and eat - and strategise on political campaigns.[21]

text: British-style tea[edit]

text: Brewing the tea[edit]

text: Even very slightly formal events can be a cause for cups and saucers to be used instead of mugs. A typical semi-formal British tea ritual might run as follows (the host performing all actions unless noted):[22]

text:
The kettle is brought to a rolling boil (with fresh water to ensure good oxygenation which is essential for proper diffusion of the tea leaves).[23]
Enough boiling water is swirled around the teapot to warm it and then poured out.
Add loose tea leaves (usually black tea) or tea bags, always added before the boiled water.
Fresh boiling water is poured over the tea in the pot and allowed to brew for 2 to 5 minutes while a tea cosy may be placed on the pot to keep the tea warm.[24]
A tea strainer is placed over the top of the cup and the tea poured in, unless tea bags are used. Tea bags may be removed, if desired, once desired strength is attained.
White sugar and milk (in that order) may be added, usually by the guest.
The pot will normally hold enough tea so as not to be empty after filling the cups of all the guests. If this is the case, the tea cosy is replaced after everyone has been served. Hot water may be provided in a separate pot, and is used only for topping up the pot, never the cup.

tag: ol

text: The question of milk[edit]

text:
"By putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk, whereas one is likely to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round"

—One of Orwell's eleven rules for making tea from his essay "A Nice Cup of Tea", appearing in the London Evening Standard, 12 January 1946.[25]

tag: div

text: Whether to put milk into the cup before or after the tea has been a matter of debate since at least the mid-20th century; in his 1946 essay "A Nice Cup of Tea", author George Orwell wrote, "tea is one of the mainstays of civilisation in this country and causes violent disputes over how it should be made".[26] Whether to put tea in the cup first and add the milk after, or the other way around, has split public opinion, with Orwell stating, "indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject".[26]

text: Another aspect of the debate are claims that adding milk at the different times alters the flavour of the tea (for instance, see ISO 3103 and the Royal Society of Chemistry's "How to make a Perfect Cup of Tea".[27]) Some studies suggest that the heating of milk above 75 degrees Celsius (adding milk after the tea is poured, not before) does cause denaturation of the lactalbumin and lactoglobulin.[28] Other studies argue brewing time has a greater importance.[29] Regardless, when milk is added to tea, it may affect the flavour. In addition to considerations of flavour, the order of these steps is thought to have been, historically, an indication of class. Only those wealthy enough to afford good-quality porcelain would be confident of its being able to cope with being exposed to boiling water unadulterated with milk.[30]

text: A further point of discussion on when to add milk is how it affects the time taken for the liquid to reach a drinkable temperature. While adding milk first will cause an initial drop in temperature which leads to a more shallow cooling curve (thus slower cooling) while also increasing volume (which would slightly increase the surface area through which the tea could lose heat), one study noted that adding milk first leads to the tea retaining heat out of all proportion with these effects. The major mechanism by which hot tea cools is not conduction or radiation but evaporative loss which is affected by the physical properties of the milk.[footnote 1] The study concluded that lipids in milk prevent water evaporating so rapidly thus retaining heat longer.[footnote 2]

text: Drinking etiquette[edit]

text: There are opinions as to the proper manner in which to drink tea when using a cup and saucer.[31] Historically, during the 1770s and 1780s, it was fashionable to drink tea from saucers. Saucers were deeper than is the current fashion and so more similar to bowls like their Chinese antecedents.[32] If one is seated at a table, the proper manner to drink tea is to raise the teacup only, placing it back into the saucer in between sips. When standing or sitting in a chair without a table, one holds the tea saucer with the off hand and the tea cup in the dominant hand. When not in use, the tea cup is placed back in the tea saucer and held in one's lap or at waist height. In either event, the tea cup should never be held or waved in the air. Fingers should be curled inwards, no finger should extend away from the handle of the cup.[22]

text: Tea as a break[edit]

text: British workers by law, have the right to a minimum of a twenty-minute break in a shift of six hours; government guidelines describe this as "a tea or lunch break".[33] More informally, this is known as elevenses, i.e. a couple of hours before the midday meal, traditionally served at 11 am.

text: Builder's tea in a mug is typical of a quick tea break in the working day.

