BALEE - Inside Cultures
Short Description
Inside cultures...
Description
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
I N S I D E C U LT LT U R E S A New Introduction to Cultural Anthropology
William Balée
WALNUT CREEK, CA
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
Lef Coast Press, Inc. 1630 North Main Street, #400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 www.LCoastPress.com Copyright © 2012 by Lef Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, photocopyin g, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission o the publisher. Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balée, William L., 1954 Inside cultures : a new introduction to cultural anthropology / William Balee. p. cm. Summary: “New ways o viewing culture require new approaches to anthropology textbooks. Tis concise, contemporary, contemporary, and inexpensive alternative option or instructors o cultural anthropology breaks away rom rom the traditional structure o introductory introduct ory textbooks. Emphasizing the interplay o complexity and subsistence,the interaction between humans and their environment, the tension between human universals and cultural variation, variation, and the impacts o colonialism on traditional cultures, William Balees new textbook shows students how cultural anthropology can help us understand the complex, globalized world around us. Personal stories o the author’s author’s fieldwork in Amazonia, sidebars with ascinating cases o cultures in action, timelines, and other pedagogical elements enliven the text or undergraduate readers”-- Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical reerences. ISBN 978-1-59874-605 978-1-59874-605-1 -1 (pbk.) 1. Ethnology. I. itle. GN316.B365 2012 306--dc23 2012004965 Printed in the United States o America Te paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements o American National Standard or Inormation Sciences—Permanence o Paper or Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992. Cover and text design/production by Lisa Devenish, Devenish Design
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
CONTENTS
P������ / 11 A�������������� / 13
C������ 1
The Study of Us Overview / 15 Cultural Anthropology and General Anthropology / 16
Te Species Known as “Us” / 16 Te Four Fields / 18 Cultural Anthropology / 18 Physical Anthropology / 27 Anthropologica Ant hropologicall Archaeology Archaeology / 32 Linguistic Anthropology / 33
Holism and the Four Fields / 35
Culture and Change / 37 Anthropology and Related Disciplines / 37 Summary / 39
C������ 2
Sociocultural Universals Overview / 41 The Capacity for Culture / 42
Cumulative Culture / 42 The Capacity for Language / 44
Animal Communication / 44 Attributes o Language / 45 Nine Universals / 48
Sociality / 50 Concepts o Human Relatedness / 51
3
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
4 |
CONTENTS
ransmission o Culture: Enculturation and Diffusion / 54 Religion and Art / 55 Rules Governing Behavior / 57 Te Notion o aboo / 57
Ethnocentrism / 59 Sex and Gender / 60 Age Categories / 62 Economy and Exchange / 63 Reciprocity / 63
Tinking about and Classiying the Enviro Environment nment / 64 Basic Color erms / 64 Names or Flora and Fauna / 65
Summary / 67
C������ 3
Cultural Variation Overview / 69 Variation in Key Cultural Institutions / 69
Naming Practices / 69 Kinds o Names / 71
Rites o Passage / 72 Birth Rites / 72 Rites o Initiation / 73
aboos / 75 Food aboos / 76 Contact and Verbal aboos / 77
Enculturation / 77 Ethnocentrism / 78 Racism / 79
Gender / 81 Religion / 82 Animism and otemism Animism otemism / 82 Organizing Behavior and Belie / 84 Cosmologies and Explanations o the Unknown / 86
Economic Organization Organization / 87 Redistribution / 88 Redistribution axation / 88
Classification Classificatio n / 89 Summary / 90
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
CONTENTS
C������ 4
Where Anthropology Comes From Overview / 91 The Eighteenth Century / 91
Te Enlightenment in Europe and North America / 92 The Nineteenth Century / 94
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) / 94 Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) / 95 Karl Marx (1818–1883) / 97 Museums / 98 The Early Twentieth Century / 99
Franz Boas (1858–1942) and the Boasian Research Program / 99 Salvage Ethnography / 103 Patterns and Configurations o Culture / 103
Culture and Personality / 105 Te Problem o Reductionism / 106
Community Studies / 107 Social Anthropology in Europe / 108
An Exception to Economic Man / 108 Te Organization o Primitive Society / 110 Structural-Functionalism / 111
Summary / 112
C������ 5
Contemporary Theory and Method Overview / 115 Modernism / 116
Cultural Evolution in a New Guise / 116 Social and Cultural Anthropology / 117 Social Structure and otemism / 118 Ecological and Materialist Teories / 121 Postmodernism / 122
Culture as ext / 123 Power and Discourse / 124 Anthropological Sciences versus Humanist rends / 124 Methods in Cultural Anthropology / 125
Participation Participa tion Observation Revisited / 125 Arrival Scenes Scenes / 126 Observations and Interviews Interviews / 129 Ethnographic Writing / 130
|
5
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
6 |
CONTENTS
Te Ethnographic oolkit / 131 Demographic Sampling / 131 Studying the Past: Documentary Analysis / 131 Studying the Past: Oral History / 132 Visual Anthropology / 133 Studying the Use o ime / 134 Free Listing / 135
Summary / 138
C������ 6
Social Organization Overview / 141 One Species, Two Sexes / 141
Te Sexual Division o Labor / 142 Gender and Marriage / 143 How and Why People Get Married / 144
Usual Marriage Forms / 144 Contracting o Marriage / 146 Bridewealth / 146 Bridewealth Brideservice / 146 Dowry / 147
Postmarital Postma rital Residence / 147 Descent Rules / 149 The Atom of Kinship / 152
A Minimal Society Constructed rom Kinship / 153 The Classification of Relatives / 155
Hawaiian and Sudanese Kinship Systems / 157 Eskimo Kinship System / 158 Te Kindred / 159
Summary / 159
C������ 7
Politics and Power in Society Overview / 161 The Segmentary Model of Society / 161 Social and Political Differentiation / 164
Egalitarianism Egalitarianis m / 164 Egalitarianism and Artificial Scarcities / 165
Ranking / 166 Stratification Stratifica tion / 167
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
CONTENTS
Theories of the State / 167
Minimal Complexity / 168 Complexification Complexifica tion / 169 Hydraulic Teory / 170 Multilinea Mult ilinearr Evolution Evolution / 173 Environmental Circumscription / 174
Complexity and Ethnicity / 175 Centralization o Authority / 176 Ethnic Diversity in States / 177
Summary / 178
C������ 8
Ecology, Landscape, and Culture Overview / 179 Environmental Impacts of Humans and Their Ancestors / 179
Pleistocene Overkill? / 180 Te Impact o Agriculture on Landscapes / 181 Te Impact o Hunter-Gatherers on Landscapes / 185 Hunter-Gatherers: Simple and Complex / 186
Simple Hunter-Gatherers / 186 Complex Hunter-Gatherers / 186 Agrarian Society / 189
Extensive Agriculture / 190 Te ropics / 190 emperate North America / 190 Forest Islands o West Arica / 193
Intensive Agriculture / 193 Nomadic Pastoralism / 195 Industrial Agriculture / 195 Summary / 196
C������ 9
Colonialism and the World System Overview / 197 What Is Colonialism? / 197
Te World System / 198 Te Expansion o Europe / 199 Europe and the Americas Encounter Each Other / 199 Te rans-Atlantic Slave rade / 201 Millenarianism Millen arianism and and New Ethnic Ethnic Identitie Identitiess / 202 Colonialism in Arica and Australia / 206
|
7
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
8 |
CONTENTS
The Rise of Money and Capital Markets / 207
Money and Empire / 208 Ethnic Identity / 209
Ethnic Politics and the State / 212 Summary / 213
C������ 10
Collapse and Change Overview / 215 Explanations for Collapse / 216
Overshoot / 216 Revolt and Rebellion / 216 Climate Change / 217 Conquest and Colonization / 218 A Multivariate View o Collapse / 218 Collapses of Civilization / 218 Foragers and Farmers / 222
Do Foragers Exist? / 222 Loss o Agriculture / 224 Summary / 227
C������ 11
Applications of Cultural Anthropolo Anthropology gy Overview / 229 Applied Anthropology / 229
New Methods, New Research / 231 Who Benefits? Anthropology and the Military / 234
Cultural Anthropology in World War II / 234 Counterinsurgency Efforts during the Cold War / 234 Embedding Anthropologists and the Human errain System / 235 Prospects for Applied Anthropology in a Globalized World / 236
Medical Applications / 236 Food Security and Overnutrition / 237 Demystiying Ethnicity and Ethnotourism / 239 Aiding Cooperatives / 241 Summary / 244
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
CONTENTS
C������ 12
Globalization and Indigeneit Indigeneity y Overview / 245 Globalization / 245
Earlier Kinds o Globalization? / 246 Te wenty-First Century / 247 Follow the Money / 247
Globalization and Cultural Anthropology Anthropology / 251 Indigeneity / 253
Resurgence / 255 Challenges to the Concept o Indigeneity / 256 Indigeneity, Globalization, and Language Loss / 258 Indigeneity and Landscapes / 259 Cultural Anthropology as ransduction / 261 Summary / 263
C��������� R������ / 265 G������� / 269 R��������� / 275 I���� / 295 A���� ��� A����� / 303
|
9
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
PREFACE
In writing this textbook, I have made a ew assumptions about you. One is that you’re you’ re probably reading this book because it was assigned as part o an introductory course on cultural anthropology. Tere’s a good chance that you have to read this book in order to get a good grade gr ade in the course. I’m also assuming that you don’t know a lot about cultural anthropology yet, so I’ve taken care with the way I phrase things. Certain Cer tain words that might mean one thing to you mean something else when used by cultural anthropologists. For that reason, I’ve endeavored to define technical terms and avoid springing new concepts and vocabulary on you without some preparation. In the ollowing pages, you’ll get a sense o where cultural anthropology has come rom and where it’s going in the twenty-first century. Tis book is subtitled "A New Introduction to Cultural "Anthropology," because because it discusses some o the most recent and exciting developments in the discipline, such as the role o ethnotourism, emerging orms o indigeneity, and new methods to study cosmopolitan, transnational communities around the world. Inside Cultures also presents both the science and humanism o anthropology anthropology,, highlighting how the discipline can be enriched by uniting these two perspectives on the human condition. While remaining concise, this account provides the examples and detail necessary to understand key anthropology principles. Te first and oremost principle is that everyone alive today is as human as everyone else. Even when cultural anthropologists research groups o people different rom their own group (such people are sometimes called ca lled the “other” in anthropological jargon), they are still studying members o the human species. Tere is and has been only one species o humanity, Homo sapiens, or tens o thousands o years. Tat means anthropologists study the ways that humans have lived and changed over long periods o time and across great distances. Tey work wherever the globe is inhabited. Anthropology has the broadest definition o any discipline o what it means to be human. Because B ecause o its great scope, the study o humans is divided into our fields, one o which is cultural anthropology (Chapter 1).
11
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
12 |
PREFACE
Basic findings rom cultural anthropology that I will discuss in this book are: •
Humanss share Human share distinctive distinctive traits, traits, called universals, that that make us who who we are
(Chapter 2); •
Culture is more variable than the biology biology of the species, species, and this variability
can be explained (Chapter 3); •
Cultural anthropology anthropology,, its its theories, and methods developed into modern
orm during the twentieth century (Chapters 4 and 5); •
Humans are social beings with distinctive forms of organization (Chapter 6);
•
Socially complex societies are not necessarily better better or or more more evolved evolved than than
simpler societies (Chapter 7); •
All societies depend on and aect their environmen environments ts (Chapter 8);
•
Te expansion of European society through colonization led to to major changes
and new cultural cultural orms in the last five hundred years (Chapter 9); •
Culture can become less complex or even collapse due due to to various factors and
contingencies, and loss o technology and societal collapses can lead to innovation (Chapter 10); •
Applied App lied cultural anthropology can contribute contribute solutions to the problems of
modern lie (Chapter 11); •
Globalization is changing the ways ways we we understand understand time and space, but but the
concept o culture endures and remains applicable to understanding our species (Chapter 12). I’ve tried to present this ormidable array o material in a way that you’ll appreciate enough to not only do the assigned reading, but to develop an interest in the discipline o anthropology. It is my hope that this will be a textbook that you’ll reer to again, afer you’ve completed the course. Develop your own opinions as you read. I trust that by the end o the book, you’ll understand the principles that guide research and debate in the field o cultural anthropology.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have meant to write this book or a long time. In getting it into print, I accumulated debts to specific individuals or various services rendered. For assistance with ormatting figures and text, I am grateul to ulane graduate student research assistants Melissa Beske, Nicole Katin, Bryan Lenz, L enz, and James Whitaker. I thank Nicole Katin also or advice on illustrations. I am indebted to all my colleagues in the Department o Anthropology at ulane ulane University or providing a genuinely collegial, engaged teaching and research environment in cultural anthropology. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Marcello Canuto, Canuto, Shanshan Du, Robert Hill, renton Holliday, Judith Maxwell, and Allison ruitt or commenting on sections o the text, or suggesting pertinent reerences, or or simply sharing their insights and ideas on matters covered herein. I am also grateul to H. Russell Bernard, Loretta Cormier, Jeffrey Ehrenreich, and Jane Mt. Mt. Pleasant or sundry useul remarks and suggestions and to Denise Schaan or providing a photo. I don’t don’t think I could have written wr itten the book in its current ormulation without having had the experience o teaching cultural anthropology to ulane undergraduate students or twenty years and counting. In that regard and in many others, I am thankul to the hundreds o students who populated those classes, or they have, wittingly or not, prodded me to think long and hard about what people taking cultural anthropology ought to learn rom a textbook like this one. First, I am grateul to my riend David Campbell or reminding me, soon afer I initiated the first draf, to back things up. Afer the writing began, I was ortunate to get very helpul editorial counsel rom the staff o Lef Coast Coa st Press. I am grateul to Mitch Allen, who contributed numerous insights along the way. And I thank both him and Jennier Collier, in addition, or their continuing editorial support and encouragement since the inception o the project. I would like to acknowledge also the diligence o the three anonymous reviewers o the original manuscript: their constructive comments helped me refine topical oci and elements o presentation herein. Erica Hill perormed a splendid job in editing the final preparation o this textbook. She did so with aplomb, perspicacity, and sensitivity to the subject matter, and or all that I express my sincere appreciation. 13
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
14 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Conce Balée and our children, Nicholas and Isabel, or their considerable patience and understanding over the chunks o time it took me to work exclusively on this project, instead o doing things with them. them . A final debt remains to be paid to the memory o the late S. Brian Burkhalter who, like me, was a student o cultural anthropology both at the University o Florida and Columbia University in the 1970s and 1980s. Brian was also a dedicated teacher o cultural anthropology. He asserted at one point that he liked cultural anthropology as a subject exactly because it provided an inner view o people, people, their societies, societies, and their their shared shared traditions. traditions. It It is a genuine genuine study o us, he said—not just a dimly sketched, exoticized, and mystified other. In so many words, he was saying that cultural anthropology could help you get inside cultures, perhaps especially your own. I am airly certain, thereore, that Brian would have approved o the principles and objectives that have guided me in writing this textbook. Bangi, Malaysia December 2011
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
�
The Study of Us
Overview Te most important concept in cultural anthropology is culture. Another important and related term in cultural anthropology is society . Culture is in daily use. We see or hear it on the internet, radio, television, newspapers, movies, magazines, and in conversations that occur in homes, offices, restaurants, coffee houses, and schools as well as on the telephone or in text messages. Te term is used in diverse languages worldwide, every day. It doesn’t, however, always mean the same thing. I have a lot to say about culture in this book. But to make sure you read and understand this most important term as intended let me give a succinct definition now: Culture is learned, shared human behavior and ideas, which can and do change with time. Cultural anthropology is is the study o human cultures, those shared behaviors and ideas that help people organize themselves, acquire a cquire ood, clothing and shelter, and think about the world and their places within it. Cultural anthropology is also sometimes called social so cial anthropology. Tat Tat is because society is another basic concept in the field. Society reers to a group o people who establish boundaries that distinguish them rom other groups o people. Tese boundaries are ofen defined by a common language or dialect, a shared sense o being one people with a common origin and past, a common belie system, and a common culture. Members o societies sometimes, but not always, share a common government, economic system, and homeland or territory. o the members o a society, culture is a set o shared ways o behaving and thinking that people learn rom those around them. Culture and society, society, then, go together as elementary concepts in cultural anthropology, which is itsel a branch o the discipline o anthropology anthropology.. An Anthr thropol opol-ogy is is the scientific study o human beings and their closest relatives, both living and extinct, in the broadest sense possible. It ocuses on what it means to be human, both as a member o the animal kingdom and as a species distinct rom all others. Anthropology tracks humans in their diversity through time, across space, and all the way to the very borders o the notion o a species. It takes into account every acet o human culture known and analyzes each one in relation to all the others. It investigates our closest relatives in the animal world—apes and monkeys—to see what we share with them and how we differ. Anthropology 15
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
16 |
CHAPTER ONE
describes and compares the languages o the world to understand their origins and development. development. It assesses the physical, technological, and artistic things people make; when, where, and how they live; and why they behave in certain ways. Anthropology looks at early members o the human lineage, including the nonhuman ancestors o everyone who is alive today. Anthropology, it has ofen been said, is “the most scientific o the humanities, the most humanist o the sciences.” Tis chapter will address the relationship o cultural anthropology to general anthropology; enumerate basic principles o both; examine what makes the human species distinctive; introduce the our fields o anthropology and what their practitioners do; show the relevance o the other three fields to cultural anthropology; and discuss the dynamic aspect o culture. Te chapter concludes with discussion o other disciplines that study humanity and how they are similar or dissimilar to cultural anthropology.
Cultural Anthropology and General Anthropology Anthropology and its subdiscipline o cultural anthropology can be understood in terms o shared principles, which are: •
Humanss of today are Human are a single species; they have have a lot in common;
•
Humanss can be understood in terms of shared Human shared biology, distinctive origins, a
penchant or language, and both cultural differentiation and similarity; •
Humans living in distinct groups, groups, or societies, dier mainly mainly in terms of cul-
ture and language, not biology; •
Culture develops faster than humans evolve in nature.
The Species Known as “Us” Humans are are a single species. A species is any group o organisms with a distinctive, shared genetic heritage, called a genotype, which is transmitted via DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), molecules containing the material o heredity. DNA stores inormation. For that inormation to be transmitted rom one generation to the next, reproduction needs to occur. Humans Humans transmit their DNA by sexual reproduction. Not all species do that. On the other hand, every species, including humans, is unique. Most anthropologists would agree that humanity’s distinctiveness lies at least partly in its mental ability when compared to other lie orms. Tis mental ability has enabled us to change the planet, sometimes or the better, sometimes or the worse. On the negative side, we are associated with climate change deriving rom the unprecedented increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the beginnings o the Industrial Revolution in the 1750s, when production became mechanized and dependent upon the combustion o ossil uels such as coal, gasoline, and oil. Massive oil spills and other orms o water pollution are caused
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
17
by humans alone. Humans are also the only species to categorize members according to racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes . Stereotypes are simplified, usually pejorative, ideas about other groups that are believed to differ in undamental ways rom one’s own group. Stereotypes can affect people’s perormance and sel-esteem. For example, the stereotype that men are better b etter than women at math has been sel-reinorcing, so that even women who are good math students ofen quit taking math classes because o the stereotype, not because o their lack o ability. Tis may be related to dominant cultural attitudes. For example, the gap between the sexes on math tests in the United States is greater among whites than among Asian, Hispanic, and Arican Americans. Tis suggests that th at the gap is not based on biology; it also highlights the dangers o stereotyping. Another distinctive human characteristic is warare. Humans are the only species known to engage in warare involving atrocities against their own kind. Such atrocities have ofen been associated with racial and ethnic stereotypes that characterize the victims as less than human. Tese have been employed by political and military orces to justiy wholesale slaughter, such as occurred in the death camps o World War II (1939–45), where millions o Jews, Roma (sometimes called Gypsies), and Slavs were gassed, starved, or shot. Another example is the Srebrenica massacre (1995) during the Bosnian War, War, in which 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed. o their persecutors, the victims had the wrong ethnicity, race, or religion—they were believed to be less than ully human because o negative racial and ethnic stereotypes. Te good news is that stereotypes and the stigmas associated with ethnic and racial minorities and gender bias can change. It It was virtually unthinkable or an Arican American to be elected president o the United States beore the Civil Rights Movement in the second hal o the twentieth century because o widespread prejudice against people o color. With the election o Barack Obama in 2008, such a milestone was finally reached. Cultural anthropology has provided substantial evidence that racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes lack scientific validityy and validit and cross cross-cult -cultural ural com comparab parability ility.. Tey Tey neverthe nevertheless less persis persist,t, or exam example, ple, in segments o North American society as well as in other parts o the world and are ofen at the root o international misunderstandings today. today. On the positive side, side, only human cleverness cleverness could could have designed the great pyramid o Giza, written the Harry Pott Potter er books, developed the internet, and cloned a sheep. Humans now permanently inhabit most o Earth’s landscapes. More than 40,000 years ago, humans made seaworthy vessels that took them, or the first time ever, rom Asia to Australia. From about 35,000 to 15,000 years ago, only humans knew about and could sew garments warm enough to endure the long, reezingcold winters o the ice ages in Europe and Asia. About 15,000 years ago, humans were able to travel rom Asia into North America via the landmass called Beringia. Rapid human spread across and successul occupation o the various environments o Earth can be understood in terms o institutions. Tese are social organizations that mobilize people or specific purposes. Institu Institutions tions allow people
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
18 |
CHAPTER ONE
in society to live together according to rules, to accomplish the production and sharing o ood and other orms o wealth, to minimize conflicts, and to teach and learn socially soci ally approved ways to behave and think. Cultural anthropologists routinely study the institutions o society, or example, by looking at how and why people work, paint, gamble, marry marr y, raise children, vote, pray, pray, define proper behavior, and classiy themselves and others. Te study o people, in terms o their culture, societies, and institutions, is encompassed by anthropology, anthropology, an immensely broad field o study.
