The most glaring admission is citations. Where does the information come from? I'd agree that most of what you say is pretty true- but who says Europeanist anthro was less-studied than other areas? Why?
You could make a good deal more out of these sections by building context for the reader- this is pretty internal to material you found. If I didn't know anythiing about SAE, I'd wonder what matters about this at all.
I'd also like to know where the articles discussed in "recent themes" comes from- which year? Who wrote them, what were the topics? In a more detailed analysis I would also like to know more about if the presentation of things like muslims was positive or not. What years of journal did you pick?
Build the context; same comments as Zora Neale, really.