text: Tea as a meal[edit]

text: Tea is not only the name of the beverage but also of a light meal. Anna Maria, Duchess of Bedford, is credited with its creation, circa 1840, to ward off hunger between luncheon and dinner, as the latter was being served later and later. The tradition continues to this day in tea rooms in the UK. While these establishments have declined in popularity since World War II, there are still many to be found in the countryside. In the West Country, cream teas are a speciality: scones, clotted cream and jam accompany the drink. Afternoon tea, in contemporary British usage, usually indicates a special occasion, perhaps in a hotel dining room, with savoury snacks (tea sandwiches) as well as small sweet pastries.

text: A social event to enjoy tea together, usually in a private home, is a tea party.

text: "Tea" (sometimes "high tea") can also mean the savoury, hot early evening meal. This usage is common in working class British English and in Northern England, Scotland, and Ulster (almost exclusively in County Donegal and Northern Ireland). See Tea as the evening meal.

text: Tea cards[edit]

text: In the United Kingdom, a number of varieties of loose tea sold in packets from the 1940s to the 1980s contained tea cards. These were illustrated cards roughly the same size as cigarette cards and intended to be collected by children. Perhaps the best known were Typhoo tea and Brooke Bond (manufacturer of PG Tips), the latter of whom also provided albums for collectors to keep their cards in. In the brand named Brooke Bond Dividend D, the card was a dividend ("divvy") against the cost of the tea.

text: Some renowned artists were commissioned to illustrate the cards, including Charles Tunnicliffe. Many of these card collections are now valuable collectors' items.

text: A related phenomenon arose in the early 1990s when PG Tips released a series of tea-based pogs, with pictures of cups of tea and chimpanzees on them. Tetley's tea released competing pogs but never matched the popularity of the PG Tips variety.

text: Popularity of tea in UK[edit]

text: This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (September 2017)

tag: table

text: Historians argue about the origins of tea’s popularity and many attribute it to one or two factors. Ukers argues in All About Tea: Volume I that the rise in popularity of tea in Great Britain was largely due to tea’s reputation among men as a medical drink that can cure a wide array of ailments and its burgeoning presence in the coffeehouses where elite men congregated.[34] As for tea’s popularity among women, he briefly acknowledges that Princess Catherine of Braganza made tea fashionable among aristocratic women, but largely attributes its popularity to its ubiquity in the medical discourse of seventeenth century. Ellis, Coulton, and Mauger trace tea’s popularity back to three distinct groups in Empire of Tea: The Asian Leaf that Conquered the World. These groups were virtuosi, merchants, and elite female aristocrats.[35] They argue that the influence of these three groups combined launched tea as a popular beverage in Great Britain. Smith, in his article “Complications of the Commonplace: Tea, Sugar, and Imperialism” differs from Ukers and Ellis, Coulton, and Mauger in that he argues that tea only became popular once sugar was added to the drink and tea with sugar became associated with a domestic ritual that indicated respectability.[36] Mintz, in both “The Changing Roles of Food in the Story of Consumption” and Sweetness and Power, agrees and disagrees with Smith. Mintz acknowledges that sugar played a monumental role in the rise of tea, but contradicts Smith’s connection of tea to respectability.[37] While Smith argues that tea first became popular in the home, Mintz believes tea first became popular in the workplace, as people drank tea during the workday for its warm sweetness and stimulating properties.[38] It was later that it entered the home and became an “integral part of the social fabric.”[39] After reviewing the discourse, it is clear that while many historians attribute tea’s rise to prominence in England to only two or three varying factors, it was actually due to a combination of up to six factors that changed and progressed over time as tea became more common throughout various levels of English society.