The Four Fields Te study o anthropology is divided into ou ourr fields fields. Each one ocuses on a distinctive aspect o humankind. Te our fields are cultural anthropology , physical anthropology , archaeology , and linguistic anthropology . Tere is some variation in the names o these fields. All o them have synonyms, such as social or sociocultural anthropology or cultural anthropology anthropology,, biological anthropology or physical anthropology, anthropological archaeology or archaeology, and anthropological linguistics or linguistic anthropology. Culturall Anthropology Cultura
Tis book is about the first o these our fields, cultural anthropology. Later sections o this chapter will deal briefly with the other three fields, and why and how they are important to the study o cultural anthropology. In a nutshell, cultural anthropologists assess the causes and consequences o people living in society. Teir understanding o these causes and consequences comes rom systematic study and comparison o particular societies and cultures c ultures o the past and present. Cultural anthropology has several subfields. Tis is because cultural anthropologists study not only the customs and belies o living people; they also compare diverse cultures or clues as to why some customs and belies are similar, yet others different. Tey look at the present as well as the past to understand cultures and their origins. Te study o a specific culture and the written account o that research is called ethnography . Students reading this textbook might also be assigned one or more ethnographies or class. Ethnology , in contrast to ethnography, is the comparative study o cultures. It is sometimes called cross-cultural comparison. Both ethnography and ethnology are subfields o cultural anthropology. A third subfield o cultural anthropology, shared with archaeologists, is ethnohistory . Ethnohistory ocuses on the study o specific cultures o the past through documents o the time period in question. Let’s examine each subfield separately. Ethnography and Participant Observation Doing ethnography, which is also called ethnographic fieldwork or just fie fieldw ldwor orkk, involves living with members o
the society you are studying, ofen or months or years at a time. An ethnographer might live in a village in the Amazon, as I did, in order to observe and par-
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
19
ticipate in daily activities. Good ethnographic research requires the ethnographer to experience lie within the society he or she is studying. Tis means eating the same oods, learning to do the same tasks, and observing men and women o that society while they hunt, make pottery, sew clothing, care or children, tend to the dead, build houses, and harvest crops. Te purpose o spending weeks, months, and sometimes years in the field is to help the ethnographer understand a society rom the perspective o its own members. Anthropologists call this an emic perspective, and it usually requires learning the language people speak, the etiquette they observe, and the belies and values they share. In contrast, the etic perspective involves ethnographers trying to explain a culture in objective terms rom the outside. Both perspectives are needed in ethnographic research. From 1985 to 1990, I carried out a study o five different South American Indian groups living in the Amazon region, including a society called the Ka’apor. I was comparing how people used, managed, and named the plants in the tropical orests they occupied. Each group spoke a different language. Because I spoke the Ka’apor language, I elt airly comortable in learning how to communicate in the others, especially the Guajá (pronounced gwa-ZHA) language, which was closest to Ka’apor (kaah-POUR). On one sweltering afernoon in 1990, I had collected plants and gotten their Guajá names and uses. Several Guajá men were acting as inormants—people who share inormation, opinions, and knowledge o their culture. As we were returning to the Guajá camp through the orest, I spotted some rotting, hard-shelled ruits o a massive palm tree called wa’ĩ’y in the Guajá language. I was getting a little hungry afer the long day, and though we had all eaten lunch together earlier, I wanted to share a snack with my Guajá riends. It seemed strange that no one else had noticed the rotting ruits, which contained a delicacy. I had learned earlier, rom the Araweté Indians (are-uh-way-A (are-uh-way-AY), that these thes e palm ruits could be b e gathered and broken open with rocks in order to extract the palm beetle larvae inside. Te Araweté then flick these plump, juicy insects into their mouths live as a tasty treat. Te larvae lar vae are atty, atty, white grubs, about one inch long and hal an inch wide. Tey have a mild, almost sweet odor and taste like coconut milk soaked in melted butter. Te palm ruits that I spotted along the trail were the perect snack on a hot day with my Guajá riends. I was certain they would appreciate the grubs, called wanokia. I stopped and gathered some o the palm ruits and put them in my backpack. When we arrived at camp, I daintily extracted a grub, tossed it back, and bit down on the juicy morsel. Ten I realized that my Guajá riends were groaning and looking uncomortable. One man was bent over, as i about to vomit. Te others rowned and looked away. What had I done? All the other groups that I knew, especially the Araweté, customarily ate and enjoyed these grubs. It turns out the Guajá, according to my inormants, do not eat insects o any kind. o them it is unthinkable. At that moment, it dawned on me that I was witnessing the visual—and visceral—mani visceral —maniesta estation tion o cultural difference. difference. According According to the rules o Guajá
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
20 |
CHAPTER ONE
culture, people do not eat insects, including raw palm grubs. o do so violates etiquette, and it is disgusting. Even though the Guajá lived close to the Araweté and spoke a related language, their culture differed prooundly in something as basic as what they considered to be acceptable ood. My experience with the palm grub, and the scandalized reaction to it, highlighted the diversity among human societies, even those th ose that I naively thought to be b e similar. Anthropologists rom every field in the discipline do fieldwork. An archaeologist may travel to an excavation site in Mexico. A biological anthropologist may go to central Arica to observe primate behavior in the wild. A linguistic anthropologist may go to a small village in Alaska to record people speaking their native language. All o these are examples o fieldwork. Ethnographic fieldwork with living human groups differentiates cultural anthropology rom other academic disciplines. Ethnographic fieldwork involves usually at least one year o research, on site, with a society that is ofen, but not always, ar rom one’s home, workplace, or campus. What originally made cultural anthropology distinct rom every other discipline in the human sciences, such as sociology, political science, and economics, is that it engaged the anthropologist in fieldwork using the method o parti participa cipant nt observa observation tion (Cultural Snapshot 1.1). Some sociologists and political scientists have adopted the anthropological use o participant observation to gather inormation. Te term part partici icipan pantt observatio observation n was coined and personified by an anthropologist named Bronislaw Malinowski (1884–1942). Although born in Poland, Malinowski worked within the tradition o British social anthropology. While recovering rom typhoid ever as a young man, he chanced upon Te Golden Bough by James Frazer (1854–1941), an encyclopedic catalog o mythology rom around the world. Frazer’s work was an epiphany or Malinowski, who became charmed by the notion that humankind and its belies could be analyzed scientifically. Afer a brie oray into Australia, Malinowski went to the robriand Islands, a small group o atolls in the South Pacific, off the coast o New Guinea, rom 1914 to 1918. Malinowski learned the robriand language, witnessed rituals and exchanges, and developed an unequalled first-hand knowledge o a “primitive” culture. In his robriand ethnography, Argo Argona nauts uts o th thee Wes este tern rn Pa Paci cific fic (1922), Malinowski argued that it was the ethnographer’s duty, and indeed the objective o cultural anthropology, to see the world as the native sees it. He noted that “Te goal is, briefly, to grasp the native’s point o view, his relation to lie, to realise hi hiss vision o hi hiss world.” Tat lofy mission required more than library research—it necessitated necessitated long-term interaction with living people on their home tur and on their own terms. Participant observation is the quintessential method o cultural anthropology; it is an anthropological quest or understanding an exotic culture in a field situation—that is, in situ—on a ace-to-ace basis with members o that society or a period o time that encompasses all locally significant seasons and annual events. Participant observation involves both watching and recording human behavior while being bei ng part o an interaction—linguistic and interpersonal—with
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
21
the human subjects being studied. It means asking questions and having exchanges o ideas with a ew key individual members o society s ociety,, called inormants. i normants. Tese are people one gets to know k now well and who may even become b ecome riends. Participant observation might involve eating the same ood as your hosts, as I did when I ate the beetle larvae among the Araweté. By collecting palm ruits mysel, learning rom an Araweté woman how to crack them open with a stone tool, and developing a taste or them, I was participating in a cultural activity activ ity,, while at the same time careully observing, asking questions, and making mistakes. Participant observation ofen involves eating new oods, but it can also include digging potatoes in the Andes Mountains, dancing in a street estival in the Bahamas, or listening, recording, and taking notes on a story told by an elder in central Australia or ormer slave in the American South, as Zora Z ora Neale Hurston did (Cultural Snapshot 1.1, Figure 1.1). Doing it right requires establishing good relationships. It might involve talking to business people in Kuala Lumpur, the booming capital o Malaysia, and asking them why they became entrepreneurs, and what they might like to accomplish in lie, as did entrepreneur-turned-cultural anthropologist Patricia Sloane. She ound that Malaysian entrepreneurs had different approaches to business than the Wall Street entrepreneurs with whom she was amiliar. Malay entrepreneurs were partly influenced by a belie in ate and by Islam, the dominant religion o Malaysia. Sloane was able to do participant observation in part because, as she noted: I was, first and oremost, interested in the subject that interested them most. With my own background in business, I was not only good to talk to and a good resource; my appearance in their lives was also a validating sign o how ar they had come in entrepreneurial development: development: they saw themselves as good or me to talk to.
Te objective o participant observation is to watch and learn by living in the same way as members o the society you’re studying. Tis opens a door into the lives, thoughts, and eelings o people who live, think, and eel in ways that are ofen very different rom those o the anthropologist anthropologist.. Ethnographers jot down everything they see and hear as part o this work, but they also ask specific questions connected to all aspects o culture, cu lture, includincluding birth practices, education, marriage, politics, economics, ecology, religion, and art. Tey record verbatim accounts rom native inormants in order to understand why they do what they do. As an example, let’s take the practice o plurall marriage, which is being married to more than one person at the same plura time. Knowing that a society practices this sort o marriage doesn’t doesn’t tell us how people conceive o and eel about it. But participant observation can help an anthropologist to understand these things. Te Ju/’hoansi (or !Kung) people o southern Arica traditionally hunted wild game and gathered plants to eed themselves and lived in small social groups called bands o about thirty people. Although most Ju/’hoansi (zhu-SWAHN-see) are monogamous—they get
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
22 |
CHAPTER ONE
CULTURAL CULT URAL SNAPSHOT �.�
Poking Pokin g and Prying with a Purpose
Neale Hurston, Hurston, Figure 1.1 Zora Neale American participant observer, 1930s. Library o Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Carl Van Vechten Collection. Reproduction number LC-DIG van-5152142.
Participant observation requires a research agenda. Tis means an anthropologist needs to have a ormal proposal with a strategic goal behind it beore embarking on fieldwork. Zora Neale Hurston was an Arican American woman (Figure 1.1) born in Alabama in 1891. She became one o the most important literary figures in Arican American fiction o the early twentieth century. She also studied anthropology at Columbia University. During the 1930s, she carried out an ethnographic study o the descendants o Arican American slaves using participant observation. She had learned participant observation while taking a course rom a proessor named Franz Boas. We will discuss Boas and some o his major contributions to cultural anthropology in Chapter 4. o Hurston, participant observation is “ orm ormali alized zed curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose. It is a seeking that [one] who wishes may know the cosmic secrets o the world and they that dwell therein.” “Poking and prying with a purpose”
is a useul description o participant observation, which involves the ethnographer living on-site with the people whose culture is the object o study. When living in a community o people whose culture differs rom that amiliar to the ethnographer, she or he may be obliged to learn a new language, ask questions about people’s thoughts and behaviors, and seek to understand the cultural significance o events, activities, and belies. Tis requires close attention, careul note taking, and aithul, detailed recording o all observed behavior, both verbal and nonverbal. “Poking and prying with a purpose” takes place on a daily basis, normally or a year or longer. It typically results in deep insights into the learned, shared ideas and behavior o the people who are the ocus o the ethnography.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
23
married to only one person at a time—a ew occasionally practice a orm o plural marriage. Ju/’hoansi culture allowed or a orm o plural marriage called polygyny , which means that a man could have more than one wie. As ethnographic research, cultural anthropologist Marjorie Shostak inter viewed view ed a fify fify-ye -year ar-ol -oldd Ju/’hoan Ju/’hoansi si woman woman named Nisa about about her li lie. e. Nisa gave gave Shostak inormation on a range o topics, including marriage. According to Nisa: When a man marries one woman, then marries another and sets her down beside the first so there are three o them together, at night, night, the husband changes rom one wie to another. First he has sex with the older wie, then with the younger younger.. But when he goes to the younger wie, the older one is jealous and grabs him and bites him. Te two women start to fight and bite each other. other. . . . A co-wie is truly a terrible thing. We have a better understanding o how polygyny works in Ju/’hoansi society because Nisa explained it to Shostak and offered her opinions about it. How to behave in a polygynous marriage, as did Nisa, or in a monogamous one, together with things such as proper meal etiquette, how to comport onesel on a first date or at a church service, and when to speak out during an auction or keep quiet while attending a lecture, are examples o rules people learn that govern their cultural practices. Such rules and practices vary across cultures. Cultural practices, in other words, including marriage orms, are not innate. Culture is not genetic. No one is born with it; it can only be learned. Culture is also not just an idea or a behavior—it behavior—it is a mixture mixture o both the mental mental and the physical. physical. Cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz noted that a wink is cultural, but a blink is not. Both are body bo dy motions. But a blink is an automatic behavior while a wink involves a behavior and an an idea—a flirtation, jest, or secret. A wink only makes sense within a certain cultural context. Ethnology Te study and comparison o several cultures is ethnology, some-
times called cross-cultural research. Ethnological studies can be large scale, involving many disparate societies, or they can be ocused on just a ew. One might be interested, or example, in polya polyandry ndry,, another orm o plural marriage. In polyandry, one woman is married to more than one husband at the same time. Polyandry is a rare practice and less common than polygyny. It is most common in ibet and other parts o the Himalayas. In most Western societies, plural marriage o any sort, including polyandry and polygyny, is illegal and is sometimes seen as immoral. An anthropologist might conduct ethnological research to determine why different cultures accept or reject plural marriage. Why do some cultural groups in ibet practice polyandry, when most people who live across the border in India do not? Polyandry is occasiono ccasionally also ound in the Amazon region, as with the Guajá people. Te ethnological question that arises here is, Why do the Guajá permit it while whi le other groups in the same region do not? (Cultural Snapshot 1.2). Ethnologists, as cultural anthropologists, routinely routinely compare different cultures that have the same marriage orm in order to understand what else they might have in common.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
24 |
CHAPTER ONE
CULTURAL CUL TURAL SNAPSHOT �.�
Ethnology of Polyandry Cross-cultural or ethnological comparison may involve any cultural trait and its distribution. Let’s take, or example, polyandry—rom the Greek roots poly “many” and andros “male”—which is plural marriage in which a woman is married to more than one man simultaneously. Polyandry is concentrated in ibet and northern India today, and historically it also occurred in southwest India. Polyandry is also present in a ew other places outside those regions, such as the Amazon Basin. Why does polyandry occur at all in the Amazon, where monogamy—marriage between one man and one woman—is the usual marriage orm? In the Amazon, polygyny is is airly common. Tat is plural marriage in which one man is married to more than one woman at the same time. Polygyny comes rom the Greek roots poly and and gyne, meaning mea ning “emale. “emal e.” Te Mucajai Yanomama o souther southern n Venezuel enezuelaa is one socie society ty that practices polyandry. An ethnography o the Mucajai explains that they have “partible paternity.” Partible paternity is the belie that a child is born to one mother and potentially many “athers”—her mother’s “husbands,” all o whom the child grows up calling “ather.” Te Mucajai believe that the child is made up o semen deposited in the mother’s mother’s vagina by one or more o these athers. Other Amazonian societies, such as the Guajá and the Suruí, also practice polyandry. Both groups speak spea k upí-Guaraní upí-Guaraní languages, but they are separated by about 400 miles o orest. Ethnographic Ethnographic studies o these groups reveal that both have: 1) small populations o less than 200 people; 2) adult sex ratios o about three or our males to one emale; and 3) a belie in partible paternity. Polyandry in Amazonia may thereore be a practical arrangement. Ethnology o polyandry and partible paternity suggests that these practices allow all eligible adults to participate in culturally approved practices o marriage and parenthood.
Ethnological comparisons may involve societies that are widely separated geographically. For example, an ethnologist might study how people on two different continents with similar environments obtain their ood. Why do the Saami o Scandinavia herd reindeer, while people living thousands o kilo meters away in northern Canada hunt caribou? Tey both live in cold northern environments, but one group herds while the other hunts. Ethnologists sometimes need data on cultures that have been documented in the past, and they get this inormation rom the subfield o cultural anthropology called ethnohistory . Ethnohistory Ethnohistorians use documents to study and understand past
cultures. Sometimes these documents were written by ethnographers decades
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
25
National Archives photo #111-SC-87767. Figure 1.2 Arapaho Ghost Dance, 1890s. National
or even centuries earlier. James Mooney (1861–1921) was a sel-taught ethnographer o American Indians who worked or the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., which has vast collections o inormation and artiacts about Native Americans. In 1892, he was sent to Nevada to meet a Paiute Indian prophet named Wovoka Wovoka (1856–1932), who had just ounded a new religion called the Ghost Dance. Tose who ollowed Wovoka believed in his message o American Indian cultural renewal. Wovoka attracted ollowers rom his own Paiute tribe, as well as rom the Arapaho, Navajo, Cheyenne, and Sioux (Figure 1.2). Mooney interviewed Wovoka and reported that Wovoka believed he had been instructed by God to: go back and tell his people they must be good and love one another, have no quarreling, and live in peace with the Whites; that they must work, and not lie or steal; that th at they must put away all the old practices that savored o war; that i they aithully obeyed his instructions they would at last be reunited with their riends in this other world, where there would be no more death or sickness or old age. In 1935, some orty years afer the Ghost Dance began, ethnographer and ethnohistorian Leslie Spier (1893–1961) went to study unpublished material about the phenomenon in archives and libraries. He ound that the Ghost Dance had precursors in earlier Native North American religious movements such as the Round Dance, which existed even beore the arrival o Europeans in North America. According to Alice Kehoe, a modern ethnohistorian who analyzed Spier’s study and Mooney’s earlier report, Wovoka had envisioned a new religion. In it, through the two-day, nonstop dance o the Ghosts, people could experi-
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
26 |
CHAPTER ONE
ence an altered state o consciousness, known as trance, and gain a sense o peace and consolation. Kehoe interpreted Wovoka’s story based on study o primary sources—first-hand accounts such as military and missionary reports, diaries, and recorded testimonies o native people who witnessed the Ghost Dance. Ethnohistorical research such as Spier’s and Kehoe’s yields a more comprehensive and sophisticated understanding o the origins o social institutions, including religious ones such as the Ghost Dance. Early ethnographies, like Mooney’s, are similar to primary sources in that they describe behavior that is now vanished and provide detail on belies, customs and attitudes that cannot be directly observed. One major difference between ethnohistory and ethnography is that the ethnohistorian cannot question first-hand observers like Mooney and the ollowers o the Ghost Dance, whereas an ethnographer can return to the field and ask more questions and make additional observations. Ethnohistory is also used by archaeologists to understand past cultures. For example, an archaeologist might study a description written by an architect o how a house was constructed in the 1800s in New England in order to interpret the remains o a nineteenth-century structure. Or an archaeologist working on an Aztec site in Mexico might consult administrative reports, explorers’ diaries, maps and codices, and accounts by native people or missionaries that were written down shortly afer the conquest o Mexico in 1519. Te archaeologist may use these primary sources to interpret the artiacts and eatures he or she excavates at a site inhabited prior to the arrival o Europeans. Another source o inormation about the past is texts written by the people themselves, such as the Maya, who had their own writing system. Epigra phy involves deciphering such texts . Cultural anthropologists, linguists, and archaeologists can all be epigraphers. Te search in ethnohistory and epigraphy, as with ethnography and ethnology, is or clues to how people lived and thought, past and present. Te overarching aim o cultural anthropology is to investigate and comprehend the totality o human experience, both mental and behavioral. In order to do that, anthropologists may specialize or gain skills and knowledge that overlap with other disciplines. For example, the study o how people interact with living things, which cultural anthropology shares with the lie sciences, is called ethnobiology . Ethnozoology involves the study o humans and their use and classification o animals. Te study o native perceptions o the cosmos is called ethnoastronomy. Te study o non-Western non-W estern religions is comparative religion, which is shared with theologians theologi ans and philosophers. Other interdisciplinary areas o cultural anthropology include environmental anthropology, economic anthropology, political anthropology, urban anthropology, ethnomusicology, and ethnomedicine. Cultural anthropologists are sometimes called upon to put their knowledge o different societies into practice, not just in the study o human subjects, but in a way that will affect people’s lives in a direct and positive way; this is called applied anthropology (Chapter 11).
