It all seems so easy: our ideas of intellectual property, and the law of copyright and associated laws of protection bound up with them, demand references in adopting the writings, and even just the contents, of the works of others. In reality, it is obvious that the conditions and scientific rules of the game are less clear than is generally assumed. While usage regarding literal quotations is laid down precisely, ‘borrowings’ regarding contents leave considerable room for interpretation. This means that one can, with good reason, discern an author's ‘fingerprint’ or ‘visiting card’ in the manner he or she deals with references.

The obligation to give references is a relatively recent usage. For a long time, the use of whole passages from other authors in one's own works without mentioning the fact was usual and in no way disparaging. Only from the mid-eighteenth century “did some authors seek to discredit their rivals and predecessors through accusations of plagiarism.” Today such accusations, if they prove valid, can abruptly end a scientific career. However, the boundaries are fluid, and are becoming, if I am not deceived, more and more fluid at the present time, whether consciously or unconsciously. It may therefore be useful to pause for once and account for this technical aspect of our activities.

The following, admittedly emphatically phrased, impressions result from my more than thirty years of activity as an editor, reader, and author of historical and anthropological literature.