text: The history of European interactions with tea dates back to the mid-sixteenth century. The earliest mention of tea in European literature was by Giambattista Ramusio, a Venetian explorer, as Chai Catai or “Tea of China” in 1559.[40] Tea was mentioned several more times in various European countries afterwards, but Jan Hugo van Linschooten, a Dutch navigator, was the first to write a printed reference of tea in 1598 in his Discours of Voyages.[41] However, it was several years later, in 1615, that the earliest known reference to tea by an Englishman took place in a letter exchanged between Mr. R. Wickham, an agent for the British East India Company stationed at Japan to a Mr. Eaton, who was stationed in Macao, China.[42] In this letter, Wickham asked Eaton to send him “a pot of the best sort of chaw,”[42] phonetically how one would write chàh, the local (Cantonese) dialect word for tea. Another early reference to tea appears in the writings of trader Samuel Purchas in 1625.[43] Purchas describes how the Chinese consume tea as “the powder of a certaine herbe called chia of which they put as much as a walnut shell may contain, into a dish of Porcelane, and drink it with hot water.”[43] Though there were a number of early mentions, it was several more years before tea was actually sold in England. Thomas Garway, a tobacconist and coffee house owner, was the first person in England to sell tea as a leaf and beverage at his shop in Exchange Alley in 1657.[44] Immediately after Garway began selling it, the Sultaness Head Coffee House began selling tea as a beverage and posted the first newspaper advertisement for tea in Mercurius Politicus in 1658.[45] The announcement proclaimed “That Excellent and by all Physicians approved China drink, called by the Chineans Tcha, by other Nations Tay, alias Tee, is sold at the Sultaness Head Cophee House in Sweetings Rents, by the Royal Exchange, London.”[45] While tea slowly became more common in coffeehouses in the years that followed, the first tea shop in London did not open until 1717 and it was not until this time that tea became commonly used.[46] In between tea’s earliest mentions in England and its widespread popularity little over a century later, many factors contributed the craze for this previously unknown foreign commodity.

text: The first factor that contributed to the rise in popularity of tea was its reputation as a medical drink. Tea first became labeled as a medical drink in 1641 by Dr. Nikolas Dirx, who wrote under the pseudonym “Nicolas Tulp” and was a celebrated Dutch physician.[47] Tulp praised tea in his book, Observationes Medicae, claiming that “nothing is comparable to this plant” and that those who use it are “exempt from all maladies and reach an extreme old age.”[48] He goes into detail on the specific merits of tea, such as curing “headaches, colds, ophthalmia, catarrh, asthma, sluggishness of the stomach, and intestinal troubles.”[48] It is important to note that Tulp was also a director of the Dutch East India Company, so his praise of tea was likely a marketing tactic.[49] Thomas Garway, the first English shopkeeper to sell tea, published a broadsheet in 1660 titled “An Exact Description of the Growth, Quality, and Vertues of the Leaf TEA” which also praised tea’s medical benefits. Garway claims that “the Drink is declared to be most wholesome, preserving in perfect health until extreme Old Age,” as well as “maketh the body active and lusty,” “helpeth the Headache,” “taketh away the difficulty of breathing,” “strengtheneth the Memory,” and “expelleth infection.”[50] There were many more published works on the health benefits of tea, including those by Hartlib in 1657, Bontekoe in 1678, Povey in 1686, and Tryon in the 1690s.[51][52][53] Even John Locke, the famous English philosopher, developed a fondness for tea after spending time with Dutch medical men in the 1680s.[54] Ellis, Coulton, and Mauger refer to these men as “virtuosi”: scientists, philosophers, and doctors who first took an interest in tea and contributed to its early popularity as a pharmaceutical.[55] But, such as with the case of Tulp, some of these men may have been influenced by Indies companies and merchants who wished to create a market for tea. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that these writings about the so-called health benefits of tea contributed to rise in popularity of tea in England.

text: The proliferation of works on the health benefits of tea happened to come at a time when people in the upper classes of English society began to take an interest in their health, which ties into the second factor that gave rise to tea’s popularity. As most historians will say, Princess Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese princess who married King Charles II in 1662, introduced tea to the aristocratic class and made it fashionable among the ladies of the court.[49][56] According to Ellis, Coulton, Maugher, “tea was six to ten times more expensive than coffee” in the 1660s, making it an extremely expensive and luxurious commodity.[57] Tea’s association with luxury was perhaps why it became so popular among the elite. Whenever it was consumed in the court, it was “conspicuously on display” so as to show it off.[55] Tea drinking became a central aspect of aristocratic society in England by the 1680s, particularly among women who drank it while gossiping in the home.[58] Catherine of Braganza’s introduction of tea to ladies was significant because it made tea an acceptable drink for both sexes, when it easily could have been categorized as a men’s drink if it had remained only available in the coffeehouses that only men frequented. Wealthy ladies’ desire to show off their luxurious commodities in front of other ladies also increased demand for tea and made it more popular. Another factor that made tea desirable among the elite crowd was the addition of sugar, another luxurious commodity which was already well-established among the upper classes.