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
27
Enculturation and Cultural Relativism Ethnographers study social organiza-
tion as well as culture. Social organization is like a blueprint that lays out rules connecting people, allowing them to live together, and reproducing society in the next generation. Ethnographers uncover these rules by “poking and prying” (Cultural Snapshot 1.1), that is, by participant observation, among other methods. Ethnographers try to minimize any preexisting ethnocentrism they might have. Ethnocentrism is the alse belie that one’s own culture is better than everyone else’s. Instead, ethnographers attempt to see the people o the culture they are studying as behaving in the ways they were raised and taught. Tese ways o raising and teaching young people the rules o culture are part o the process o enculturation. Te Guajá and Araweté have different attitudes to eating raw palm beetle larvae because they were enculturated differently. When a person realizes that the people whose behavior he or she ound strange or repulsive were enculturated to act that way, that person begins to lose his or her ethnocentrism and begins to think like an ethnographer. Only then can one appreciate why Guajá culture is not necessarily better than Araweté and vice versa; the two cultures cultures are just different. different. Tis important important and basic principle principle o cultural anthropology—that cultural traits o different people in different societies are not necessarily superior or inerior to each other—is cultural relativism. Te principle o cultural relativism also applies to the other three fields o anthropology. Let’s begin with the one that studies human origins, human biology, and our closest nonhuman relatives. Physical Anthropology
Physical anthropology—sometimes called biological anthropology—is the study o humans as organisms who live and evolve. Physical anthropology is especially relevant to cultural anthropology because o its window into where the human species came rom and the similarities and differences it has with other species, in particular other primates. Physical anthropologists investigate the evolution o humans and the comparative anatomy and behavior o our closest relatives, living and extinct, in the animal kingdom, the primates. Primates include monkeys, apes, humans, and some other mammals known as prosimians. All primates share certain eatures, the most important o which are: •
prehensile hands and feet;
•
stereoscopic (“3-D”) and color vision;
•
long period of infant dependence;
•
small litter sizes; and
•
large brain size relative to body mass.
Tese eatures are associated with high intelligence intelligence,, dependence on learning as well as heredity or the knowledge needed to survive, and good vision and acrobatic skills, which were required or what was originally a lie in trees. Physical anthropology also assesses special relationships within the amily o
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
28 |
CHAPTER ONE
humans, Hominidae (hominids), which includes us, our ossil ancestors, and the Arican great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas), and orangutans. O these, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos. b onobos. Physical anthropology is divided into i nto several subfields, including paleoa paleoannthropology , which is the study o ossil hominins—the tribe o humans, including ossils ancestral to modern humans—and prima primatology tology , the study o nonhuman primates, their anatomy, and their behavior. Physical anthropologists may also specialize in the causes and distribution o contemporary human diseases, which is sometimes called medical anthropology. Tey may examine human remains and associated artiacts within the context o the archaeological record, called bioarchaeology. Tey may also analyze human biological variation, those genetic and phenotypic, or observable physical, differences between human populations p opulations.. Physical anthropologists may concentrate concentrate on prehistoric diseases and their incidence in a population, known as paleopathology pa leopathology,, and the study o ancient patterns o reproduction and population growth, called paleodemography. Forensic anthropologists study causes o death and identiy human remains in crime contexts, as seen in the television program Bones. Forensic anthropology has ewer ull-time practitioners than the fields o paleoanthropology, paleopathology, and paleodemography. Tese subfields, in part, depend on analysis o ossils—mineralized organic remains, especially bones and teeth, and sometimes indirect evidence o an organism’s anatomy or behavior, such as imprints o a skeleton or ootprints. Another subfield, called paleoprimatology, deals with origins o anthropoid primates—monkeys, apes, and humans. We will now examine some o the findings o paleoanthropology, paleoanthropology, the subfield that is most relevant to cultural anthropology. Studying Human Origins and Evolution Evidence o human antiquity comes
rom various types o ossils. Paleoanthropologists have celebrated a 50-meterlong trail o ossil hominin ootprints in volcanic ash at a site called Laetoli in anzania, Arica, which is 3.6 million years old. Tese ossil ootprints prove these ancient creatures, ancestral to modern humans, were walking around on two legs rather than on all ours. Tat method o locomotion— bipedalism— is one o the eatures that makes them hominins, or members o the human tribe. Bipedalism enabled hominins to explore the ar reaches o their territories and beyond. In contrast, knuckle-walking, which is how the Ari can great apes amble on the ground, does not help a creature get too ar rom home. On average, an adult human can walk a little more than ten miles a day day,, whereas a knuckle-walking adult chimpanzee can only cover about hal that distance in the same amount o time. Chimpanzees are better tree climbers than humans, though. Standing on the savanna, early hominins were just tall enough to peer over the high grass still ound on the sub-Saharan plains and see the horizon, spot ungulate carcasses rom lion kills, and perceive possible threats, such as hungry leopards (Cultural Snapshot 1.3).
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
29
CULTURAL CULTUR AL SNAPSHOT �.�
Ten Steps of Human Evolution 1. Apes evolve in Arican tropical tropical orests orests during the Miocene (23 to 5.4 million years ago). 2. Some apes apes expand expand beyond the tropical orests and evolve into hominins. 3. Te first hominins developed habitual habitual bipedalism (walking on two legs), suited to living on the savanna, during the Pliocene (5 to 4 million years ago). 4. Some early hominins began to scavenge scavenge meat lef over over rom kills by other carnivores; acquiring meat required intelligence and social skills. 5. One hominin, sometimes called Homo habilis, evolved into the first member o our genus. H. habilis had a precision grip and a brain larger than previous hominins. Tis species made tools to extract marrow rom the bones o animals killed by other carnivores around the end o the Pliocene and the beginning o the Pleistocene (2.4 to 1.8 million years ago). 6. Hun Hunting ting replaced replaced scavenging scavenging as the principal means o o obtaining obtaining meat meat during the Pleistocene (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago); hunting required more social and technological skills, bigger brains, and better communication, which the hominin called Homo ergaster possessed. possessed. 7. Homo ergaster lef lef Arica about 1.8 million years ago and expanded into Europe and Asia, eventually evolving into a new species, Homo erectus. 8. Between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, a new hominin, called a Neandertal, evolved in Europe and western Asia, possibly rom Homo erectus; some modern humans share as much as 4% o their genes with Neander Neander-tal ancestors. 9. Modern humans evolved in Arica between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago. 10. All hominins, except or modern humans, were extinct by by about 13,000 years ago.
Bipedalism reed the hands or purposes other than locomotion, such as making tools, though bipedalism preceded toolmaking by about one million years. Te earliest tools, such as choppers, could be used to crack open bones o prey animals and extract the high-protein marrow to eat. Hominins gradually developed other skills such as hunting, rather than scavenging. Tey increasingly needed more sophisticated social organization in order or hunters to cooperate and communicate effectively and share their kills with each other’s amilies. Tey also needed better tools, including projectile points and spears. Tese necessities required greater intelligence and greater social skills, which came about through natural selection (Chapter 4), resulting in hominins with much larger
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
30 |
CHAPTER ONE
CULTURAL CULT URAL SNAPSHOT �.�
How We Ended Up Alone In Europe, a hominin related to H. erectus lived and reproduced between 500,000 and 450,000 years ago. Tat hominin may have been the ancestor o the Neandertals—muscular, large-brained hominins similar to modern humans. Neandertals may have had language, but their technology was simpler than that o Homo sapiens sapiens. In the Middle East, Neandertals and modern humans coexisted. We now know that Neandertals and modern humans mated occasionally, and that some modern humans are descended rom their progeny. Anatomically modern humans used small, sharp blade tools, whereas Neandertals hunted and scavenged using simpler flake tools. Neandertals were stronger than modern humans; they probably hunted at close quarters using spears. In contrast, modern humans used projectile devices such as spear throwers, which gave them great range and velocity. Spear throwers enabled them to kill animals rom a distance. As the climate cooled in the late Pleistocene (50,000–20,000 years ago) and glaciers advanced southward, the last Neandertal populations, which were smaller and genetically less diverse than those o modern humans, died out. Tat lef only us.
brains than those beore. Large and intricately organized brains may be due to the need to use us e one’s social skills in increasingly large groups—humans have the largest group sizes o all primates. One o our early human relatives, called Homo erectus, migrated out o Arica into Asia and Europe about 1.8 million years ago. Tese hominins lived on the planet or well over a million years, rom about 1.9 million years ago to about 400,000 years ago. Afer that, there were transitional species that ultimately evolved into us—modern humans. Tese earlier species all went extinct, with ew exceptions, by about 25,000 years ago. Paleoanthropologists have studied the morphology o the t he skeletons o other hominins, such as brawny, brawny, large-brained Neandertals and their ancestors in Europe and Western Western Asia, which date d ate rom about 350,000 to 25,000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Arica about ab out 150,000 years ago, then spread into Europe, Asia, and points beyond. Troughout the th e process o evolution, human brain sizes were increasing, a critical adaptation. But how is it that modern humans are the only hominin species lef on Earth (Cultural Snapshot 1.4)? New finds o ossils, skeletons, and tools o ancient hominins tend to inspire debate among paleoanthropologists. In 2003, a cache o eight hominin skeletons associated with stone tools was ound on the Indonesian island o Flores. Te skeletons were ound in an archaeological context dating rom 94,000 to perhaps as recently as 13,000 years ago. Although the skeletons belong to our genus Homo, these were definitely not modern human skeletons. Te hominins associated with the tools were adults, except they were only about one meter tall and
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
31
had small brains (around 400 cm 3), less than hal the size o a much earlier hominin, Homo erectus, which was much taller and had an average cranial capacity o 980 cm3. Te brain size to body ratio o these small hominins, however, was similar to that o Homo erectus and the great apes. Te hominins rom Flores were not exactly anatomically modern, though they had fire and relatively sophisticated stone tools, like anatomically modern humans. Te Flores hominins were a new species, Homo floresiensis, sometimes called “hobbits.” Te diminutive size o H. floresi floresiensis ensis is correlated with the small sizes o other ancient auna o the island, such as miniature elephants. Evolution may select or small-size auna because o the space limitations on islands. Te Flores hominins, like all others, were bipedal primates. Future ossil finds will enrich anthropological understanding o the human past, so our knowledge and reconstructions o the past are always changing. One o the problems in classiying Homo floresiensis is that no DNA has been recovered yet, because the tropical conditions where these ossils are ound are not conducive to preservation o genetic material over long time spans. Physical anthropologists are o course interested in what defines humans as a species dierent rom others. So they look lo ok at genes—the inormation o heredity carried by DNA—that direct the synthesis o proteins which are essential to the composition and development o living bodies, like ours, and to brain unctions involved in learning language and culture. Te human geno genome me (the entire sequence o genetic material o our species) differs rom that o our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, by less than 5%. Somewhere in that ractional difference is the code or habitual bipedalism, larger brains, and a penchant or advanced culture and genuine language (Chapter 2). Te discovery that humans and apes are so closely related has caused physical anthropologists to reclassiy chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans as hominids, members o the same amily as humans. Don’t conuse hominids—humans, the great apes, and all o their ancestors—with hominins, which is a more restrictive category that just includes humans and their most closely related living and extinct exti nct relatives. An important finding reported in 2010 shows that modern humans thousands o years ago did interbreed with Neandertals, who lived rom 350,000 to 25,000 years ago in Europe and Western Asia (Cultural Snapshot 1.4). Neandertals and modern humans first coexisted in the Middle East 80,000 years ago, but paleoanthropologists debated whether they mated with each e ach other, avoided each other, or killed each other other.. Research on the human genome rom different continents shows that some o us share genes related to cognition and skeletal development with European Neandertals. Europeans and Asians in the study sample showed inheritance o about 4% o their genes rom Neandertals, whereas Aricans in the study sample had no signs o genes contributed by Neandertals. Tis suggests that modern humans interbred with Neandertals afer some o them lef Arica. When modern mo dern humans then expanded arther into Asia and Europe, they carried Neandertal genes with them.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
32 |
CHAPTER ONE
Major questions o concern to physical anthropologists include: What makes Homo sapiens different rom the other members o our genus, all o which went extinct (including Hom Homoo erectus, H. floresiensis, and the Neandertals)? What distinguishes the genus Homo rom other genera o hominins? Which aspects o our biological heritage do we share with our primate cousins, especially monkeys and apes, and why? Which behaviors ound in all human societies are biologically determined, or inherited, and which are not? Apart rom these questions, physical anthropologists are engaged in separating cultural rom natural effects as they try to understand human diversity over time and space. In other words, like cultural anthropologists, they make use o the concept o culture and cultural relativism in their work. Teir findings help other anthropologists interpret the development o culture both past and present. Anthropolog Anthr opological ical Archae Archaeology ology
All human cultures have changed through time. Archaeology is the science o these past changes. Anthropological archaeology, or just archaeology, intersects with cultural anthropology because it shows how, why, and where certain cultural traits o modern human societies originated and developed over time. Anthropological archaeologists tend to ocus on cultures whose long-term heritage cannot be understood apart rom artiacts. Study o the remote past o some ancient societies, especially in Europe, Arica, and Asia, has been divided into fields that may be ound in university departments other than anthropology. For example, the archaeological study o ancient Egypt o the pharaohs and pyramids is ofen reerred to as Egyptology; and the study o early civilizations in China is sometimes called Sinology and that o India, Indology. Researchers working on Mediterranean (Greek and Roman) antiquity are ofen ound in departments o Classics. All these fields historically historical ly have contributed to to archaeological knowledge. Archaeology is an empirical science o the remote past. Tat means it is based on data, or acts, that specialists can examine, evaluate, and interpret. Archaeologists seek to unearth and bring to light past cultures, just as ethnography does or living cultures and ethnohistory does or people o the relatively recent past. Archaeology is also problem-oriented, zeroing in on technological changes accompanying human evolution as well as developments that have occurred in one or more cultures since the appearance o behaviorally modern humans around 150,000 years ago in Arica. Archaeologists study artiacts—things made by people. An artiact could be a projectile point, stone axe, bone needle, a broken piece o a ceramic bowl, or anything else—including smart phones and notebook computers—resulting rom human ingenuity, creativity, and dexterity. Artiacts are ound in archaeological sites, where past people worked, ate, slept, partied, made love, raised children, and told stories at night. An archaeological site could be a rock shelter where people cooked their meals and slept, a quarry quarr y where they got raw material or tools and weapons, an earthen mound where a political or religious leader
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
33
lived, an abandoned ort on what was once a rontier, or the center o an ancient city,, now covered by reeways and parking lots. city Given their concern with past people and events, archaeologists are interested in the passage o time itsel and how to measure it. ime is measured in archaeology not with calendars, or most ancient cultures did not have these, but by known rates o decay o carbon-14, a radioactive isotope, and other geological and organic phenomena. Te physical sciences allow or dating o organic remains, such as charcoal in a hearth rom an abandoned house, and inorganic remains, such as a pot that was fired thousands o years ago. Archaeologists also study undamental events o the human past, such as the origins o agriculture, urban lie, the state, and the world system. Like ethnohistorians, archaeologists generally do not have living inormants. Instead, they rely on the material remains lef by earlier peoples and in some cases documents by or about earlier peoples. oday oday,, some archaeologists, in a subfield called ca lled ethnoarchaeology, observe how living people make and discard artiacts in order to get clues as to how these behaviors occurred in the past, in times beore writing existed. Archaeologists ofen seek to understand site ormation—the processes that account or the way archaeological sites appear today, such as erosion, volcanic activity, silt deposition, or deliberate destruction. Archaeologists distinguish short-lived ashions or styles o art, technology, ideas, and practices involved in social and political organization rom long-term developments. For example, some orm o visible body ornamentation, with the purpose o enhancing one’s attractiveness, is known in all modern human societies. Yet all o it—clothing, jewelry,, eatherw jewelry eatherwork, ork, body pier piercing cing and pain painting, ting, makeu makeup, p, hairst hairstyle—vari yle—varies es due to changing standards o beauty b eauty,, cultural concepts o modesty, and available resources. Archaeologists study both the general act o body ornamentation as well as ashions over time and across space, by comparing the practices o different cultures. Fashions usually have an identifiable center rom which they spread to distant areas by diffusion—transmission o cultural material in the orm o shared ideas, words, and artiacts, rom rom one society to another (Chapter 2). Cultural anthropologists draw on archaeology because it gives their research greater time-depth compared to other social sciences, such as history, political science, sociology, and psychology psychology.. Linguistic Anthropology
In ethnology, or the comparative study o cultures, the peoples who are under the analytical gaze o the cultural anthropologist are requently in some sense related by language or dialect. Language is a complex, ormal, and integrated array o symbols and rules or their combination that permits the expression and comprehension o complete thoughts. Most linguistic anthropologists see language as the quintessential attribute o the human species. In the next chapter we will discuss language in greater detail. For now, it’s important to recognize that the capacity or language is heritable, or hard-wired into the brain. Linguistic
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
34 |
CHAPTER ONE
anthropologists examine evidence in living languages or such inborn tendencies. Tat evidence consists o phenomena shared by all spoken languages, such as the act that all have noises called consonants or vowels, words classified as nouns and verbs, and rules or composing sentences. Linguistic anthropologists also study and systematically describe variation in sound patterns among spoken languages and the grammars o little-known languages. Tey examine relationships that exist between a language and the culture o the people who speak it. For example, linguistic anthropologist Janis Nuckolls carried out years o fieldwork among people in the rainorest o the Ecuadorian Amazon who speak Quechua. She ound that in everyday speech they use many ideophones. Ideophones are sounds and phrases that imitate lie, such as ar ar in English or words such as crash, dash, bash, gash, smash, splash, and stash, all o which convey and sound like some type o rapid action. Quechua uses more ideophones than English. According to Luisa, one o Nuckolls’ inormants, Quechua-speakers can talk about the sounds o a person cutting down a tree in the orest using only ideophones. People People cut down trees to make room or an agricultural field. Describing that involves three ideophones: Gyauuuuuuuuŋŋŋ (creaking), blhuuuuuu (alling), and puth puthuŋŋ uŋŋŋŋ ŋŋ (hits the ground). Nuckolls points out that the “creaking” sound is considered sad, as i the tree being cut down is crying: Te more the tree “cries” the greater will be the productivity o the agricultural field. . . . Although it took me twenty years to realize this, the description o the tree’s tree’s alling with all a ll o the dramatic sound s ound imitation that accompanied it, was not simply a vivid aesthetic aestheti c description. It communicated something about that tree tree’’s reaction to being acted upon by humans. As this example demonstrates, culture is intertwined with meaning and language. Tat is, in order to understand the linguistic meaning o a phrase, one needs to be amiliar with the culture. For that reason, the subject areas o linguistic and cultural anthropology ofen overlap. In spite o linguistic variation based on cultural differences, human language represents a eature ound in all societies known. k nown. Linguistic anthropologists study languages or six major reasons: •
to document and record record speech, meaning, meaning, and sound patterns patterns in unwritten, unwritten,
undescribed languages still ound in places such as the Amazon, Papua New Guinea, and Australia; •
to examine the dierence dierence between rules of grammar in a language language and how
people actually speak; •
to assess how speakers of a native native language language acquire acquire competence competence in the lan-
guage and use it to become successul in lie; •
to evaluate evaluate how how languages languages are are inuenced by other other languages, languages, in contact situ-
ations involving ace-to-ace communication communication as well as various vari ous kinds o media, including radio, r adio, V, V, and the internet;
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
•
|
35
to examine the relation relation of language to to culture, such as how a language re re-
flects prevailing attitudes and customs; •
to understand understand how and why ways of speaking change with time. time.
