The paper approaches the issue of academic knowledge hierarchies from an "empirical" rather than a "theoretical" perspective. It provides three sets of data that illustrate existing inequalities in the recognition of the quality of knowledge produced by scholars in different academic settings, particularly in Europe. The first is the distribution of European Research Council grants, which shows striking disparities between the privileged Northwest, the semi-privileged Southwest, and the underprivileged post-socialist East and Southeast regions. The second is the bibliometric data, which shows not only the enormous dominance of English-language journals but also of those based in the UK and the US. The third is the picture that emerges from an analysis of the geographical distribution of the educational institutions from which anthropologists are most frequently cited and invited to international conferences. It appears that this kind of prestige is accorded by members of the anthropological community to individuals affiliated with very few academic locations. The conclusion is that after decades of struggle for the establishment of world anthropologies in which there is a multidirectional flow of knowledge(s) and in which pluriversality reigns, a hierarchical order is being reproduced that privileges certain centers of anthropological knowledge production. However, despite Joahnnes Fabian's (2006: 294) words that the project of a "'planetary' anthropology ... realized through anthropologies whose relations to each other are neither hierarchical nor hegemonic" is utopian, anthropologists should not stop in their efforts to constantly unsettle existing ossified hierarchies.