text: Though tea was already gaining popularity on its own, the addition of sugar is what allowed tea’s popularity to soar, making sugar the third factor that contributed to tea’s rise. According to Smith, the English began adding sugar to their tea between 1685 and the early eighteenth century.[59] At this time, sugar was already being used to enhance the flavor of other foods among the elite and had a reputation as an ostentatious luxury.[60] Because both tea and sugar had status implications it made sense to drink them together.[61] Furthermore, sugar imports into England were growing rapidly because the supply of sugar was highly elastic due to the growth of sugar plantations in the Americas.[62] But, as previously mentioned, the elite classes of England were starting to care more about their health and literature on the unhealthiness of sugar was beginning to circulate in the late seventeenth century.[63] Adding sugar to tea, however, was seen as an acceptable way to consume sugar because it suggested that “one had the self-control to consume sugar in a healthy way.”[63] Sugar also masks tea’s bitterness, so it simply made tea more desirable because it tasted better. As the supply of both tea and sugar grew during the early eighteenth century, the combination of the two commodities became more universal and increased the popularity and demand for both products.

text: Tea would not have become the English staple it is known as if not for the increase in its supply that made it more accessible. When tea was first introduced to England, the British East India Company was not directly trading with China and merchants relied on tea imports from Holland.[64] Because this tea was so expensive and difficult to get, there was very little demand for it, except among the elite who could afford it and made special orders. It was not until after 1700 that the British East India Company began to trade regularly with China and ordering tea, though not in large quantities.[65] Smith argues that the tea trade was actually a side effect of the silk and textile trade because these were the Chinese commodities that were most desired at the time.[65] In 1720, however, Parliament banned the importation of finished Asian textiles and traders began to focus on tea instead.[65] This new focus marked a turning point for the English tea trade and is arguably why tea became more popular than coffee. Once the British East India company focused on tea as its main import, tea attained price stability soon after. Conversely, the price of coffee remained unpredictable and high, allowing tea to grow in popularity before coffee became more accessible.[66] Furthermore, the rising demand for tea and sugar was easily met with increased supply as the tea industry grew in India, which prevented sharp price increases that would have discouraged people from buying it.[67] In fact, the price of tea actually fell as it was becoming more popular among the upper-middle and middle classes. The significant drop in tea’s price between 1720 and 1750 was a major turning point for tea in England. The increase in supply of tea was one of the most important factors that boosted its popularity in Britain and opened up the world of tea to new levels of society.

text: The fifth factor that led to tea’s dominance in both Great Britain and Ireland was its adoption as a domestic ritual enjoyed by a variety of groups in the middle and upper classes. Because tea began as a luxury for only the super-rich, it already had a reputation as a high-class commodity. But as prices slowly dropped in the eighteenth century, more people at the middle levels of society had access to it. According to Smith, drinking tea became associated with respectability.[68] When people drank tea, they were expected to possess certain manners and behave in a particular way.[68] Soon, drinking tea became a domestic ritual among families, colleagues, and friends who were just wealthy enough to afford it, which also increased demand.[67] The association between tea and respectability became so ingrained in both British and Irish culture that it reached a point where it could not go out of fashion.[63] Tea-drinking among these groups was also soon considered patriotic. Because the British East India Company had a monopoly over the tea industry in England, tea became more popular than coffee, chocolate, and alcohol.[69] Tea was seen as inherently British and tea-drinking was encouraged by the British government because of the revenue gained from taxing tea.[70] Unlike coffee and chocolate, which came from the colonies of Britain’s rivals in various regions of the world, tea was produced in a single massive colony and served as a means of not only profit, but colonial power.[70][63] Mintz goes so far as to argue that the combination of ritualization and increased production in the British colonies was how tea became inherently British.[71] As the British continued to import more and more tea throughout the eighteenth century, tea slowly went from a respectable commodity consumed by the well-mannered classes in domestic rituals to an absolute necessity in the British diet, even among the poor working classes. It was at this point that tea became universal among all levels of society.