Te concept that language is a code that underlies consciousness is a orerunner to the idea that language has a basis in the biology o the brain, a point we will address in the next chapter. Tis notion is based on the act that we, as speakers o a language, use it instinctively—biologically—without thinking about it. Te twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein recognized this when he wrote that humankind: possesses the capacity o constructing languages, in which every sense s ense can be expressed, without having an idea how and what each word means—just as one speaks without knowing how the single sounds are produced. Colloquial language is a part o the human organism and is not less complicated than it. Tis approach differs rom the blank-slate approach taken by philosophers o the 1700s, when anthropology was in its inancy (Chapter 4). For eighteenthcentury philosophers, the brain was a tabula rasa or imprinting cultural inormation through the learning experience, or what we now call enculturation. Enculturation, as we will see in the next chapter, is a learning process common to all cultures, whereby shared ideas and behavior are passed rom one generation o society to the next. Enculturation helps account or cultural differences. Te blank-slate idea—that the mind has no preexisting knowledge at birth— is probably too simple. Enculturation acts on human brains that already have a common capacity or capacity or culture and language. Linguistic anthropologists acknowledge that language capacity is an innate biological trait shared by all humans.
Holism and the Four Fields Anthropology is a holistic discipline. Holism (rom Greek holon, “the one”) is the integrated approach to the study o humans, where all actors are taken into account and seen as interdependent. Holism is different rom reductionism, which is a ocus on just one or two actors o humanity as determinants o the rest. aken together, the our fields o anthropology provide the student with a solid, comprehensive, and authentic account o humankind and its closest relatives across time and space. All human societies display elaborate traditions o learned and shared behaviors (Cultural Snapshot 1.5). Cultures vary rom one group to the next and rom one time period to another within the same society. Culture—any culture—changes, or better or worse. Tese cultural changes can occur as a result o diffusion. Tey may also result rom contingency— unoreseen historical and environmental events that can have lasting impacts on culture and society.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
36 |
CHAPTER ONE
CULTURAL CULTUR AL SNAPSHOT �.�
What Is Learned and Shared Te word “culture” has multiple meanings in English and related languages. In 1952, anthropologists A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn ound more than one hundred different definitions o culture in print up to that time. Apart rom the definition given in the text, culture sometimes means “civilization.” Tis usage generally reers to the intellectual side o civilization, or to an appreciation o the arts. One might say “Our hosts are such cultured people,” meaning that they have good taste in decorative art, classical music, and home urnishings. Culture has also been used to mean the growing o certain plants or animals, as in the terms “agriculture,” “aquaculture,” or “apiculture” (raising bees). Tese usages are ar rom the anthropological meaning o culture. Marvin Harris, a cultural anthropologist, suggested that you could comprehend an anthropologist’ anthropologist’s views on human lie in society by understanding her or his definition o culture. Yet, anthropologists o different theoretical persuasions tend to agree on two crucial cr ucial eatures o culture: that it is 1) learned, not inherited biologica biol ogically lly rom one’s one’s parents; and 2) shared , not the idiosyncratic product o a single mind. Tese two assumptions have linked cultural anthropology to the other three fields o anthropology. Te notion that culture is learned and shared has entered common usage with terms such as “corporate culture, culture,”” “university culture, culture,”” and “military “milit ary culture. culture.”” Tese terms derive their current meanings rom the findings o cultural anthropology, which have seeped into the popular and global consciousness since the 1990s.
Te European conquest o indigenous societies in the Americas, including the Spanish deeat o the Aztecs in i n 1519, was a contingen contingent,t, historical event e vent that prooundly changed the lives o the people p eople o Mexico. Teir descendants developed new cultures as a result o that conquest. Likewise, the nineteenth-century potato amine o Ireland led to political changes and altered how people grew ood. oo d. Incidentally, the introduction to Ireland o the potato, which originated in the Peruvian Andes, was itsel contingent. So are events e vents such as biological invasions, volcanic volca nic eruptions, eruptions, tsunamis, tsunamis, catastrophic catastrophic hurricanes, hurricanes, and climate climate change. Julius Caesar’s crossing o a stream called the Rubicon with his army in 49 BC, which oreshadowed the end o the Roman Republic and the coming o the Roman Empire, was a contingent event. Te impact o contingent events is not predictable based on the previous history o a given society. Such impacts have led to the decline and collapse o entire societies and to social soci al reorganization and innovation. We We will examine contingency more closely in Chapter 10.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
37
Culture and Change Apart rom being learned and shared, culture is dynamic. Culture changes in a person’s lietime, whereas an individual’ individual’ss DNA does not, except in extreme conditions. Te rate o cultural change is aster, in principle, than the rate o human biological evolution. Ancient Greek philosophers knew that geometry, or example, is “knowledge o that which always is.” Unlike geometry, culture changes due to alterations o the physical environment or to shifs in social socia l and political organization. It is difficult to predict how a given culture will change in the uture, in part due to contingent, or historical, events. Cultural anthropology is based on obser vation vat ion,, but but not expe experime rimenta ntatio tion, n, whic whichh mean meanss that that it is easie easierr to to retr retrodict odict—to —to say what did happen—than it is to predict social and cultural change. Global warming is a contingency o climate change in our own time, and it is difficult to determine with exactitude what will happen because o it. We can retrodict that early modern humans in Europe and Asia survived glacial winters because they developed warm clothing and knew how to make fire or warmth on icy nights. We also know that greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and that ice melts aster at higher temperatures. One can iner, thereore, that temperature increases will eventually melt polar ice caps. Melting ice will cause sea levels to rise. And higher sea levels will flood islands, low-lying areas, and coastal cities worldwide. Tose are general outlines o a contingent uture. What is impossible to predict is the specific events and their sequence. Te uture is thereore contingent on whether people organize themselves politically and implement policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on such a scale that the impacts o global warming can be minimized. Like global warming, culture change is not wholly predictable, which is why archaeology and ethnohistory are relevant to understanding humans both past and present. When an anthropologist studies culture, he or she may be looking at a phenomenon that has been around or thousands o years, such as Hinduism, or something that is new, such as twentieth-century hip hop. Te study o culture, and hence cultural anthropology, involves examination o both the human past and present in order to describe what has happened, to better understand what is happening, and to assist in uture policy- and decision making.
Anthropology Anthropol ogy and Related Disciplines Like cultural anthropology, other social sciences—sociology, political science, and economics—take the human species as their subject matter. One o the chie differences between cultural anthropology and these disciplines, however, is that only anthropology has systematically described non-Western, nonindustrial, and politically leaderless or noncentralized societies and cultures.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
38 |
CHAPTER ONE
Some have considered sociology, the science o Western society, to be the science o the obvious, and anthropology to be the study o the exotic “other.” Because o that, some s ome scholars have elt that academic anthropology anthropology,, when it began in the late nineteenth century, century, was only necessary necessar y because it picked up the lefovers, the “primitive” societies that other social sciences had no interest in. While that observation obser vation is partly accurate, the attention anthropology has paid to non-Western non-W estern cultures does not mean that it has narrow subject matter matter.. In principle, the discipline as a whole is dedicated to the exhaustive documentation and explanation o human cultures, and humanity humanity itsel, at all times, and in all places. Culture is central to understanding all human societies both past and present. Only the field o cultural anthropology has as its express mission the explanation o cultural differences. Te other three fields o anthropology complement and intersect with cultural anthropology, but cannot replace it. In order to appreciate cultural diversity, one needs to be able to recognize in humans all the behaviors that distinguish them rom other living organisms. Physical anthropology contributes an understanding o the intersection between biology and culture; it documents the evolution o the human body, describes the range o human diversity, and explores the capacity or toolmaking and language. Linguistic anthropology studies the relationship between language and culture; it has shown that all languages ultimately come rom a preexisting template in the brain, but develop along distinct historical and cultural trajectories. Archaeology documents do cuments those trajectories through the study o material culture, illustrating the similarities and differences among human adaptations in the past. It tracks the development o increasingly advanced technologies, rom the earliest stone tools to the most modern supercompu supercomputers. ters. Tese capacities—to design tools, to walk upright, and to communicate using language—are part o what makes us human and are all linked through culture. Culture is dynamic—it has changed with time, and it is changing right now. now. In the ollowing chapters, we will examine a ew principles o cultural anthropology. First, all humans belong to a single human species—biologically species—biological ly and genetically, people are the same everywhere. Second, unique attributes o the species include advanced capacities or language and culture. Tird, culture varies due to contingent contingent historical events and the diffusion diff usion o ideas, artiacts, and behavior. behavior. Finally, the intricate links among biology, culture, and language and the time depth represented by the human species require anthropology to be divided up into fields. As the only field that studies living human culture through participant observation, cultural anthropology is o pivotal importance. It defines the central problem o the field: determining what accounts or the similarities and differences through the study o us.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
THE STUDY OF US
|
39
Summary Anthropology is the study o humankind and consists o our fields. Tese are cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. Cultural anthropology ocuses on the description and analysis o cultural similarities and differences. It has three subfields: ethnography, ethnography, ethnology, and ethnohistory. Ethnography involves fieldwork with a distinct group o people using a method called participant observation. Ethnology is the comparative study o societies. Physical anthropology is the study o human biology and evolution. Archaeology is the study o the human past through material culture. Linguistic anthropology is the study o human language, how it defines our species, and how languages vary in different social contexts. Anthropology in its our fields is a holistic science; its objective is the understanding o humans in all times and places. ������� ������� Adams 1998; Balée 2009; Beard 2004 Berdan 2005; Chomsky 1965; Cormier 2003 (p. 42); Dunbar 2003; Duranti 2001; Geertz 1973 (p. 6); George 2011; Gibbon 2011; Green et al. 2010; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; Kehoe 2006 (pp. 6–8); Lips 2008; Livingston 1958; Morwood et al. 2005; Murphy 1971; Nuckolls 2010; Pickering et al. 2011; Pinker 1999; Plato 1999; Rogers 1983; Said 2003 (p. 67); Saussure 1959; Shostak 2000 (p. 154); Sloane 1999 (p. 15); Wade 2006; White et al. 2009; Wittgenstein 1996 (pp. 61, 63); Wol 1964 (p. 88); Zeitzen 2008 (pp. 35, 59, 92, 112–13, 119–20, 170)
Cultural Snapshots 1.1 Hurston 1969 (p. 182); Rony Rony 1996 1.2 Beckerman and Valentine Valentine 2002; Cormier 2003; Early and Peters 1990; Zeitzen 2008 1.3 Finlayson 2004; Straus and Bar-Yose Bar-Yose 2001; Wade Wade 2006; White et al. 2009 1.4 Bar-Y Bar-Yose ose 1998; Finlayson 2004; Gibbon 2011; Morwood et al. 2005; Pickering et al. 2011; Wade 2006 1.5 Harris 1976; Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
GLOSSARY
acculturation—horizontal transmission o
anthropoid primates—a primate group that
culture through contact between societies acephalous—characteristic o a society without a ormal leader; literally “headless” achieved status—status acquired independently o one’s one’s birth; contrast with ascribed status activists—group, ofen affinal, that takes a central role in rites o passage, especially rites o initiation and mortuary rites; contrast with mourners, who are consanguineal kin o the novices affine—in-laws; contrast with consanguines —the relationship o in-laws to one affinity —the another age grade—an age-based lie cycle category, such as inancy or young adulthood age set—a sodality ound in many South American and Arican societies wherein youths o roughly the same age are recruited into a specially named group that ofen has secret lore and ceremonies. patriline al group agnates—relatives in one’s patrilineal agriculture—cultivation or breeding o domesticates —otherness or difference, ofen o alterity —otherness ethnic minorities ambilineal descent—kin group membership determined either through one’s one’s ather or through one’s mother, but not both; basis or cognatic clans animatism—belie in impersonal supernatural orces animism—belie in souls or spirits
includes monkeys, apes, and hominins, but not prosimians —scientific study o human anthropology —scientific beings and their closest primate relatives, both living and extinct apical ancestor—real or imagined ounder o a cognatic clan —eature o language in which no arbitrary —eature meaningul link exists between a word and the thing signified —also called anthropological ararchaeology —also chaeology; the systematic study o past human societies, both historic and prehistoric artificial selection—phenotypic selection by humans ascribed status—status assigned at birth; contrast with achieved status —residence pattern in which avunculocality —residence married couple resides with the amily o the bride or groom’s mother’s brother band—largest cooperative social unit o simple hunter-gatherers bilateral descent—kin group membership traced through t hrough both the mother’ mother’ss and ather’s lines bipedalism—habitually walking on two legs; a orm o locomotion associated with humans and early hominins blitzkrieg hypothesis—Paul Martin’s idea that Late Pleistocene human hunters caused the extinctions o large game animals in the Americas brideservice—practice ound in many egalitarian societies in which a prospective groom works or the bride’s relatives 269
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
270 |
GLOSSARY
t he groom’s amily bridewealth —goods paid by the
cultural evolution—idea that culture becomes
to the bride’s amily; also called brideprice caste—endogamous (in-marrying) social group defined by occupation circumcision—removal o the oreskin o the penis, a rite o passage or males in many societies clan—unilineal descent group usually associated with a plant or animal ounder represented by an emblem, or totem; several lineages comprise a clan class—stratum o complex society that has more or less control over resources, technology, and land than other classes in the same society cognatic descent—kin group membership traced either ambilineally or bilaterally collective conscience—Durkheim’s concept o culture; idea the members o a society share a similar set o values and attitudes —arbitrary reerence sample in culcommunity —arbitrary tural anthropology, such as a town or county, taken to be representative o an entire society community studies—research program o twentieth-century anthropology ocusing on the community as a basic unit o society within states consanguines—relatives to whom one is biologically related; contrast with affines —unpredictable chance or historicontingency —unpredictable cal events deriving rom material, ecological, or ideological causes corporate group—kin group that holds goods or land in common couvade—practices and taboos surrounding a belie that an inant’s ather is in a ritually dangerous situation immediately afer an inant’s inant’s birth cross cousins—children o siblings o the opposite sex, e.g., the children o ather’s sister or the children o mother’s brother —the systematic study cultural anthropology —the o similarities and differences o learned and shared human behaviors and ideas —theory developed by Julian cultural ecology —theory Steward that assumes a causal relationship between the environment and social organization o egalitarian societies
more complex through time cultural materialism—research program associated with Marvin Harris in which inrastructure (modes o production and reproduction) determines key aspects o the structure (society), which in turn influences superstructure (science, art, religion, ideas) cultural relativism—principle that learned and shared behaviors and concepts should be understood as i they were intellectually and morally equivalent to all others; basic premise o the Boasian research program and o modern anthropology culture—learned, shared human behavior and ideas that changes with time DNA DN A—acronym or the molecule deoxyribonucleic acid, which stores genetic inormation —kind o generalized demand sharing —kind reciprocity, when one asks another or ood or some other good or service and is never reused descriptive system—kinship classification system in which each relative is known by a different term; syn. Sudanese diaspora—large-scale dispersal or outmigration o people rom their homelands diffusion—the horizontal transmission o culture and language rom one society to another displacement—attribute o language that allows or symbolic representation o other times and places than the here and now domesticate—an organism or population o organisms with a distinctive genome that has been produced by artificial selection and is dependent upon humans or reproduction —a woman’s inheritance usually received dowry —a while her parents are still living; contrast with bridewealth —twentieth-century ecological anthropology —twentieth-century research program ounded by Roy Rappaport ocusing on analysis o humans as populations within ecosystems —the idea that people economic rationality —the seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs o goods and services egalitarianism—orm o social organization in which power differences are based on age and sex or gender
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
GLOSSARY
|
271
ego—the individual who is the point o reer-
—also known as cross-cultural comethnology —also
ence in a kinship diagram egocentric—an individual person’s (ego’s) perspective on kinship; contrast with sociocentric emic perspective—interpreting culture rom the viewpoint o the insider enculturation—vertical transmission o culture rom one generation to the next; usually reers to inants and children learning the rules and language o the culture into which they were born —the practice o marrying within endogamy —the one’s group environmental circumscription—Carneiro’s theory o state ormation in which complex societies develop out o chiedoms in areas where limited arable land is surrounded by desert or mountains —decipherment o ancient writing, epigraphy —decipherment such as hieroglyphs epistemological relativism—the idea that any way o understanding the nature o reality, whether through science, religion, art, etc., is as good as any other; principle o postmodernism ethnic group—a subunit o society; members are considered distinct due to specific cultural and linguistic differences they exhibit when compared to the majority —sel-identification o a person with ethnicity —sel-identification a group that defines itsel through common customs, a shared language or dialect, and a shared memories o origins, persecution, and migration —the study o relationships beethnobiology —the tween human beings and other lie orms ethnocentrism—the attitude that one’s own culture is morally superior to others —comparison o a past ethnographic analogy —comparison society with one known rom recent ethnographic study ethnographic present—the time period in which ethnographic fieldwork is conducted —the study o a particular society ethnography —the through field research using the methods o cultural anthropology; the written product o such research —the study o historical docuethnohistory —the ments composed by outsiders that provide inormation about a given society
parison; the comparative analysis o cultures ethnonym—designation or a cultural group, such as Araweté or Guajá etic perspective—interpreting culture rom the perspective o an outsider using data collected rom observations o behavior —the practice o marrying out o a exogamy —the defined group field notes—writings o observations and dialogue recorded during ethnographic work, usually involving discussions between an ethnographer and one or more inormants —the practice o ethnography and its fieldwork —the principal methodology, participant observation —method used to elicit the most free listing —method important items in a shared cultural domain functionalism—theoretical perspective o Malinowski that the purpose o social institutions is to meet the needs o its members and to maintain and perpetuate society generational system—kinship classification system that distinguishes individuals by sex and generation only; syn. Hawaiian genome—the entire genetic sequence o a species genotype—the genetic code o an individual globalization—postmodern economic system that links peoples and societies worldwide through rapid communication, transportation, and diffusion historical particularism—school o thought associated with Franz Boas in which societies are viewed as unique products o their history and environment hominids—the human amily, which include modern humans, the Arican great apes, and early hominins hominins—members o the taxonomic tribe Hominini that includes humans, early hominins, chimpanzees, and bonobos Homo—genus that includes modern humans and ossil hominins, such as Homo erectus, H. Neandertalensis , and others Homo erectus— pleistocene ancestor to modern humans living rom about 1.9 million years ago to about 400,000 years ago
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
272 |
GLOSSARY
Homo Neandertalensis—Early European
—residence pattern in which marneolocality —residence
hominins existing about 350,000 to 25,000 years ago; a small part o the H. sapiens genome derives rom Neandertal DNA Homo sapiens—anatomically modern humans, originating about 150,000 years ago in Arica —marriage to someone o higher hypergamy —marriage social, political, or economic status —marriage to someone o lower hypogamy —marriage social, political or economic status —ethnicity that includes a belie indigeneity —ethnicity that one’s ancestors were the first inhabitants o a region; aboriginality informant—a person chosen by an ethnographer to answer research questions about that person’s culture kindred—social unit that includes all relatives on both sides o the amily levirate—marriage rule in which a man marries the wie o his deceased brother lineage—unilineal kin group tracing descent rom a known human ancestor —the systematic study linguistic anthropology —the o languages, their diversity across human societies, and the relationship o language to culture materialism—theoretical perspective in which technology, resources, and the environment are the primary determinants o social structure matrilineal descent—tracing kin relationships and inheritance through the emale line method—research procedure employed to evaluate a hypothesis millenarian movement—large-scale effort to revitalize society; ofen occurs in colonial contexts —one o a pair o unilineal descent moiety —one groups in a society —all purpose, anonymous unit o money —all exchange used in setting prices o goods in market economies morpheme—unit o meaning in language mourners—consanguineal kin o a novice undergoing a rite o passage multilinear evolution—idea that societies adapt to their environments in a number o different ways rather than by progressing along a single evolutionary path
ried couple establish a home separate rom that o their amilies noninstrumental value —qualitative social value rather rather than than quantita quantitative tive monetary monetary value value —a subfield o physical anpaleoanthropology —a thropology concerned with the biology, culture, and technology o ossil hominins parallel cousins—children o same-sex siblings, e.g., the children o mother’s sister or o ather’s brother participant observation—definitive field method o cultural anthropology, involving anthropological fieldwork by an ethnographer on site or a year or more patrilineal descent—tracing kin relationships and inheritance through the male line patronym—ather’s name —a class o persons peasants, peasantry —a engaged ull time in ood production in state societies; taxes and tribute produced by peasants support classes that do not work in ood production phoneme—unit o sound in language —also known as biologphysical anthropology —also ical anthropology; the study o humans as part o nature, including the study o human evolution and the anatomy and behavior o humans’ closest living and extinct primate relatives plural marriage—marriage involving multiple partners. See also poly polygyny gyny ; poly polyand andry ry —marriage o one woman to more polyandry —marriage than one man at the same time —marriage o one man to more than polygyny —marriage one woman at the same time positivism—nineteenth-century research program stressing the inallibility o science in the search or objective knowledge; associated with philosopher Auguste Comte potlatch—redistributive east o the Pacific Northwest Coast —study o nonhuman primate primatology —study anatomy and behavior primogeniture—inheritance rule avoring the oldest son —eature o language in which productivity —eature a limited number o phonemes and syntactic
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
GLOSSARY
rules can be used to generate an infinite number o meaningul sentences —exchange o goods and services reciprocity —exchange common to all societies redistribution—a method o exchange in which many producers contribute goods that are then reallocated by a person specifically designated to ulfill that task, such as a Big Man —part o the Boasian salvage ethnography —part research program; involved collection o as much inormation as possible rom elderly Native inormants beore traditional cultures disappeared sexual division of labor—division o economic activities on the basis o sex —human propensity to live in groups, sociality —human a trait shared with many primates —a population sharing a common society —a culture sociocentric —group perspective on kinship; contrast with egocentric —group organized or a specific purpose sodality —group sororate—marriage rule in which a woman marries the husband o her deceased sister stereotypes—simplified, usually pejorative, ideas about other groups that are believed to dier in undamental ways rom one’s own group stratification—segmentation o society on the basis o differential access to resources stratum—a non-kin group in a stratified society with differential access to resources; pl. strata structural-functionalism —theoretical perspective o Radcliffe-Brown that social institutions unction as part o an interrelated and interdependent whole; society is analogous to an organism
|
273
structuralism —theoretical perspective that hu-
man society is organized around sets o binary oppositions, such as moieties superorganic—Alred Kroeber’s concept o culture as a configuration o learned and shared thoughts, values, and attitudes that exist beyond any single individual syncretism—merging the elements o multiple religions; Candomblé is a syncretic religion —the set o unconscious linguistic rules syntax —the or making grammatical sentences taboo—a rule prohibiting some behavior —practice o reerring to a parent teknonymy —practice using his or her child’s child’s name time allocation—a quantitative method or determining how much time people spend doing various activitie activitiess totemism—belie in descent rom plants, animals, or natural phenomena; ound in societies with unilineal descent groups such as clans and associated with emblems representing the totem plant or animal trope—a literary device, style, or genre —residence pattern in which maruxorilocality —residence ried couple resides with amily o the wie; also called matrilocality —residence pattern in which virilocality virilocalit y —residence married couple resides with the amily o the husband; also called patrilocality
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
REFERENCES
Abe, H.N. 1995. “From stereotype to context: the study o Japanese women women’’s speech. spee ch.” Feminist Studies 21(3):647–671. Adams, W.Y .Y.. 1998. 1 998. Te Philosophical Roots o Anthropology . Stanord: Center or the Study o Language and Inormation. Agar, M. and H.S. Reisinger. 2003. “Going or the global: the case o ecstasy.” Human Organization 62(1):1–11. Aimers, J.J. 2007. “What Maya collapse? erminal Classic variation in the Maya lowlands.” Jou Journal rnal o Arch Archaeol aeologica ogicall Resear Research ch 15:329–377. Albach, B. 2007. “Stanord anthropology merger riles ril es some,” some,” Palo Alto Daily News, 18 February 2007. Alexiades, M.N. 2009. “Te cultural and economic globalisation o traditional environmental knowledge k nowledge systems.” systems.” In Landscape, Process and Power: Re-evaluating raditional Environmental Knowledge , S. Heckler, ed., pp. 68–98. Oxord: Berghahn. Altieri, M. 2004. Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Te Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives, 2nd ed. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Ambikaipaker, M. 2008. Globalization and Bangsa Malaysia discourse in racial crisis. In Overcoming Passion or Race in Malaysian Cultural Studies , D.C.L. Lim, ed., pp. 127–152. Boston: Brill. American Anthropological Anthropologic al Association. 2008. “Statements on Ethics.” Ethics.” Online at: http:// www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm. Accessed 27 December 2008. American Anthropological Association. 2010. An Anthr throGui oGuide de 2010–20 2010–2011 11. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Andaya, B.W. and L.Y. Andaya. 2001. A Histo History ry o Mala Malaysia ysia. Honolulu: University o Hawai’i Press. Anderson, A.B., P.H. May, and M.J. Balick. 1991. Te Subsidy rom Nature: Palm Forests, Peasantry, and Development on an Amazon Frontier. New York: Columbia University Press. Anderson, E.A. 1952. Plants, Man, and Lie. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Anderson, E.N., A.D. X de Cen, F.M. zuc, and P.V. Chale 2005. Political Ecology in a University o Arizona Ari zona Press. Yucatec Maya Community . ucson: University Arensberg, C.M. 1988. Te Irish Countryman. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Arrow, K.J. 2005. Foreword to Economics o Globalisation, P. Gangopadhyay and M. Chatterji, eds., pp. xi–xiv xi –xiv.. Burlington: Ashgate. Awaya, . 1999. “Organ transplantation and the human revolution.” ransplantation Proceedings 31(1–2):1317–1319.
