Writing Style (amanthro-writing-style)

An AA paper must be readable by an anthropologist outside its subfield, written with the craft AA prizes (strong ethnographic prose, a clear argument, reflexive voice), formatted to Chicago author-date, and disciplined to the section's word cap. AA also asks for inclusive language and citational practices that lift marginalized voices — style here is partly an ethical commitment.

When to trigger

• Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish
• Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument or the ethnography
• Writing the 200-word abstract
• Aligning citations/format to AA house style before submission

Reach all four fields

1. Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the

argument, the evidence, and why it matters to anthropology broadly — don't make a generalist dig.

1. Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an archaeologist should follow a linguistic

paper. Spell out acronyms; gloss technical terms.

1. Argument-first, but keep the craft. AA values vivid ethnographic writing and a reflexive voice;

lead with claims and let well-chosen scenes and evidence carry them. Avoid both dry report prose and description with no argument.

1. Write with care. Use inclusive language; represent interlocutors and communities with

dignity (avoid deficit framing); consider citational politics in who you cite and foreground.

Format to AA house style

• Citations: Chicago Manual of Style author-date; AA accepts free-format submissions

(you need not perfectly style-conform at first submission), but keep one consistent style and include DOIs where available. Manage with Zotero/BibTeX.

• Abstract: 200 words.
• Anonymize: AA review is anonymous — no author names/affiliations in the manuscript or file

name; supply a separate title page; neutralize obvious self-references and strip file metadata.

• Land acknowledgment / positionality: include where appropriate to the work and community.

Fit the word cap (Research Articles ≤ 8,000 words incl. figures, tables, references, notes; abstract 200)

• Tighten throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the conversation, not every paper

(see amanthro-literature-positioning).

• Choose the scenes and exhibits that argue; cut redundant description.
• Notes count toward the limit — keep them lean.
• If the piece is short and engaged, target the right section (Essay 2,000–3,000; Commentary ≤ 1,500;

Review Essay ≤ 5,000) rather than padding toward a Research Article.

Anti-patterns

• A subfield-insider intro that never states four-field significance
• Burying the contribution under pages of description before the argument appears
• An abstract over 200 words or one that hides the finding
• Deficit or othering language toward communities; a "view from nowhere" with no positionality
• A bibliography that foregrounds only metropolitan theorists
• Padding an Essay/Commentary toward Research-Article length

Output format

【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across the four fields?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤ 200)
【Word count】Research Article ≤ 8,000 (incl. figures/tables/refs/notes)?
【Chicago author-date + anonymized + DOIs】[Y/N]
【Care-ful language + citational politics】[Y/N]
【Next】amanthro-transparency-and-data

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date, anonymity, inclusive-language guidance
• ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md — before→after AA-style introduction