text: Tea’s popularity finally reached the working class in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century and was soon considered an everyday necessity among poor laborers. According to Scottish historian David MacPherson, tea had become cheaper than beer in the early nineteenth century.[72] Furthermore, sugar had also become extremely cheap by this time and the two were almost always consumed together.[73] However, the poor consumed tea much differently than the well-mannered ritual adopted by the upper classes. For starters, according to Mintz, “tea-drinking among the poor probably began in connection with work, not in the home.”[74] Day laborers brewed their tea out in the open and brought their tea equipment with them to work, as opposed to the private domestic ritual that had previously surrounded tea-drinking.[39] Tea’s cheapness at this time definitely contributed to its adoption among the poor, but there were other factors as well. Drinking a hot, sweet beverage transformed their meals, which generally consisted of dry bread and cheese, and made them go down more easily.[39] Additionally, the warm beverage was especially appealing given Britain’s cold and wet climate.[39][71] The poor also got a significant calorie boost when sugar was added, which gave them an energy bump when combined with tea’s stimulant properties.[71] Though the price of coffee had also gone down by this point, tea was the preferred drink because, unlike coffee, it still tasted good when diluted, which is often how the poor consumed it in order to save money.[75] John Hanway, an eighteenth century social reformer, observed the widespread consumption of tea by the poor in 1767. He described “a certain lane...where beggars are often seen...drinking their tea,” as well as “laborers mending their roads drinking their tea” and tea “in the cups of haymakers.”[76] Just two centuries after the first appearance of tea in English society as a beverage for aristocrats, tea had become so widely popular and available that those at the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy were consuming it as their beverage of choice.

text: The rise in popularity of tea between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries had major social, political, and economic implications for Great Britain. It defined respectability and domestic rituals, supported the rise and dominance of the British Empire, and contributed to the rise of the Industrial Revolution by supplying both the capital for factories and calories for laborers.[39] It also demonstrates the power of globalization and imperialism to transform a country and shape it into the modern society it is known as today. Tea remains a popular drink in Britain in the modern day and is still considered to be the epitome of British ritual and identity.

text: Tea today[edit]

text: In 2003, DataMonitor reported that regular tea drinking in the United Kingdom was on the decline.[77] There was a 10.25 percent decline in the purchase of normal teabags in Britain between 1997 and 2002.[77] Sales of ground coffee also fell during the same period.[77] Britons were instead drinking health-oriented beverages like fruit or herbal teas, consumption of which increased 50 percent from 1997 to 2002. A further, unexpected, statistic is that the sales of decaffeinated tea and coffee fell even faster during this period than the sale of the more common varieties.[77] Declining tea sales were matched by an increase in espresso sales.[78] Regardless, Tea still remains an extremely popular drink and is still engrained in British culture and society.


document_title: List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks

question_text: first player to score hat trick in world cup 2018

text: List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks

text: List[edit]

text:
Key

Player's team lost the match

Player's team drew the match

text:
FIFA World Cup hat-tricks

#

G

Player

Time of goals

For

Goals

Result

Against

Tournament

Round

Date

FIFAreport

7000100000000000000♠1.

Bert Patenaude

7001100000000000000♠10', 15', 50'

 United States

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–0

 Paraguay

1930, Uruguay

Group stage

17 July 1930

report

7000200000000000000♠2.

Guillermo Stábile

7000800000000000000♠8', 17', 80'

 Argentina

1–0, 3–0, 6–3

 6–3

 Mexico

19 July 1930

report

7000300000000000000♠3.

Pedro Cea

7001180000000000000♠18', 67', 72'

 Uruguay

1–1, 5–1, 6–1

 6–1

 Yugoslavia

Semi-finals

27 July 1930

report

7000400000000000000♠4.

Angelo Schiavio

7001180000000000000♠18', 29', 64'

 Italy

1–0, 3–0, 5–1

 7–1

 United States

1934, Italy

First round

27 May 1934

report

7000500000000000000♠5.

Edmund Conen

7001660000000000000♠66', 70', 87'

 Germany

3–2, 4–2, 5–2

 5–2

 Belgium

report

7000600000000000000♠6.

Oldřich Nejedlý

7001190000000000000♠19', 71', 80'

 Czechoslovakia

1–0, 2–1, 3–1

 3–1

 Germany

Semi-finals

3 June 1934

report

7000700000000000000♠7.