275
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
276 |
REFERENCES
Bahuchet, S. 1993. “History o the inhabitants o the Central Arican rain orest.” In Hla dik, A. Hladik, H ladik, O.F. O.F. Linares, H. Pagezy Pagezy,, ropical Forests, People and Food , C.M. Hladik, A. Semple, and M. Hadley, eds., pp . 37–54. Paris: UNESCO. Bailey, R.C., G. Head, M. Jenike, B. Own, R. Rechtman, and E. Zechenter. 1989. “Hunting and gathering in the tropical rain orest: is it possible?” Ame America rican n Anthr Anthropol opoloo 91:59–82. gist 91:59–82. Balée, W. 1979. “Environmental destruction in northern norther n Maranhão.” An Anthr thropol opology ogy Resource Center Newsletter 3(4):7. Balée, W. 1994. Footprints o the Forest. New York: Columbia University Press. Balée, W. 1997. “Classification.” In Te Dictionary o Anthr Anthropology opology , . Barfield, ed., pp. 64–66. Oxord: Blackwell. Balée, W. 1999. “Mode o production and ethnobotanical ethnobotanica l vocabulary. vocabular y.” In Ethnoecology , .L. Gragson and B. Blount, eds., pp. 24–40. Athens: University o Georgia Press. Balée, W. 2003. Review o Participating in Development: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge. P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker, and J. Pottier, eds. Jou Journal rnal o Anth Anthropo ropologic logical al Research 59:557–559. Balée, W. W. 2006. “Te “ Te research program o historical ecology. e cology.” Ann Annual ual Review Review o Anth Anthroro pology polo gy 35:75–98. Balée, W. W. 2009. “Te “ Te our-field model o anthropology in the t he United States.” Ama Amazôni zônica ca 1(1):28–53. Balée, W. 2010. “Contingent diversity on anthropic landscapes.” landscapes.” Diversity 2(2):163–181. Balée, W. and C.L. Erickson, eds. 2006. ime and Complexity in Historical Ecology . New York: Columbia University Press. Balikci, A. 1970. Te Netsilik Eskimo . Garden City, NJ: Natural History Press. Barnard, A. 2006. “Kalahari revisionism, Vienna and the ‘indigenous peoples’ debate.” 14(1):1–16. Social Anthropology 14(1):1–16. Barry, H. 1996. “Initiation rites.” In Encyclopedia o Cultural Anthropology , vol. 2, D. Levinson and M. Ember, eds., pp. 652–656. New York: Henry Holt. Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries . Boston: Little, Brown. Bar-Yose, Bar-Y ose, O. 1998. “Te “ Te chronology o the Middle Paleolithic Pale olithic o the Levant.” In Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia , I.. Akazaw, K. Aochi, and O. Bar-Yose, eds., pp. 39–56. New York: Plenum Press. Basso, E.B. 1973. Te Kalapalo Indians o Central Brazil . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bayliss-Smith, ., E. Hviding, and . Whitmore. 2003. “Rainorest composition and histories o human disturbance in Solomon Islands.” Am Ambio bio 32(5):346–252. Beach, H. 2007. “Sel-determining the sel: aspects o Saami identity management in Sweden.” Acta Bore Boreali alia a 24(1):1–25. Beard, C. 2004. Te Hunt or the Dawn Monkey . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Becker, E. 1973. Te Denial o Death. New York: Free Press. Beckerman, S. and P. P. Valentine, Valentine, eds. 2002. Cultures o Multiple Fathers. Gainesville: University Press o Florida. Bellwood, P. P. 2001. “Archaeology “Archaeology and the historical determinants o punctuation in language-amily origins.” In Are Areal al Diffusio Diffusion n and and Genetic Genetic Inh Inherit eritance ance, A.Y. Aikhen vald and and R.M.W. R.M.W. Dixon, Dixon, eds., eds., pp. pp. 27–43. 27–43. New New York: York: Oxor Oxordd Univers University ity Press. Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
277
Bellwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: Te Origins o Agricultural Societies . Oxord: Blackwell. Benedict, R. 1946. Te Chrysanthemum and the Sword . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bentley, J.W. J.W. P. P. Van Mele, and G.K. Acheampong. 2010. “Experimental “Exper imental by nature: rice armers in Ghana.” Ghana.” Human Organization 69(2):129–137. Berdan, F.F. 2005. Te Aztecs o Central Mexico, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Tomson-Wadsworth. Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles o Categorization o Plants and Animals Ani mals in rad raditio itional nal Socie Societies ties. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berlin, B. and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color erms . Berkeley, CA: University o Caliornia Press. Bernard, H.R. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology , 2nd ed. Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Besnier, N. 1990. Language and affect. Ann 19:419–451. Annual ual Review Review o Anth Anthropo ropology logy 19:419–451. Bidney, D. D. 1954. “Te “ Te idea o the savage in North American Amer ican ethnohistory.” Jou Journal rnal o the History o Ideas 15:322–327. Bilesy, D. and M. Simons. 2008. Serbian officials provide details on arrest o Karadzic. New York imes. 22 July. Blench, R. 2008. “Bananas and plantains in Arica.” Paper presented at the Sixth World Archaeological Congress, Dublin, Ireland, June 29–July 5. Boas, F. [1911] 1991. Introduction to Handbook o American Indian Languages , pp. 1–83. Lincoln: University o Nebraska Press. Boas, F. 1938. Te Mind o Primitive Man. New York: MacMillan. Boas, F. 1943. “Recent anthropology.” Science 98:311–314, 334–337. Boas, F. 1948. Race, Language and Culture. New York: MacMillan. MacMillan. Bogoras, W. 1909. Te Chukchee, vol. 3. New York: York: G.E. Stechert. Borgatti, S.P. 1992. ANHR ANHROP OPAC AC 4.983/X 4.983/X . Columbia, SC: Analytic echnologies. Borgatti, S.P. S.P. 1999. “Enhanced elicitation techniques or cultural domain analysis.” In Enhanced Ethnographic Methods: Audiovisual echniques, Focused Group Interviews, and Elicitation echniques , J.J. Schensul, M.D. LeCompte, B.K. Nastasi, and
S.P. Borgatti, eds., pp. 115–151. Walnut S.P. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Bourdieu, P. 1985. “Te orms o capital.” In Hand Handbook book o Teory and Research or the York: Greenwood. Sociology o Education, J.G. Richardson, ed., pp. 241–258. New York: Boxer, C.R. 1969. Te Portuguese Seaborne Empire , 1415–1825. London: Hutchinson. Bricker, V.R. 1999. “Color and texture in the Maya language o Yucatan.” An Anthr thropol opologiogical Linguistics 41(3):283–307. Broadbent, N.D. 2010. Lapps and Labyrinths: Saami Prehistory, Colonization and Washington, on, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press and Cultural Resilience. Washingt Arctic Studies Center. C enter. Brondizio, E.S. 2008. Te Amazonian Caboclo and the Açaí Palm: Forest Farmers in the Global Market . Bronx: New York Botanical Garden. Brown, C.H. 1984. Language and Living Tings. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Brown, D.E. 1991. Human Universals. Philadelphia: emple University Press. Búriková, Z. and D. Miller. 2010. Au Pair Pair . Cambridge: Polity Press. Burling, R. 2005. Te alking Ape. New York: Oxord University Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
278 |
REFERENCES
Burns, J.F. J.F. 2011. “Basque separatists sep aratists halt campaign o violence.” New York imes, 21 October. Burridge, K. 1973. Encountering Aborigines: Australia and the Australian Aboriginal—A Case Study . New York: Oxord University Press. Burton, R. 1985. Bird Behavior . New York: York: Alred A. Knop. Cannon, G. 1990. Te Lie and Mind o Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father o Modern Mod ern Lingu Linguisti istics cs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carneiro, R.L. 1970. “A theory theor y o the origin o the state.” Science 169:733–738. Carneiro, R.L. 1998. “What happened at the flashpoint? Conjectures on chiedom ormation at the very ve ry moment o conception.” In Chiedoms and Chiefaincy in the Americas, E.M. Redmond, ed., pp. 18–42. Gainesville, FL: University Press o Florida. Carneiro, R.L. 2003. Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Carsten, J. 1997. Te Heat o the Hearth: Te Process o Kinship in a Malay Fishing Community. New York: Oxord University Press. Castillo, L.J. and S. Uceda. 2008. Te Mochicas. In Handbook o South American ArYork: Springer. chaeology . H. Silverman and W.H. Isbell, eds., pp. 707–729. New York: Chami, F. F. 2001a. “Te “ Te archaeology o the Rufiji region since 1987 to 2000.” In People, Contacts and the Environment in the Arican Past , F. Chami, G. Pwiti, and C. Radimilahy, eds., pp. 7–20. Dar es Salaam: University o Dar es Salaam. Chami, F. 2001b. “Chicken bones rom Neolithic limestone cave site, Zanzibar.” In People, Contacts and the Environment in the Arican Past , F. Chami, G. Pwiti and C. Radimilahy, eds., pp. 84–97. Dar es Salaam: University o Dar es Salaam. Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Magazine 17(6):17–31. Chomsky,, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Te Hague: Mouton. Chomsky Chomsky,, N. 1965. Aspe Chomsky Aspects cts o o the Teo Teory ry o Synta Syntax x . Cambridge, MA: MI Press. Churchill, E.F. and L. Nelson. 2009. “Inormation flows in a gallery-work-entertainment space.” Human Organization 68(2):206–217. Clastres, H. 1995. Te Land-Without-Evil , J.G. Brovender, trans. Urbana: University o Illinois Press. Clastres, P. 1989. Society against the State , R. Hurley and A. Stein, trans. New York: York: Zone Books. Clement, C.R. 1999a. “1492 and the loss o Amazonian crop genetic resources I: the relation between domestication and human population decline.” Economic Botany 53:188–202. Clement, C.R. 1999b. “1492 and the loss o Amazonian crop genetic resources II: crop biogeography at contact.” Economic Botany 53:203–216. 53:203–216. Clifford, J. 1988. Te Predicament o Culture: wentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. and G. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Codere, H. 1950. Fightin Fightingg with w ith Property : A study o Kwakiutl potlatching and warare, 1792–1930. Monographs o the American Amer ican Ethnological Society, no. 18. New York: York: J.J. Augustin. Coe, K. 2003. Te Ancestress Hypothesis . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
279
Comte, A. 1975. Augus Auguste te Comte Comte and Pos Positi itivism: vism: Te Te Essent Essential ial Writi ritings ngs, G. Lenzer, ed. New York: Harper and Row. Condominas, G. 1994. We Have Eaten the Forest . A. Foulke, trans. t rans. New York: York: Kodansha International. Condorcet, Marquis de. [1795] 1955. Sketch or a Historical Picture o the Progress o the Human Mind . J. Barraclough, trans. London: Weideneld and Nicholson. Conklin, B.A. 2001. Consuming Grie . Austin: University o exas Press. Constantino, P. de A.L. et al. 2008. “Indigenous collaborative research or wildlie management in Amazonia.” Biological Conservation 141(11):2718–2729. Cormier, L.A. 2003. Kinship with Monkeys. New York: Columbia University Press. Covey, R.A. 2008. “Te Inca Empire.” In Handbook o South American Archaeology , H. Silverman and W. Isbell, eds., pp. 809–830. New York: Springer. Crehan, K. 2002. Gramsci, Culture and Anthropology . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Crewe, E. and E. Harrison. 1998. Whose Development? An Ethnography o Aid . New York: Zed Ze d Books. Crocker, W.H. and J.G. Crocker. 2004. Te Canela: Kinship, Ritual, and Sex in an AmaB elmont, CA: Tomson/Wadsworth. zonian ribe, 2nd ed. Belmont, Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the Land . New York: Hill and Wang. Crossley, P.K., H.F. Siu, and D.S. Sutton, eds. 2006. Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Crump, . 1981. Te Phenomenon o Money . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Damon, F.H. 1990. From Muyuw to the robriands . ucson, AZ: University o Arizona Press. Dannenmaier, E. 2008. “Beyond indigenous property rights: exploring the emergence o a distinctive connection doctrine.” Washington University Law Review 86:53– 110. Dark, K.R. 2007. “Globalizing Late L ate Antiquity.” In Incipient Globalization? Long-Distance Contacts in the Sixth Century , A. Harris, ed., pp. 3–14. BAR International Series no. 1644. Oxord: Archaeopress. Darnell, R. 1977. “History o anthropology in historical perspective.” An Annua nuall Review Review o 6:399–417. Anthr An thropol opology ogy 6:399–417. Darwin, C. [1859] 1909. Te Origin o Species, sixth ed. New York: P.F. Collier and Son. Dean, R.M. 2010. “Te importance o anthropogenic environments.” In Te Archaeolo gy o Anth Anthrop ropogeni ogenicc Enviro Environmen nments ts, R.M. Dean, ed., pp. 3–14. Carbondale, IL: Center or Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. DeFries, R., F. Achard, C. Justice, N. Laporte, K. Price, C. Small, J. ownshend. ownshend. 2005. “Monitoring “Monito ring tropical deorestation or emerging eme rging carbon markets.” In ropical DeP. Moutinho and S. Schwartzman, eds., pp. 35–44. oresta or estation tion and Clim Climate ate Chan Change ge, P. Belém: Instituto de Pesquisa da Amazônia, Environmental Deense Fund. De Langhe, E. and P. de Maret. 1999. “racking the banana: its significance in early agriculture.” In Te Prehistory o Food , C. Gosden and J. Hather, eds., pp. 277–296. London: Routledge. Denevan, W.M. 1992. “Native American populations in 1492: recent research and a re vised hemispher hemispheric ic estimate. estimate.” In Te Native Population o the Americas in 1492 , 2nd ed. W.M. W.M. Denevan, ed., pp. xvii–xxxviii. xvii–xxxv iii. Madison: University o Wisconsin Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
280 |
REFERENCES
Denevan, W.M. 2006. “Pre-European orest cultivation in Amazonia.” Amazonia.” In ime and Complexity in Historical Ecology , W. Balée and C.L. Erickson, eds., pp. 153–163. New York: York: Columbia University Press. Descola, P. 1996. Te Spears o wilight . New York: New Press. Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed . New York: Viking. di Leonardo, M. 2001. “Margaret Mead vs. ony Soprano.” Te Nation 272(20):29–35. Dixon, R.M.W. 1997. Te Rise and Fall o Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dominguez, V.R. 1994. White by Definition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Doughty, P.L. 2002. “Ending serdom in Peru: the struggle or land and reedom in Vicos.” In Contempor Contemporary ary Cultures and Societies o Latin America: A Reader in the Social Anthropology Anthropology o Middle and South America, D.B. Heath, ed., pp. 225–243. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger . New York: Ark. Du, S. 2002. Chopsticks Only Work in Pairs. New York: Columbia University Press. Dunbar, R.I.M. 2003. “Te social brain: mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective.” Ann 32:163–181. Annual ual Review Review o Anth Anthropo ropology logy 32:163–181. Duranti, A. 2001. “Linguistic anthropology: anthropology : history, ideas, and issues.” issues.” In Linguistic Anthr An thropol opology: ogy: A Reader Reader , A. Duranti, ed. pp. 1–38. Oxord: Blackwell. Durkheim, E. [1893] 1933. Te Division o Labor in Society , G. Simpson, trans. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Durkheim, E. [1895] 1964. Te Rules o the Sociological Method . New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. [1912] 1995. Te Elementary Forms o Religious Lie . K.E. Fields, trans. New York: Free Press. Earle, . 2002. Bronze Age Economics. Boulder, CO: Westview. Early, J.D. and J.F. Peters. 1990. Te Population Dynamics o the Mucajai Yanomama . San Diego: Academic Press. Eaton, S.B. and S. Boyd Eaton. 1999. “Hunter-gatherers and human health.” health.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers , R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 449–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. plea se.” Te Economist , 27 Economist , Te. 2011. “More anthropologists on Wall Street please. October. Online at: www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/ education-policy. Accessed 1 November 2011. Edmonson, M.S. 1971. Lore: An Introduction to the Science o Folkore and Literature. Dallas: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Edwards, J.N. 1991. “New conceptions: biosocial biosocia l innovations and the amily ami ly..” Jou Journal rnal o 53(2):349–360. 53(2):349–360. Marriag Ma rriagee and and the Fa Famil mily y Eggan, F. 1963. “Te graduate program.” In Te eaching o Anthropology , D.G. Mandelbaum, G.W. G.W. Lasker, and E.M. Albert, Alb ert, eds., pp. 409–420. Washington, Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Ember, C. 1996. “Gender differences and roles.” In Encyclopedia o Cultural AnthropolLe vinson and M. Ember, eds., pp. 519–514. New York: York: Henry Holt. ogy , vol. 2, D. Levinson Endicott, K.L. 1999. “Gender relations in hunter-gatherer societies.” In Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers , R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 411–418. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
281