4

Ernst Wilimowski

7001530000000000000♠53', 59', 89', 118'

 Poland

2–3, 3–3, 4–4, 5–6

5–6 aet

 Brazil

1938, France

First round

5 June 1938

report

7000800000000000000♠8.

Leônidas

7001180000000000000♠18', 93', 104'

 Brazil

1–0, 5–4, 6–4

 6–5 aet

 Poland

7000900000000000000♠9.

Gustav Wetterström

7001320000000000000♠32', 37', 44'

 Sweden

2–0, 3–0, 4–0

 8–0

 Cuba

Quarter-finals

12 June 1938

report

7001100000000000000♠10.

Harry Andersson

7000900000000000000♠9', 81', 89'

 Sweden

1–0, 6–0, 8–0

 8–0

 Cuba

7001110000000000000♠11.

Óscar Míguez

7001140000000000000♠14', 45', 56'

 Uruguay

1–0, 4–0, 5–0

 8–0

 Bolivia

1950, Brazil

Group stage

2 July 1950

report

7001120000000000000♠12.

4

Ademir

7001170000000000000♠17', 36', 52', 58'

 Brazil

1–0, 2–0, 4–0, 5–0

 7–1

 Sweden

Final round

9 July 1950

report

7001130000000000000♠13.

Sándor Kocsis

7001240000000000000♠24', 36', 50'

 Hungary

3–0, 4–0, 5–0

 9–0

 South Korea

1954, Switzerland

Group stage

17 June 1954

report

7001140000000000000♠14.

Erich Probst

7000400000000000000♠4', 21', 24'

 Austria

2–0, 3–0, 4–0

 5–0

 Czechoslovakia

19 June 1954

report

7001150000000000000♠15.

Carlos Borges

7001170000000000000♠17', 47', 57'

 Uruguay

1–0, 3–0, 5–0

 7–0

 Scotland

report

7001160000000000000♠16.

4

Sándor Kocsis (II)

7000300000000000000♠3', 21', 67', 78'

 Hungary

1–0, 3–0, 6–1, 8–2

 8–3

 West Germany

20 June 1954

report

7001170000000000000♠17.

Burhan Sargın

7001370000000000000♠37', 64', 70'

 Turkey

4–0, 5–0, 6–0

 7–0

 South Korea

report

7001180000000000000♠18.

Max Morlock

7001300000000000000♠30', 60', 77'

 West Germany

3–1, 4–1, 6–1

 7–2

 Turkey

23 June 1954

report

7001190000000000000♠19.

Theodor Wagner

7001250000000000000♠25', 27', 53'

 Austria

1–3, 3–3, 6–4

 7–5

  Switzerland

Quarter-finals

26 June 1954

report

7001200000000000000♠20.

Josef Hügi

7001170000000000000♠17', 19', 58'

  Switzerland

2–0, 3–0, 5–6

5–7

 Austria

7001210000000000000♠21.

Just Fontaine

7001240000000000000♠24', 30', 67'

 France

1–1, 2–1, 5–3

 7–3

 Paraguay

1958, Sweden

Group stage

8 June 1958

report

7001220000000000000♠22.

Pelé

7001520000000000000♠52', 64', 75'

 Brazil

3–1, 4–1, 5–1

 5–2

 France

Semi-finals

24 June 1958

report

7001230000000000000♠23.

4

Just Fontaine (II)

7001160000000000000♠16', 36', 78', 89'

 France

1–0, 3–1, 4–1, 6–3

 6–3

 West Germany

3rd place match

28 June 1958

report

7001240000000000000♠24.

Flórián Albert

7000100000000000000♠1', 6', 53'

 Hungary

1–0, 2–0, 5–0

 6–1

 Bulgaria

1962, Chile

Group stage

3 June 1962

report

7001250000000000000♠25.

4

Eusébio

7001270000000000000♠27', 43' (p), 56', 59' (p)

 Portugal

1–3, 2–3, 3–3, 4–3

 5–3

 North Korea

1966, England

Quarter-finals

23 July 1966

report

7001260000000000000♠26.

Geoff Hurst

7001180000000000000♠18', 98', 120'

 England

1–1, 3–2, 4–2

 4–2 aet

 West Germany

Final

30 July 1966

report

7001270000000000000♠27.