Endicott, K.M. and K.L. Endicott. 2008. Te Headman Was a Woman: Te Gender Egalitarian Batek o Malaysia . Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Erickson, C.L. 2008. “Amazonia: the historical ecology o a domesticated landscape.” In Silver man and W.H. W.H. Isbell, eds., pp. Handbook o South American Archaeology , H. Silverman 157–183. New York: Springer. Erickson, C.L. and W. Balée. 2006. “Te historical ecology o a complex landscape in Bolivia.” In ime and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotropical W. Balée Balé e and C.L. Erickson, eds., pp. 187–233. New York: York: Columbia Lowlands , W. University Press. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. [1940] 1969. Te Nuer . New York: Oxord University Press. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. [1951] 1990. Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer . New York: Oxord University Press. Fagan, B. 2010. Cro-Magnon. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Fairhead, J. and M. Leach. 1996. Mis Misrea readin dingg the Aric Arican an Landsca Landscape pe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fausto, C. 2000. Os índios antes do Brasil . Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar. Feldman, G. 2009. “Radical or revolutionary?” In Te Counter-Counterinsurgency Manua Ma nual l , C. Besteman et al., eds., pp. 77–99. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Field, L. and R.G. Fox, eds. 2007. Ant Anthro hropology pology Put to to Work Work. New York: Berg. Finlayson, C. 2004. Neandertals and Modern Humans . Cambridge: Cambridge C ambridge University Press. Firth, R. 1989. “Second introduction (1988).” In A Diary Diary in the Strict Strict Sense o the the erm, erm, B. Malinowski, pp. xxi–xxxi. Stanord: Stanord University Press. Flannery, . 2005. Te Weather Makers. New York: Grove Press. Foley,, D.E. 2007. “Reflections Foley “Refl ections on the symposium.” symposium.” In An Anthr thropol opology ogy Put to Work Work, L. Field and R.G. Fox, eds., e ds., pp. 217–223. New York: York: Berg. Fowler,, C.S. and N.J. urner. Fowler urner. 1999. “Ecological/cosmological “Ecological/cosmologica l knowledge and land management among hunter-gatherers.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers, R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 419–425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, R. 1967. Kinship and Marriage . New York: Penguin. Fox, R. 1969. “Proessional primitives”: prim itives”: hunters and gatherers o nuclear South S outh Asia.” Man Ma n in Ind India ia 49:139–160. Frank, G. 2007. “Collaborating to meet the goals o a native sovereign nation: the ule River tribal triba l history project. projec t.” In An Anthr thropol opology ogy Put to Work Work, L. Field and R.G. Fox, eds., pp. 65–83. New York: Berg. Frazier, J.G. 2010. “Te call ca ll o the wild.” In Te Archaeology o Anthropogenic Environ, R.M. Dean, ed., pp. 341–369. Carbondale, IL: Center or Archaeological ments Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Freidenberg, J. 2011. “Researching global gl obal spaces ethnographically.” Human Organization 70(3):265–278. French, J.H. 2009. Legalizing Identities: Becoming Black or Indian in Brazil’s Northeast . Chapel Hill: University o North Carolina Press. Fried, M. 1967. Te Evolution o Political Society . New York: Random House. Fuentes, C.M.M. 2011. “Breaking the pathways between domestic violence and sexually transmitted inections.” Human Organization 70(2):128–138.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
282 |
REFERENCES
Galvin, K-L. 2001. “Schneider revisited: Sharing and ratification in the construction o kinship.”” In New Directions in Anthropological Kinship , L. Stone, ed., pp. 109–124. kinship. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Gardner, K. and D. Lewis. 1996 . Anthropology, Development, and the Post-Modern Challenge. Chicago: Pluto Press. Gates, H. 2004. “Refining the incest inc est taboo.” In Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest aboo, A.P. Wol and W.H. Durham, eds., pp. 139–160. Palo Alto, CA: Stanord University Press. Geertz, C. 1973. Te Interpretation o Cultures. New York: York: Basic Books. Gellner, E. 1988. Plough, Sword and Book. London: Collins Harvill. George, A. 2011. “Interview with Svante Pääbo." New Scientist 211(2828):30–31. 211(2828):30–31. Gibbon, A. 2011. “Skeletons present an exquisite paleo-puzzle. pale o-puzzle.” Science 333:1370–1372. Giddens, A. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization Is Reshaping Our Lives . New York: Routledge. Goldsworthy,, A. 2009. How Rome Fell: Death o a Superpower . New Haven: Yale UniverGoldsworthy sity Press. González, R. 2009. “Embedded.” In Te Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual , C. Besteman et al., eds., pp. 197–113. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. González, R., R ., H. Gusterson, and D. Price. 2009. “Introduction.” In Te Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual , C. Besteman et al., eds., pp. 1–22. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Goodale, J.C. 1994. iwi Wives. Prospect Heights: Waveland. Waveland. Goodale, M. 2006. “Reclaiming modernity: indigenous cosmopolitanism and the coming o the second revolution in Bolivia. Bolivia.”” Ame 33(4):634–649. America rican n Ethnolo Ethnologist gist 33(4):634–649. Goodall, J. 1986. Te Chimpanzees o Gombe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodenough, W. 1955. “A problem in Malayo-Polynesian social organization.” Ame Amerirican Anthropologist 57:71–83. Goody, J. 1990. Te Oriental, the Ancient, and the Primitive . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gough, K. 1968. “Te Nayars and the definition o marriage.” In Ma Marriag rriage, e, Fami Family ly and and P. Bohannan and J. Middleton, eds., pp. 49–71. Garden City, NJ: Natural Residence , P. History Press. Gramsci, A. 1975. Prison Note J.A. Buttigieg Buttigieg,, ed. and trans. trans. New New York: York: Notebooks, books, vol. II. J.A. Columbia University Press. Gray, R.E. and F.M. Jordan. 2000. “Language trees support the express-train sequence o Austronesian expansion.” Nature 405:1052–1055. Green, R E. et al. 2010. “A “A draf sequence se quence o the Neandertal genome.” Science 328:710–722. Gregor, . 1977. Me Mehin hinaku: aku: Te Dram Drama a o Daily Daily Li Liee in a Brazil Brazilian ian Ind Indian ian Vi Villag llagee . Chicago: University o Chicago Press. Grinker, R.R. 1994. Houses in the Rainorest . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Grove, A.. A.. and O. Rackham. Rack ham. 2001. Te Nature o Mediterranean Europe . New Haven: Yale University Press. Guynup, S. and N. Ruggia. 2004. “For most people, eating bugs is only natural.” National Geographic News . Online at: news.nationalgeographic.com/ news/2004/07/0715_040715. Accessed 2 July 2011.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
283
Gwatirisa, P. and L. Manderson. 2009. “Food insecurity and HIV/AIDS in low-income households in urban Zimbabwe. Z imbabwe.” Human Organization 68(1):103–112. Hall, E.. 1990. Te Silent Language . New York: York: Anchor Books. Bo oks. Hallowell, A.I. 1960. “Te beginnings o anthropology in America.” In Selected Papers F. de Laguna, L aguna, ed., pp. 1–90. Evanston, IL: Row, rom the Americ American an Anth Anthropo ropologis logist t , F. Peterson. Hammel, E. 1995. “Science and humanism in anthropology: a view rom the Balkan pit.” An 36(7):52. Anthr thropol opology ogy Newsl Newsletter etter 36(7):52. Harris, M. 1974. Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches. New York: Random House. Harris, M. 1976. “History and significance o the emic/etic distinction.” An Annual nual Review o Anthr Anthropology opology 5:329–350. Harris, M. 1979. Cultural Materialism . New York: Random House. Harris, M., J.G. Consork, and B. Byrne. 1993. “Who are the whites?” Social Forces 72(2):451–462. Harrison, K.D. and E. Raimy. 2007. “Language as an emergent system. Soundings” 90(1–2):77–90. Hart, C.W.M., A.R. Pilling, and J.C. Goodale. 2001. Te iwi o North Australia , 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hart, .B. and J.A. Hart. 1986. “Te ecological basis o hunter-gatherer subsistence in Arican rain orests.” orests.” Human Ecology 14:29–55. Harvey, D. 1989. Te Condition o Postmodernity: Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins o Cultural Change. Oxord: Basil Blackwell. Hastor, C. A. 2006. “Domesticated ood and society in early coastal Peru.” In ime and Complexity in Historical Ecology , W. Balée and C.L Erickson, eds., pp. 87–126. New York: Columbia C olumbia University Press. Headland, .N. 1987. “Te wild yam question: how well can independent hunter-gatherers live in a tropical rain orest ecosystem?” Human Ecology 15:463–491. Henley, P. P. 2006. “Anthropologists in television: a disappearing world?” In App Applica lication tionss o Anthropology: Proessional Anthropology in the wenty-First Century , S. Pink, ed., pp. 170–189. New York: York: Berghahn. Bergha hn. Henshilwood, C.S. and C.W C.W.. Marean. 2003. “Te origin o modern human behavior.” 44:627–651. Current Anthropology 44:627–651. Henton, C. 1995. Pitch dynamics in emale and male speech. Language and Communication 15(1):43–61. Hewlett, B.S. 1991. Intimate Fathers. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Hewlett, B.S. and L.L. Cavalli-Sorza. 1986. “Cultural transmission among Aka Pygmies.” Ame 88(4):922–934. America rican n Anthr Anthropol opologist ogist 88(4):922–934. Hill, Robert M. 1992. Colonial Cakchiquels: Highland Maya Adaptation to Spanish Rule, 1600–1700. Fort Worth, X: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Himmelgreen, D.A. and D.L. Crooks. 2005. “Nutritional anthropology and its application to nutritional issues and problems.” In App Applied lied An Anthr thropol opology: ogy: Domains Domains o Applica App lication tion, S. Kedia and J. van Willigen, eds., pp. 149–188. Westport, C: Praeger Publishers. Hinsley, C.M., Jr. 1981. Savages and Scientists: Te Smithsonian Institution and the Washington, DC: Smithsonian Developmentt o American Anthropology 1846–1910 . Washington, Developmen Institution Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
284 |
REFERENCES
Hinsley, C.M., Jr. 1999. “Hopi snakes, Zuñi corn: early ethnography in the American Southwest.” In Colonial Subjects: Essays in the Practical History o Anthropology , P. Pels and O. Salemink, eds., pp. 180–195. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Hobbes, . [1651] 1985. Leviathan. London: Penguin Books. Hoebel, E.A. 1988. Te Cheyennes, 2nd ed. Fort Worth, X: Harcourt Brace. Hogbin, I. 1996. Te Island o Menstruating Men . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Waveland. Hohn, H.H. and G. Sorensen. 1995. Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End o the Cold War . Boulder, CO: Westview. Holland, J.H. 1998. Emergence. Reading, Re ading, MA: Addison-W Addison-Wesley. esley. Holler, J. 2007. “Mexico City.” In Encyclopedia o Western Colonialism since 1450, vol. 2. . Benjamin, ed., pp. 775–776. Detroit: MacMillan Reerences USA. Hornborg, A. 1999. “Money and the semiotics o ecosystem dissolution.” dissolution.” Jou Journal rnal o Materia Ma teriall Cultur Culturee 4(2):143–162. Hostetler, J.A. and G.E. Huntington. 1980. Te Hutterites in North America . Fort Worth, X: Harcourt Brace. Houk, J.. 1995. Spirit, Blood, and Drums. Philadelphia, PA: emple University Press. Hunn, E., D.R. Johnson, P.N. Russell, .F. Tornton. 2003. “Huna lingit traditional environmental knowledge o conservation and the management o a ‘wilderness’ park.” Current Anthropology 44:S79–S103. 44:S79–S103. Hunt, G.R. and Gray, RD. 2004. “Direct observations o pandanus-tool manuacture and use by a New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides).” An Anima imall Cogniti Cognition on 7(2):114–120. Hunter, J.P. 2008. “Anthropologist helps soldiers understand Iraqis’ needs.” Online at: www.deense.gov/utility/. Accessed 11 October 2011. Hurston, Z.N. 1969. Dust racks on a Road . New York: Arno Press. Huston, M.A. 1994. Biological Diversity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hutchinson, S.E. 1996. Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Ingold, . . 1999. “On the social so cial relations o the hunter-gatherer band.” In Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers , R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 399–410. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Isbell, W.H. 1997. Mu Mumm mmie iess and and Mo Mortu rtuary ary Mo Monu numen ments ts. Austin: University o exas Press. Itakura, H. and A.B.M. sui. 2004. Gender and conversational dominance in Japanese conversation. Language in Society 33(2):223–248. 33(2):223–248. J.I. 2008. “Sea lice, aquaculture and ‘Namgis resistance,’ resistance,’” December 9 blog entry entr y online at kwakwakawakw.blogspot.com. Accessed 6 November 2010. Jackson, A.. 2011. “Shattering slave lie portrayals: uncovering subjugated knowledge in U.S. plantation sites in South Carolina and Florida.” Florida.” Ame America rican n Anthro Anthropolog pologist ist 113(3):448–462. Jackson, J. 1990. “‘I am a fieldnote’: fieldnotes as a s a symbol o proessional identity.” In Fieldnotes: Te Makings o Anthropology , R. Sanjek, ed., pp. 3–33. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jankowiak, W. 2001. “In the name o the ather.” In New Directions in Anthropological Kinship, L. Stone, ed., pp. 264–284. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Jefferson, . [1785] 1999. Notes on the State o Virginia , F.C. Shuffelton, ed. New York: Penguin.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
285
Johnson, A. 1975. “ime “ ime allocation in a Machiguenga community. community.” Ethnology 14:301–310. Johnson, A. 2003. Families o the Forest . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Johnson, P.C. P.C. 2007. “On leaving and joining Aricanness through religion: the ‘Black Caribs’ across multiple diasporic horizons.” Jo Journ urnal al o Re Reli ligio gion n in in Aric Arica a 37(2):174–211. Johnston, B.R. and S. Slyomovics, eds. 2008. Waging War, Making Peace . Walnut Creek, CA: Lef Coast Press. Jones, J.L. 2009. “Speaking “Speak ing o race. r ace.” An Anthr thropol opology ogy News News (September):23. Kahn, M. 1994. Alw Always ays Hu Hungry ngry,, Never Never Gree Greedy: dy: Food Food and and the the Express Expression ion o o Gender Gender in in a Waveland. Melan Me lanesi esian an Society Society.. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Kaplan, M. 2011. “Genomics in Arica. Aric a.” Cell 147(1):11–13. Karim, W-J.B. 1981. Ma Ma’’ Betisék Betisék Conce Concepts pts o o Living Living Tin Tings. gs. London: Athone Press. Kearney, M. 1996. “Peasants.” Encyclopedia o Cultural Anthropology , vol. 3. D. Levinson and M. Ember, eds., pp. 913–917. New York: York: Henry Holt. Kehoe, A.B. 2006. Te Ghost Dance: Ethnohis Ethnohistory tory and Revitalizat Revitalization ion, 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Kelly,, R.C. 2000. Warless Societies and the Origin o War . Ann Arbor: University o Kelly Michigan Press. Kelly,, R.L. 1995. Te Foraging Spectrum. Washington, Kelly Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Keyes, C. 1997. “Ethnic groups, ethnicity.” In Te Dictionary o Anthropology , . Barfield, ed., pp. 152–154. Oxord: Blackwell. Kidder, . 2004. Mou Mounta ntains ins beyon beyond d Mount Mountain ainss. New York: Random House. Kidder, .R. .R. 1998. “Te rat that ate Louisiana.” Louisiana.” In Adv Advance ancess in Hi Histori storical cal Ecolo Ecology gy , W. Balée, ed., e d., pp. 141–168. New York: York: Columbia University Press. Knight, C. 1991. Blood Relations. New Haven: Yale Yale University Press. Kolbert, E. 2006. Field Notes rom a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury. Krauss, M.E. 1992. “Te world’s languages in crisis.” crisis.” Language 68(1):4–10. Kroeber, A.L. 1948. An Anthr thropol opology ogy . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Kroeber, A.L. and C. Kluckhohn. 1952. Cultur Culture: e: A Critical Review o Concepts and Definitions. Papers o the Peabody Museum o American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 47(1):1–223. Kroeber, . 2004. Ishi in wo Worlds. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Kroskrity, P.V. and M.C. Field, eds. 2009. Native American Language Ideologies: Belies, University o Arizona Ar izona Press. Practices, and Struggles in India Indian n Country . ucson: University Kwok-bun, C. 2005. “Introduction: Globalization, localization, lo calization, and hybridization.” In East-West Identities: Globalization, Localization, and Hybridization , C. Kwok-bun, J.W. Walls, and D. Hayward, eds., pp. 1–19. Boston: Brill. Lai, C.S.L., S.E. Fisher, J.A. Hurst, et al. 2001. “A orkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech sp eech and language disorder.” Nature 413:519–523. Langstroth, R.P. 1996. “Forest islands in an Amazonian savanna o Northeastern Bolivia” Unpublished Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University o Wisconsin, Madison. Lattimore, O. 1951. Inner Asian Frontiers o China, 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press. Lazar, S. 2008. El Alto, Rebel City . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lee, R.B. 2003. Te Dobe Ju/’hoansi, 3rd ed. oronto: Wadsworth.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
286 |
REFERENCES
Lee, R.B. 2007. “Te Ju/’hoansi at the crossroads: continuity and change in the time o AIDS.” In Globalization and Change in Fifeen Cultures , G. Spindler and J.E. Stockard, eds., pp. 144–171. Belmont, CA: Tomson Higher Education. Lee, R.B and R. Daly. 1999. Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leslie, C. 1963. “eaching anthropology and the t he humanities.” In Te eaching o AnG.W. Lasker, and E.M. Albert, A lbert, eds., pp. 485–491. thropology , D.G. Mandelbaum, G.W. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology . New York: York: Basic Books. Lévi-Strauss, C. [1949] 1969. Te Elementary Structures o Kinship . Boston: Beacon Press. Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. Te Mind in the Cave. London: Tames and Hudson. Lewis-Williams, D. 2010. Conceiving God . London: Tames and Hudson. Lindstrom, L. 2004. “Cargo cult at the third millennium.” millennium.” In Cargo, Cult and Culture Critique, H. Jebens, ed., pp. 15–35. Honolulu: University o Hawai’i Press. Lips, H. 2008. Sex and Gender , sixth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Livingston, F.B. F.B. 1958. “Anthropological “Anthropological implications o sickle cell gene distribution in West Arica.” Ame 60:533–562. America rican n Anthr Anthropol opologist ogist 60:533–562. Lowie, R.H. 1928. “A “A note on relationship terminologies. terminologie s.” Ame America rican n Anthr Anthropolo opologist gist 30:263–268. Lowie, R.H. 1929. “Relationships terms.” terms.” In Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed. 19:84–86. Lucy, J.A. 1992. Language Diversity and Tought . New York: Cambridge University Press. Luque, J.S., H. Castañeda, D.M. yson, yson, N. Vargas, S. Proctor Proc tor,, and C.D. Meade. 2010. “HPV awareness among Latina immigrants and Anglo-American women in the southern United States: cultural models o cervical cancer risk actors and belies.” NAPA Bulletin 34:84–104. MacLeod, M. 2007. “Export commodities. c ommodities.” In Encyclopedia o Western Colonialism since 1450, vol. 1, . Benjamin, ed., pp. 474–479. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reerences USA. Mackin, J.A, Jr. 1997. Community over Chaos. uscaloosa, uscaloosa, AL: A L: University o Alabama Press. MacMahon, D.A. and W.H. Marquardt. 2004. Te Calusa and Teir Legacy . Gainesville: University Press o Florida. Malinowski, B. [1922] 1984. Arg Wave Argonau onauts ts o the West Western ern Pacifi Pacificc. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Malinowski, B. 1944. A Scienti Scientific fic Teory Teory o Cul Cultur ture. e. Chapel Hill: University o North Carolina Press. Malinowski, B. [1967] 1989. A Diary Diary in the the Strict Strict Sense Sense o o the erm. Stanord, CA: Stanord University Press. Martin, P.S. and R.G. Klein, eds. 1984. Quaternary Extinctions. ucson: University o Arizona Press. Martin, .R. 1996. Anc Ancien ientt Greece Greece,, rom rom Prehis Prehistoric toric to Helle Hellenist nistic ic ime imess . New Haven: Yale University Press. Marx, K. [1844] 1977a. “Economic and philosophical manuscripts.” manuscripts.” In Karl Marx: Selected Writings, D. McLellan, ed., pp. 75–112. Oxord: Oxord University Press. Marx, K. [1867] 1977b. Capital , vol. 1, S. Moore and E. Aveling, trans. New York: York: International Publishers.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
287
Mauer, B. 2006. “Te anthropology o money.” An 35:15–36. Annu nual al Rev Review iew o An Anth thro ropol pology ogy 35:15–36. Mauss, M. 1990. Te Gif . W.D. W.D. Halls, trans. London: Routledge. Maynard-ucker, Maynard- ucker, G. 2008. “Insecurities “Insecuritie s conronting HIV/AIDS HIV/A IDS programs in i n Arica. Aric a.” 30(4):21–25. Practicing Anthropology 30(4):21–25. McGrane, B. 1989. Beyond Anthropology . New York: Columbia University Press. McLuhan, M. 1962. Te Gutenberg Galaxy: Te Making o ypographic Man . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mead, S.F. S.F. 2008. “Crossing the border: poverty, HIV, HIV, and the women o the Ghana- Ghana-ogo ogo corridor.” Practicing Anthropology 30(4):4–7. 30(4):4–7. Meek, R.L. 1973. urgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meggitt, M.J. 1965. Te Lineage System o the Mae Enga o New Guinea . New York: Barnes and Noble. Meltzer,, D.J. 1985. “North American Meltzer Amer ican archaeology archaeolog y and archaeologists, 1879–1934.” 1879–1934.” 50(2):249–260. America Ame rican n Antiqu Antiquity ity 50(2):249–260. Mercader J., ed. 2003. Under the Canopy . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Meriwether, J. 2007. “Apartheid.” In Encyclopedia o Western Colonialism since 1450 , vol. 1, . Benjamin, ed., pp. 81–85. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reerences USA. Merlan, F. 2009. “Indigeneity, global and local.” Current Anthropology 50(3):303–333. 50(3):303–333. Miamii Herald Miam Herald . 2011. “Scott: Florida doesn’t need more anthropology majors.” Miamii Herald Miam Herald , 10 October. Online at: miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/10/scott-florida-doesnt-need-more-anthropology-majors.html. tics/2011/10/scott-florida-doesnt-need-mor e-anthropology-majors.html. Accessed 31 October 2011. Michaels, A. 2004, Hinduism, B. Harshar, trans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Milanich J.. 1995. Florida Indians and the Invasion rom Europe. Gainesville: University Press o Florida. Millen, J.V. J.V. 2008. “Health worker shortages and HIV/AIDS: responses and linkages.” 30(4):8–16. Practicing Anthropology 30(4):8–16. Milton, K. 1984. “Protein and carbohydrate resources o the Maku Indians o northwestern Amazonia.” Ame 86:7–27. America rican n Anthr Anthropol opologist ogist 86:7–27. Milton, K. 1991. Comparative aspects o diet in Amazonian orest-dwellers. Philosophical ransactions ransactions o the Royal Society o London B , 334:253–263. Mintz, S.W. 1985. Sweetness and Power . New York: Viking. Mithen, S. 1996. Te Prehistory o the Mind . London: Tames and Hudson. Mitra P. 1933. A Histo History ry o Americ American an Anth Anthropo ropology logy . Calcutta: University o Calcutta. Moore, J.H. 1994. “Putting anthropology back ba ck together again.” Ame America rican n Anthr Anthropol opologist ogist 96(4):925–948. More, . [1516] 1949. Utopia. H.V.S. H.V.S. Ogden, ed. and trans. Northbrook, IL: AHM Publishing. Morgan, L.H. [1851] 1995. League o the Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois . North Dighton, MA: J.G. Press. Morgan, L.H. 1870. Systems o Consanguinity and Affinity o the Human Family . Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Morgan, L.H. 1877. Anci Ancient ent Socie Society ty . New York: Henry Holt.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
288 |
REFERENCES
Morwood, M.J., P. Brown, S.. Jatmiko, E. Wahyu Saptomo, K.E. Westaway, A.D. Rokus, R.G. Roberts, Rober ts, . Maeda, S. Wasisto, Wasisto, and . Djubiantono. Djubiantono. 2005. “Further evidence or small-bodied hominins rom the Late Pleistocene o Flores, Indonesia.” Nature 437:1012–17. Moseley, M.E. 1992. Te Incas and Teir Ancestors. London: Tames and Hudson. Mt. Pleasant, J. 2006. “Te science behind the three sisters mound system: an agronomic assessment o an indigenous agricultural system in the Northeast.” In Histories o Maize , J. Staller, R. ykot, and B. Benz, eds., pp. 529–537. Burlington, V: Academic Press. Murphy, R.F. 1971. Te Dialectics o Social Lie . New York: York: Basic Books. Murphy, Y. and R.F. Murphy. 2004. Women o the Forest , 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Nicholls, H. 2011. “Swarm troopers.” troopers.” New Scientist 211(2829):34–37. 211(2829):34–37. “Selec ted poems by Kay Ryan.” Online at: www.n www.nytimes. ytimes. New York imes, Te. 2008. “Selected com/2008/07/17/books/17poet-extra.html. Accessed 2 July 2011. Nicholson, P.J.M. P.J.M. 2007. Te intellectual in the inosphere. Te Chronicle o Higher Edu 53(27):B6.. cation 53(27):B6 Nimuendaju, C. 1948. “Te ucuna.” In Handbook o South American Indians, vol. III, Te ropical Forest ribes , J.H. Steward, ed., pp. 713–715. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Nolan, R.W. 2003. An Anthr thropol opology ogy in Pra Practice ctice:: Buildi Building ng a Care Career er Outside Outside the Acade Academy my . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Rie nner. Nuckolls, J.B. 2010. Te sound-symbolic expression o animacy in Amazonian Ecuador. Diversity 2:353–369. Nuwer, H. 1999. Wrongs o Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking . Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ohnuki-ierney, E. 1984. Te Ainu o the Northwest Coast o Southern Sakhalin . Prospect Heights, IL: IL : Waveland. Waveland. Pandya, V. V. 2007. “Observed “Observe d nature and organized culture: c ulture: indigenous knowledge systems among the Ongees o Little Andaman Island.” Paper presented at the International Experts Meeting: Indigenous Knowledge and Changing Environments, UNESCO, LINKS Programme, Cairns, Australia, August 19–23, 2007. Paquette, G. 2007. “Justification or empire, European concepts.” In Encyclopedi Encyclopedia a o Western Colonialism since 1450 , vol. 2, . Benjamin, ed., pp. 673–681. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reerences USA. Parkin, R. 1997. Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts . Oxord: Blackwell. Pels, P. and O. Salemink. 1999. “Introduction: locating the colonial subjects o anthropology. polog y.” In Colonial Subjects: Essays on the Practical History o Anthropology , P. Pels and O. Salemink, eds., pp. 1–52. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Pelto, P.J. and G.H. Pelto. 1993. Ant Anthro hropologi pological cal Rese Researc arch: h: Te Struct Structure ure o Inqu Inquiry iry . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peluso, D.M. D.M. and M. N. Alexiades. Alexia des. 2005. “Indigenous urbanization and Amazonia’s post-traditional environmental economy economy..” raditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 16(2):7–16. Perry, M.D. 2008. “Global black sel-ashionings: sel-ashi onings: hip hop as diasporic space.” space.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 15:635–664.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
289
Peterson, N. 1999. “Introduction: Australia.” Australia.” In Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers, R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 317–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phalan, B., M. Orial, A. Balmord, and R.E. Corlen. 2011. “Reconciling ood production and biodiversity conservation: conser vation: land sharing and land spacing compared.” Science 333:1289–1291. Pickering, R., R.H.G.M. Dirks, Z. Jinnah, D.J. de Ruiter et al. 2011. “ Aus Austra tralopi lopithecus thecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and implication or the origins o the genus Homo.” Science 333:1421–1423. Pietz, W. 1999. “Te etish o civilization: sacrificial blood and monetary debt.” In Colonial Subjects: Essays in the Practical History o Anthropology , P. Pels and O. Salemink, eds., pp. 53–81. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Pink, S. 2006. Introduction to App Applica lication tionss o Anth Anthropo ropology: logy: Proes Proession sional al Anth Anthropo ropology logy in the wenty-First Century , S. Pink, ed., pp. 3–26. New York: Berghahn. Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules. New York: HarperCollins. HarperC ollins. Pitulko, V.V., P.A. Nikolsky, E. Yu. Girya, A.E. Basily, et al. 2004. Te Yana RHS site: humans in the Arctic beore the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 303(5654):52–56. Plato. 1999. Great Dialogues o Plato . ranslated by W. H.D. Rouse. New York: Penguin. Polanyi, K. 1957. “Te economy as instituted process.” process.” In rade and Market in Early H.W. Pearson, eds., pp. 243–270. GlenEmpires, K. Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg, and H.W. coe, IL: Free Press and Falcon Wing’s Wing’s Press. Politis, G. 2007. Nukak. Walnut Creek, CA: Lef Coast Press. Pollard, S. 1968. Te Idea o Progress. London: C.A. Watts and Co. Pratt, M.L. 1986. “Fieldwork in common places.” places.” In Writing Culture: Te Poetics and Politics o Ethnography , J. Clifford and G. Marcus, eds., pp. 27–50. Los Angeles: University o Caliornia Press. Price, D.H. 2008. An Anthr thropol opologica ogicall Inte Intelli lligence gence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pyne, S. S . 1998. “Forged in fire.” In Adv W. Balée, ed., pp. Advanc ances es in in Histo Historica ricall Ecology Ecology , W. 64–103. New York: Columbia University Press. Quinlan, M. 2005. Considerations or collecting reelists in the field: examples rom ethnobotany. Field Methods 17:219–234. Rabinow, P. 1977. Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1929. “Age “Age organization-terminology. organization-ter minology.” Ma Man n 12–14:21. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society . London: Cohen and West. Rainbird, P. 2004. Te Archaeology o Micronesia . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rappaport, J. 2007. Anthropological collaboration in Colombia. An Anthr thropolo opology gy Put to Work, L. Field and R.G. Fox, eds., pp. 21–44. New York: Berg. Rappaport, R. 2000. 2000. Pigs or the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology o a New Guinea People , 2nd ed. Prospect Prospec t Heights, IL: Waveland. Rashid, R. 1995. “Introduction.” In Indigenous Minorities o Peninsular Malaysia: Selected Issues and Ethnographies , pp. 1–17. Kuala Lumpur: Intersocietal and Scientific. Read, D.W. D.W. 2001. “What is kinship?” In Te Cultural Analysis o Kinship , R. Feinberg and M. Ottenheimer, Ottenheime r, eds., pp. 78–117. Urbana: University o Illinois Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
290 |
REFERENCES
Renrew, C. and P. Bahn. Ba hn. 1996. Ar Archae chaeology ology , 2nd ed. London: Tames and Hudson. Rivière, P. 1984. Individual and Society in Guiana . New York: Oxord University Press. Rödlach, A. 2006. Witches, Westerners, and HIV . Walnut Creek, CA: Lef Coast Press. Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion o Innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. Rohde, D. 2007. “Army “Army enlists anthropology in war zones,” zones,” New York imes, 13 July. Romney, A.K. and R. D’Andrade. 1964. “Cognitive aspects o English kin terms in transcultural studies in cognition.” cognition.” Ame America rican n Anthr Anthropolo opologist gist 66:146–170. Rony, F.. 1996. Te Tird Eye: Race, Cinema, and Ethnographic Spectacle . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and ime . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosman, A. and P.G. P.G. Rubel. 1986. Feasting with Mine Enemy . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Roughgarden, J. 2004. Evolution’s Rainbow. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Ruby, J. 2000. Picturing Culture: Explorations o Film and Anthrop ology. Chicago: Uni versity versi ty o Chicago Chicago Press. Rupp, K. 2003. Gif-Giving in Japan. Stanord: Stanord University Press. Ryan, C. and C. Jethá. 2010. Sex at Dawn: Te Prehistoric Prehistoric Origins o Modern Sexuality . New York: York: Harper Collins. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine. Sahlins, M. 1976a. Culture and Practical Reason . Chicago: University o Chicago Press. Sahlins, M. 1976b. Te Use and Abuse o Biology: An Anthropological Critique o Sociobiology . Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Said, E.W. 2003. Orientalism . New York: Penguin. Sanjek, R. 1990. “A “A vocabulary vocabular y or fieldnotes.” In Fieldnotes: Te Making o Anthropology , R. Sanjek, ed., pp. 92–121. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sansi, R. 2007. Fetishes and Monuments: Aro-Brazilian Art and Culture in the 20 th CenYork: Berghahn. Be rghahn. tury. New York: Santilli, M., P. P. Moutinho, S. Schwartzman, D. Nepstad, L. Curran, and C. Nobre. 2005. “ropical deorestation and the Kyoto Protocol.” Climatic Change 71(3):267–276. Saussure, F. F. de. [1916] 1959. Course in General Linguistics . New York: York: Philosophical Library. Savage-Rumbaugh, S., S.G. Shanker, and .J. aylor. 1998. Ape Apes, s, Langua Language, ge, and and the the HuHuman Mind . New York: Oxord University Press. Schaan, D.P. 2006. “São tartarugas até lá embaixo! Cultura, simbolismo e espacialidade na Amazônia Am azônia pré-Colombiana.” Revista de Arque Arqueologia ologia Americana 24:99–124. Schaan, D.P. 2012. Sacred Geographies o Ancient Amazonia: Historical Historical Ecology o Social Complexity . Walnut Creek, CA: Lef Coast Press. Schaffer, R. and D.G. Skinner. 2009. “Perorming race in our culturally diverse ourth grade classrooms: silence, race talk, and negotiation o social boundaries.” An Anthr throo 40(3):277–296. 40(3):277–296. pology and Educa Education tion Quarte Quarterly rly Schneider, D.M. 1984. A Critiqu Critiquee o the the Study Study o Kins Kinship hip. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press. Schniedewind, W.M. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
291
Scott, J.C. 1985. Weapons o the Weak. New Haven: Yale Yale University Press. Scott, J.C. 2009. Te Art o Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History o Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press. Seligman, C.G. and B.Z. Seligman. 1911. Te Veddas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Senders, S. and A. ruitt. 2007. Mon Money: ey: Ethnogr Ethnographi aphicc Encoun Encounters ters. New York: Berg. Service, E. 1963. Profiles in Ethnology . New York: Harper and Row. Shandy, D.J. 2007. Nuer American Passages: Globalizing Sudanese Migration . Gainesville: University Press o Florida. Sharer, R.J. 1994. Te Ancient Maya, 5th ed. Stanord: Stanord University Press. Shenk, M.K. 2006. Models or the uture o anthropology. An Anthr thropol opology ogy News News 47(1):6–7. Shostak, M. 2000. Nisa: Te Lie and Words o a !Kung Woman . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shukla, S. 2003. India Abroad . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Siddle, R. 1997. “Ainu: Japan’s indigenous people.” In Jap Japan an’’s Minor Minoritie ities: s: Te Illu Illusion sion o Weiner, ed., pp. 17–49. London: Routledge. Homogeneity , M. Weiner, Simmel, G. [1900] 1978. Te Philosophy o Money . . Bottomore and D. Frisby, trans. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sinclair, K. 2001. “Mischie on the margins: gender, primogeniture, and cognatic descent among the Maori.” In New Directions in Anthropological Kinship , L. Stone, ed., pp. 156–174. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Sloane, P. 1999. Islam, Modernity and Entrepreneurship among the Malays . New York: St. Martin’s Press. Smith, J.J. 1993. “Using ANHROPAC ANHROPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a reelist salience index.” Cultural Anthropology Methodology Newsletter 5(3):1–3. Spencer, B. and F.J. F.J. Gillen. [1899] 1938. Te Native ribes o Central Australia . London: MacMillan. Spindler, G. and J.E. Stockard, eds. 2007. Globalization and Change in Fifeen Cultures . Belmont, CA: Tomson Higher Education. Stack, C. 1974. All Our Kin Kin. New York: Harper and Row. Stavenhagen, R. 1997. “Indigenous organizations: rising actors in Latin America.” CEPAL Review 62:63–75. Stegeborn, W. 1999. “Wanniyala-aetto.” In Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers , R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 269–273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steward, J.H. 1938. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Steward, J.H. 1955. Teory o Culture Change. Urbana: University o Illinois Press. Stocking, G.W., Jr., ed. 1974. Te Shaping o American Anthropology, 1883–1911. New York: Basic Books. Stone, L., ed. 2001. New Directions in Anthropological Kinship . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Strathern, M. 1992. Afe Aferr Natur Nature. e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Straus, L.G. and O. Bar-Yose. Bar-Yose. 2001. “Out o Arica in the Pleistocene: Ple istocene: an introduction. i ntroduction.” 75:91–102. Quaternary International 75:91–102.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
292 |
REFERENCES