Gerd Müller

7001270000000000000♠27', 52' (p), 88'

 West Germany

2–1, 3–1, 5–1

 5–2

 Bulgaria

1970, Mexico

Group stage

7 June 1970

report

7001280000000000000♠28.

Gerd Müller (II)

7001190000000000000♠19', 26', 39'

 West Germany

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–1

 Peru

10 June 1970

report

7001290000000000000♠29.

Dušan Bajević

7000800000000000000♠8', 30', 81'

 Yugoslavia

1–0, 5–0, 9–0

 9–0

 Zaire

1974, West Germany

Group stage

18 June 1974

report

7001300000000000000♠30.

Andrzej Szarmach

7001300000000000000♠30', 34', 50'

 Poland

3–0, 5–0, 6–0

 7–0

 Haiti

19 June 1974

report

7001310000000000000♠31.

Rob Rensenbrink

7001400000000000000♠40' (p), 62', 79' (p)

 Netherlands

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–0

 Iran

1978, Argentina

Group stage

3 June 1978

report

7001320000000000000♠32.

Teófilo Cubillas

7001360000000000000♠36' (p), 39' (p), 79'

 Peru

2–0, 3–0, 4–1

 4–1

 Iran

11 June 1978

report

7001330000000000000♠33.

László Kiss

7001690000000000000♠69', 72', 76'

 Hungary

6–1, 8–1, 9–1

 10–1

 El Salvador

1982, Spain

Group stage

15 June 1982

report

7001340000000000000♠34.

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge

7000900000000000000♠9', 57', 66'

 West Germany

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 4–1

 Chile

20 June 1982

report

7001350000000000000♠35.

Zbigniew Boniek

7000400000000000000♠4', 26', 53'

 Poland

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–0

 Belgium

Second round

28 June 1982

report

7001360000000000000♠36.

Paolo Rossi

7000500000000000000♠5', 25', 74'

 Italy

1–0, 2–1, 3–2

 3–2

 Brazil

5 July 1982

report

7001370000000000000♠37.

Preben Elkjær

7001110000000000000♠11', 67', 80'

 Denmark

1–0, 4–1, 5–1

 6–1

 Uruguay

1986, Mexico

Group stage

8 June 1986

report

7001380000000000000♠38.

Gary Lineker

7000900000000000000♠9', 14', 34'

 England

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–0

 Poland

11 June 1986

report

7001390000000000000♠39.

Igor Belanov

7001270000000000000♠27', 70', 111' (p)

 Soviet Union

1–0, 2–1, 3–4

3–4 aet

 Belgium

Round of 16

15 June 1986

report

7001400000000000000♠40.

4

Emilio Butragueño

7001430000000000000♠43', 56', 80', 88' (p)

 Spain

1–1, 2–1, 4–1, 5–1

 5–1

 Denmark

18 June 1986

report

7001410000000000000♠41.

Míchel

7001220000000000000♠22', 61', 81'

 Spain

1–0, 2–1, 3–1

 3–1

 South Korea

1990, Italy

Group stage

17 June 1990

report

7001420000000000000♠42.

Tomáš Skuhravý

7001120000000000000♠12', 63', 82'

 Czechoslovakia

1–0, 2–1, 4–1

 4–1

 Costa Rica

Round of 16

23 June 1990

report

7001430000000000000♠43.

Gabriel Batistuta

7000200000000000000♠2', 44', 89' (p)

 Argentina

1–0, 2–0, 4–0

 4–0

 Greece

1994, United States

Group stage

21 June 1994

report

7001440000000000000♠44.

5

Oleg Salenko

7001140000000000000♠14', 41', 44' (p), 72', 75'

 Russia

1–0, 2–0, 3–0, 4–1, 5–1

 6–1

 Cameroon

28 June 1994

report

7001450000000000000♠45.

Gabriel Batistuta (II)

7001730000000000000♠73', 78', 83' (p)

 Argentina

3–0, 4–0, 5–0

 5–0

 Jamaica

1998, France

Group stage

21 June 1998

report

7001460000000000000♠46.

Miroslav Klose

7001200000000000000♠20', 25', 70'

 Germany

1–0, 2–0, 5–0

 8–0

 Saudi Arabia

2002, South Korea & Japan

Group stage

1 June 2002

report

7001470000000000000♠47.

Pauleta

7001140000000000000♠14', 65', 77'

 Portugal

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 4–0

 Poland

10 June 2002

report

7001480000000000000♠48.

Gonzalo Higuaín

7001330000000000000♠33', 76', 80'

 Argentina

2–0, 3–1, 4–1

 4–1

 South Korea

2010, South Africa

Group stage

17 June 2010

report

7001490000000000000♠49.

Thomas Müller

7001120000000000000♠12' (p), 45', 78'

 Germany

1–0, 3–0, 4–0

 4–0

 Portugal

2014, Brazil

Group stage

16 June 2014

report

7001500000000000000♠50.

Xherdan Shaqiri

7000600000000000000♠6', 31', 71'

  Switzerland

1–0, 2–0, 3–0

 3–0

 Honduras

25 June 2014

report

7001510000000000000♠51.

Cristiano Ronaldo

7000400000000000000♠4' (p), 44', 88'

 Portugal

1–0, 2–1, 3–3

3–3

 Spain

2018, Russia

Group stage

15 June 2018

report

7001520000000000000♠52.

Harry Kane

7001220000000000000♠22' (p), 7001010450004500045♠45+1' (p), 62'

 England

2–0, 5–0, 6–0

 6–1

 Panama

24 June 2018

text: Notable World Cup hat-tricks[edit]

text:
Bert Patenaude was the first player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup match, on 17 July 1930 against Paraguay. However, until 10 November 2006 the first hat-trick that FIFA acknowledged had been scored by Guillermo Stábile of Argentina, two days after Patenaude. In 2006 FIFA announced that Patenaude's claim to being the first hat-trick scorer was valid, as teammate Tom Florie's goal in the match against Paraguay was reattributed to him.[1]
Four players have scored two hat-tricks in World Cup matches: Sándor Kocsis (both 1954); Just Fontaine (both 1958); Gerd Müller (both 1970); and Gabriel Batistuta (1994 and 1998).[2] Batistuta is thus the only person to score hat-tricks in two World Cups. He has another unique record of scoring hat-tricks, both were achieved on 21 June of the year, against World Cup finals debutants (Greece and Jamaica), and each time the third goal was a penalty.[3] Kocsis and Müller scored their hat-tricks in consecutive matches.
Oleg Salenko is the only player in World Cup history to have scored five goals in a single match. He did this during the 1994 FIFA World Cup match between Russia and Cameroon.[4]
One player has scored a hat-trick on his international début: Guillermo Stábile (1930).[5]
One player has scored four goals for the losing side: Ernest Wilimowski (5–6, 1938).[6]
Two players have scored a hat-trick for the losing side: Josef Hügi (5–7, 1954); and Igor Belanov (3–4, 1986).
There have been three occasions when two hat-tricks have been scored in the same match. Two occurred during the 1938 FIFA World Cup: when Sweden defeated Cuba, Gustav Wetterström and Harry Andersson, both playing for Sweden, scored three goals, with the former completing his in the first half. In the Brazil vs Poland, Leônidas did it for Brazil and Ernest Wilimowski for Poland. One occurred in 1954: when Austria defeated Switzerland, Theodor Wagner and Josef Hügi scored hat-tricks for Austria and Switzerland respectively.
Only one man has scored a hat-trick in a World Cup Final. Geoff Hurst scored three for England against West Germany in the 1966 Final.[2][7] This is also the longest hat-trick to be completed — most time between the first and third goals. His first goal came at 10', while the second goals were in extra time at 98' and 120'.
The quickest hat-trick is Erich Probst, who scored at 4', 21', and 24' in 1954, playing for Austria against Czechoslovakia in the first round.
The briefest hat-trick to be completed — that is, the shortest time between the first and third goals — is the one by László Kiss in 1982 against El Salvador. He scored at 69', 72', and 76', making the time between his first and third 7 minutes. This is also the only hat-trick scored by a substitute.
The only players to have scored from three headers in a single match are Tomáš Skuhravý in 1990 and Miroslav Klose in 2002.[2]
The youngest player to score a hat-trick is Pelé, at 17 years, 244 days.
The oldest player to score a hat-trick is Cristiano Ronaldo, at 33 years, 130 days.[8]
Germany (incl. West Germany) holds the record for most hat-tricks scored with 7. Germany also shares with South Korea the record for most hat-tricks conceded with 4.

tag: ul