Sutton, M.Q. 2008. An Intr Introduct oduction ion to to Native Native Nort North h America America, 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education. Sylvain, R. 2005. “Disorderly development: globalization and the idea o ‘culture’ in the Kalahari.” Ame 32(3):354–370. America rican n Ethnol Ethnologist ogist 32(3):354–370. ainter, J.A. 1988. Te Collapse o Complex Societies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ainter, J.A. 2006. “Archaeology o overshoot and collapse.” Ann Annual ual Review o Anth Anthroro pology polo gy 35:59–74. alboys, G.K. 2005. Way o the Druid: Te Renaissance o a Celtic Religion and Its Relevance or oday . New York: Maple-Vail. atum, B.D. 1997. “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting ogether in the Caeteria?” and Other Conversations about Race . New York: Basic. Tornberry, P. 2002. Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights . Manchester: Manchester University Press. ierney, J. 2008. “ips rom the potlatch: where giving giv ing knows no slump.” New York imes, 16 December 2008. omas, D. 1991. “ools o the trade: the production o ethnographic observations on the Andaman Islands, 1858–1922.” In Colonial Situations: Essays in the ContextuG.W. Stocking, Jr Jr.,., ed., pp. 75–108. Madison: alization o Ethnographic Knowledge , G.W. University o Wisconsin Press. omasello, M. 1999. “Te human adaptation or culture.” An Annu nual al Revi Review ew o An Anth thro ropol pology ogy 28:509–529. omasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Base Usage-Based d Teory o Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. onkinson, R. 1991. Te Mardu Aborigines, 2nd ed. Fort Worth, X: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. onkinson, R. 2007. “Te Mardu Aborigines: on the road to somewhere.” somewhere.” In Globalization and Change in Fifeen Cultures , G. Spindler and J.E. Stockard, eds., pp. 225–255. Belmont, CA: Tomson Higher Education. oussaint, S. 2007. “Potential collaborations and disjunctures in Australian work sites: an experiential exper iential rendering.” rendering.” In An Anthr thropol opology ogy Put to Work Work, L. Field and R.G. Fox, eds., pp. 161–180. New York: Berg. rigger, D.S. 1999. “Hunter “Hunter-gatherer -gatherer peoples p eoples and nation-states.” nation-states.” In Te Cambridge Encyclopedia o Hunters and Gatherers , R.B. Lee and R. Daly, eds., pp. 473–479. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ylor, E.B. [1871] 1924. Primitive Culture, two vols. New York: Brentano’s. ylor,, E.B. 1889. “On a method o investigating the development o institutions applied ylor to laws o marriage and descent.” Jou Journal rnal o the the Royal Royal Anth Anthropo ropologic logical al Insti Institute tute o Great Britain and Ireland 18:267. United Buddy Bears. 2011. United Buddy Bears 08 Dec. 2011–15 Feb. 2012 @ Pavilion Kuala Lumpur : Te Art o olerance. Exhibit brochure, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. United Nations 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights o Indigenous Peoples. Online at: www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pd. Accessed 31 October 2011. Urton, G. 1997. Te Social Lie o Numbers . Austin: University o exas Press.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
REFERENCES
|
293
Urton, G. 2008. “Te “ Te Inca khipu: Knotted-cord record keeping in the Andes.” In Silver man and W.H. W.H. Isbell, eds., pp. Handbook o South American Archaeology , H. Silverman 831–843. New York: Springer. van Gennep, Gennep, A. [1909] 1960. Te Rites o Passage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Van Willigen, J. 1993. App Applie lied d Anthr Anthropolo opology: gy: An Intr Introduct oduction ion, rev. ed. Westport, C: Bergin and Garvey. Vilaça, A. 2010. Strange Enemies: Indigenous Agency and Scenes o Encounters in Amazonia. D. Rodgers, trans. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Viveiros de Castro, E. 1992. From the Enemy’s Point o View , C. Howard, trans. Chicago: University o Chicago Press. Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. “Dravidian and related kinship systems.” In ransormations o Kinship , M. Godelier, . rautmann, and F.E. jon de Sat, eds., pp. 332–385. Washington, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Voices. 2011. “Human genome: what’s been most surprising.” Cell 147(1):9–10. 147(1):9–10. WAC (World Archaeological Congress). 2008. Sixth World Archaeological Congress. Business Plenary Plenar y. 4 July July.. Dublin, Ireland. Wade, N. 2006. Beore the Dawn. New York: Penguin Books. Wallace, A.F.C. 1966. Religion . New York: Random House. Wallace, A.F.C. 1969. Te Death and Rebirth o the Seneca . New York: Random House. Wallerstein, I. 1974–1980. Te Modern World System, 3 vols. New York: Academic Press. Wallerstein, I. 2005. “Afer “Afer development and globalization, g lobalization, what?” Social Forces 83(3):1263–78. Walvin, J. 2007. “Abolition o colonial slavery.” In Encyclopedia o Western Colonialism since Re erence USA. 1450, vol. 1, . Benjamin, ed., pp. 2–6. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reerence Weatherord, J. 1998. Te History o Money . New York: York: Tree Rivers R ivers Press. Weinberger, S. 2008. “Te Pentagon’s culture wars.” Nature 455:583–85. Weiner, A.B. 1988. Te robrianders o Papua New Guinea . Ft. Worth, X: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Weir, A.A.S., J. Chappell, and A. Kacelnik. 2002. “Shaping o hooks in New Caledonia crows.” Science 297:981. Weller, S.C. and A.K. Romney. 1988. Systematic Data Collection . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wen-Hsiung, L. and M.A. Saunders. 2005. “Te “ Te chimpanzee and us.” Nature 437:50–51. Westermarck, E. 1891. Te History o Human Marriage . London: MacMillan. Whitaker, A. 2010. Review o Au Pair Pair . Jou Journal rnal o the the Anthro Anthropolog pological ical Socie Society ty o Oxor Oxord d 2(1–2):85–86. White, .D., B. Asaw, Y. Beyene, Y. Halie-Selassie, C.O. Lovejoy, and G. Suwa. 2009. “ Ard Ardipi ipithec thecus us ramid ramidus us and the paleobiology o early hominids.” Science 326 (5949):75–86. Whitley, D.S. 2005. Introduction to Rock Art Research. Walnut Walnut Creek, CA: Lef Coast Press. Whitley, D.S. 2009. Cave Paintings and the Human Spirit . Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books. Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures through Teir Key Words . New York: Oxord University Press. Williams, S. 1985. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery . London: B. B... Batsord.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
294 |
REFERENCES
Wittogel, K.A. 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study o otal Power . New Haven: Yale University Press. Wittgenstein, Wittgen stein, L. [1922] 1996. ractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge. Wol, A.P. A.P. 2004. “Explaining the t he Westermarck effect or, what did natural selection sele ction select selec t or?” In Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest aboo, A.P. Wol and W.H. Durham, eds., pp. 76–92. Stanord, CA: Stanord University Press. Wol, A.P. and W.H. Durham, eds. 2004. Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest aboo. Stanord: Stanord University Press. Wol, E.R. 1964. Ant Anthro hropology pology . New York: W. W. Norton. Wol, E.R. 1969. Peasant Wars o the wentieth Century . New York: Harper and Row. Wol, E.R. 1997. Europe and the People without History . Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press. Wol, E.R. and J.G. Jorgensen. 1970. “Anthropology on the warpath warp ath in Tailand.” New York Review o Books 15 (November 19):26–30. Wolverton, S., R.L. Lyman, J.H. Kennedy, Kennedy, and .W. .W. La Point. 2009. Te terminal te rminal PleisPle istocene extinctions in North America, hypermorphic evolution, and the dynamic equilibrium model. Jou 29(1):28–63. Journal rnal o Ethno Ethnobiol biology ogy 29(1):28–63. Woods, W. W. and J.M. McCann. 1999. “Te anthropogenic origin and persistence pe rsistence o Amazonian Dark Earths.” Yearbook o the Conerence o Latin Americanist Geogra pherss 25:7–14. pher Worsley, P.M. 1968. Te rumpet Shall Sound , 2nd ed. New York: Schocken Books. Worster, D. 2001. A River River Runn Running ing West: Te Lie Lie o John John Wesl Wesley ey Powe Powell ll . Oxord: Oxord University Press. Yanagisako, S. and D. Segal S egal 2006. “Welcoming debate: exploring links and disconnects among the quadrants.” An Anthr thropol opology ogy News News 47(1):8–11. Zeitzen, M.K. 2008. Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. New York: Berg. Zent, E.L. and S. Zent. Ze nt. 2004. “Amazonian “Amazonian Indians as ecological disturbance agents.” In Ethnobotany and Conservation o Biocultural Diversity , L. Maffi and .J.S. Carlson, eds., pp. 79–111. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden. Zimmerer, K.S. 1993. “Agricultural biodiversity and peasant rights to subsistence in the Central Andes during Inca rule.” rule.” Jou 19:15–32. Journal rnal o Histo Historica ricall Geograp Geography hy 19:15–32.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
INDEX
Page numbers in italics reer to illustrations. A
abacus, 172 Aborigines contact and, 207 Dreaming and, 86–87 initiation among, 72, 73 landscape and, 185 Radcliffe-Brown and, 111 totemism and, 83 See also Aranda; Mardu; iwi açaí, 252, 253 accounting, 172–173 acculturation, 54, 198, 257 adoption, 51–52 affines (in-laws), 52, 73, 74 kinship and, 157, 163 affinity, 153 Aghanistan, 235 Aricans, 201–202 Arican Americans, 132 age, 62–63, 72, 164 agnates, 162 agriculture, 180–181, 182–183, 189–190 extensive, 87, 179, 191–192 hunter-gatherers and, 223–224 industrial, 87–88, 179, 195–196 intensive, 87, 171, 173, 179, 192–194 loss o, 224–226 origins o, 183, 246 states and, 171, 173, 183, 193–194 aid industry, 230–231, 232–233 Aimers, James, 219 Ainu, 188, 189, 255 Alexiades, Miguel, 251 alienation, 97
alterity, 199, 206 Alor Island, 230 Amazonia biodiversity and, 218 commodities and, 252 development o, 232–233 egalitarianism in, 242 landscapes in, 102, 179, 192, 193, 260–261 languages in, 130, 166–167 loss o technology in, 50–51, 104, 226 marriage practices in, 23, 24, 146 rites o passage in, 75 ambilineal descent, 150, 151 American Anthropological Association, 230, 235 American Indian Movement (AIM), 255 analogy, 93, 222 ancestors, 53, 83, 150 Andaman Islanders, 111 Anderson, Edgar, 183 Anderson, Eugene, 190 animatism, 88 animism, 82–83 anonymity, 130 anthropology, 18, 37–38, 101, 265–268 activist, 231 American, 98–108 applied, 229–230, 231–234, 241, 244 cultural, 15, 17, 18, 39 defined, 15–16, 39 ethics and, 230 European, 108–112 orensic, 28
295
globalization and, 261–262, 263, 265, 267–268 as literature, 124–125 medical, 133, 236–238 military, 234–236 physical, 27–32, 38, 39 visual, 133–134 see also linguistic anthropology apartheid, 206–207 apes, 28, 29, 31 applied anthropology, 229–230, 231–234, 241, 244 Apollonian culture, 105 Arabs, 175 Aranda, 73, 83 Arapaho, 25 Arara, 77 Arawak, 165–166 Araweté, 19, 60, 77, 165 Arensberg, Conrad, 107–108, 129 archaeology, 26, 28, 32–33, 38, 39 Argonau Argo nauts ts o the Wester Western n Pacific Pacific, 20 armbands (shell), 108–110 arrival scenes, 127–129 art, 41, 55–56, 56 artiacts, 32 artificial selection, 183, 195 assimilation, 197, 207, 211–212, 267 atom o kinship, 152–153 Atran, Scott, 66 aurochs, 184 Australia, 207 Australian Aborigines. See Aborigines avunculocal residence, 149 ayllu, 83 Aztecs, 78, 85, 168, 200, 208
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
296 | INDEX B
babaçu (palm), 224–225 Baffin Island, 99–100 Bahuchet, Serge, 223 bananas, 184 bands, 21, 159 Ju/’hoansi, 71, 187 Barbarism, 97 Barnard, Alan, 254 barter, 208 Barth, Fredrik, 209, 210 Batek, 81–82, 222–223 Benedict, Ruth, 105–107, 234 Berdan, Frances, 168 Berlin, Brent, 64–65, 66 Bernard, H. Russell, 127 bias, 116, 123–124, 134 Big Man, 166 bilateral descent, 150 binary oppositions, 118 bioarchaeology, 28 biodiversity, 102, 218, 260–261 cooperatives and, 241–243 humans and, 179, 189, 190, 194 biological anthropology, 27–32, 38, 39 bipedalism, 28, 29 birds, 43, 44 birth rites, 72–73 Blacking, John, 56 blade technology, 30 blitzkrieg hypothesis, 181–182 Boas, Franz, 22, 99–101, 103, 112 applied anthropology and, 261–262 on emic perspective, 126 film and, 133 students o, 105 body modification, 72, 73 bonobos, 44 Bourdieu, Pierre, 232 brain size, 30–31 Brazil , 80, 133, 201, 202 development in, 232–233 government o, 203, 232 indigeneity and, 255, 256 Portuguese and, 200 religion in, 202 Bricker, Victoria, 65 brideservice, 146–147 bridewealth, 58, 146, 249 Brondizio, Eduardo, 252 Brown, Cecil, 65 bureaucracy, 170, 171–173 Bureau o American Ethnology, 99
burials, 41 Búriková, Zusana, 250 burning, 185, 186, 190 Burridge, Kenelm, 87, 186 C
cacao, 208 calendars, 85, 86 calls, 45, 47–48 Calusa, 58, 189, 221 Candomblé, 202 Canela, 79 cannibalism, 78 Capital , 97 capitalism, 97–98, 198, 208 cargo cults, 205–206 Carneiro, Robert, 166, 168, 174–175 carrying capacity, 216 Carsten, Janet, 52 caste, 77, 167 Castillo, Luis Jaime, 171 Catholicism, 85, 200, 202 cattle, 146, 162–163, 249, 252–253 cave art, 55–56, 56 centralization, 161, 169–170, 176 ranked societies and, 187, 188 resistance to, 203, 205 See also states ceremonies. See rituals Cheyenne, 75 childcare, 143 children, 70 chiedoms, 167–168, 188 collapse o, 221 state ormation and, 174 chies, 88, 165, 166, 188–189 chimpanzees, 28, 42–43 China, 83, 170, 171, 216–217 Christianity, 200, 201 Chukchi, 144 circumcision, 73, 74 circumscription (environmental), 168, 174–175 civilization, 36 clans, 146, 150–151, 167 totemism and, 82–83, 120 class, 97–98, 167, 169, 176 classification, 64–66, 89 Clastres, Pierre, 203, 223 Clifford, James, 210 climate change, 16, 37, 181–182, 217 Clovis, 181 Cold War, 234–235 collapse, 216–218, 219–221 See also simplification
collective conscience, 110–111 colonialism, 197–198, 209, 213 in Arica, 206–207 in the Americas, 199–201 anthropology and, 233 in Australia, 207 British, 178, 198, 199–200, 206, 207 collapse and, 218 indigeneity and, 255–256 language and, 258 resistance to, 201, 202–203, 205 world system and, 198, 209 color, 64–65, 89 Columbus, Christopher, 198 commodities, 247, 248, 251, 252 commodity chain, 251, 252 communication, 45, 102, 248 animal, 44–45, 47–48 See also language community studies, 107–108 complexity, 161, 168, 169–171, 215, 216 theories o, 170–171, 173–175 Comte, Auguste, 94 Condominas, George, 190 Condorcet, Nicholas, 93 conflict collapse and, 216–217 ethnic, 177–178, 212–213 See also warare Conucianism, 83 conquest, 36, 89, 188, 218 colonialism and, 197, 199–201 consanguines, 73, 153, 163 consent (inormed), 230 contact (cultural), 197–198, 199–201 contingency, 35, 36, 37 culture and, 42, 101 loss o agriculture and, 226–227 cooperatives, 241–243 core-periphery relations, 198, 207, 209, 247, 248 Cormier, Loretta, 63 corporate groups, 148, 149–150 Cortés, Hernán, 200 corvée labor, 171, 216 cosmology, 86–87 cosmopolitanism, 248, 250 counterinsurgency, 234–235 cousins, 153, 154–155, 156 couvade, 73
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
INDEX
Covey, R.A., 171 Cronon, William, 186 crops, 180, 183–184, 191 Inca, 89 Iroquois, 191–192 as property, 149 cross-cultural comparison. See ethnology Crow, 77 crows, 43 cultural anthropology, 15, 17, 18, 39 cultural ecology, 116–117, 121 cultural materialism, 122–123 cultural relativism, 27, 59, 78–79, 100–101, 103 culture, 35, 36, 41–43 Boas on, 101, 103 change, 37, 38 defined, 15, 36, 42 as learned, 42, 44 as superorganic, 103–105 as text, 124–125 culture and personality, 105–107 culture shock, 129 Cuzco, 88, 172, 178, 211, 240 D
Dahomey, 144, 218 Damon, Fred, 70 D’Andrade, Roy, 137 Darwin, Charles, 94–95, 112 dating (carbon), 33 Dean, Rebecca, 218 death, 53, 77, 78 Declaration on the Rights o Indigenous Peoples, 254, 256, 258 deorestation, 216 degeneration, 91–92 demography, 131 Derrida, Jacques, 125 descent, 149–151 matrilineal, 82, 95–96, 149 See also kinship Descola, Philippe, 127–128 development projects, 230–231, 232–233 Diamond, Jared, 218 diaspora, 251–252 diffusion, 33, 54–55 Dionysian culture, 105 disasters, 218 discourse, 125 disease, 200, 206, 218 displacement, 47 diversity. See biodiversity
division o labor, 60–62, 110, 142–143 ethnicity and, 210 Iroquois, 204 Ju/’hoansi, 135 Mardu, 143 divorce, 146 documents, 132 domains (semantic), 135–138 domestication, 180–181, 182–185, 246–247 double descent, 149 Douglas, Mary, 76 dowry, 17, 208 Dravidian kinship system, 155, 156 DuBois, Cora, 230 Durkheim, Émile, 84, 100–111, 117 totemism and, 82–83, 119, 120–121 E
ecclesiasticism, 85 ecocide, 218 ecological anthropology, 121–122 ecology, 102 historical, 179–180 economy,, 63, 87–89 economy 87– 89 colonialism and, 197–198 o persons, 155 reciprocal, 108–110 Ecuador, 241 Edmonson, Munro, 80 egalitarianism, 81, 164–166 sharing and, 64, 187 time and, 134–135 Egyptology, 32 elite, 97–98, 247 emic perspective, 19, 46, 126–127, 129 empires, 178 enculturation, 27, 35, 51, 72, 77 defined, 54–55 endogamy, 167 English language, 258, 259 Enlightenment, 91, 92, 94, 112, 116 environment applied anthropology and, 241 classification o, 64–66 culture and, 116–117 materialism and, 121–122 environmental circumscription, 168, 174–175 epidemics, 218, 200 epigraphy, 26 Erickson, Clark, 260
|
297
Ese Eja, 240–241 Eskimo kinship system, 155, 158 essentialism, 210 ethics, 230 ethnicity and ethnic groups, 17, 59, 175, 209–211 conflict and, 212–213 language and, 212–213 material culture and, 165–166 states and, 169, 177–178, 211–213 tourism and, 239–241 See also indigeneity ethnoarchaeology, 33 ethnoastronomy, 26 ethnobiology, 26, 65–66, 89 ethnocentrism, 27, 59, 78–79, 100–101 ethnographic present, 129 ethnography, 18–20, 39 arrival scenes, 127–129 o commodity chain, 251, 252 ethics and, 230 film and, 133–134 globalization and, 251–253 as literature, 124–125 military, 99 multisited, 245 salvage, 103, 108, 116, 117 writing, 130–131 ethnohistory, 18, 24–26, 132 ethnology, 18, 23, 24, 39 ethnonyms, 79 ethnotourism, 206, 239–241 ethnozoology, 26 etic perspective, 19, 129 Europe, 199, 246, 247 See also colonialism Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 128, 249, 252 evolution (biological), 94–95 evolution (cultural), 93, 95–97 critique o, 101, 111, 116 multilinear, 117, 173 states and, 168, 169–170, 173 evolution (human), 28–32 excavation, 91–92 exchange. See trade and exchange exclusion hypothesis (wild yam question), 222–223 exogamy, 57, 118, 120–121 exploration, 199 extinction, 102, 181–182
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
298 | INDEX F
actories, 97–98 Fairhead, James, 260 amily, 144, 149, 152 extended, 145, 147–148, 148 residence and, 147–148, 152 Farmer, Paul, 236 ashion, 103–104 easting, 88, 166, 188 euding, 162–163 field notes, 130 fieldwork, 18, 20, 126–130 rapid, 231–232 film, 133–134 fire evolution and, 31, 97 landscape and, 181, 182, 185 at potlatches, 105 technology, 225 Flaherty, Robert, 133 Flores, Indonesia, 30–31 Florida, 189 olk generics, 65–66 olk specifics, 66 ood insecurity, 237, 238 oragers. See hunter-gatherers orensic anthropology, 28 orests, 186, 193, 260 cultivation and, 180, 190 cultural, 191, 192, 225, 260 resources in, 165 tropical, 102, 189 Formative, 190 ossils, 28, 29–32 ossil uels, 182, 195 Foucault, Michel, 125 Fox, Richard, 224 FOXP2 (gene), 44, 45 France, 78, 93, 198, 199, 206, 212 Frazer, James, 20 Frazier, J.G., 218 ree listing, 135–138 Freeman, Derek, 106, 124 French, Jan H., 256 Freud, Sigmund, 83 Fried, Morton, 164 unctionalism, 110, 111, 112 G
Gariuna, 202 Geertz, Clifford, 23, 124, 130, 212 gender, 60–62, 81–82 marriage and, 143–144 genealogy, 52–53 genius, 105 genocide, 213
genome, 31 geoglyphs, 260, 261 gesture, 45 Ghost Dance, 25, 25–26, 203, 204 gif-giving, 88, 248 globalization, 246 language and, 258–259 money and, 248, 250 origins o, 250–252 global warming, 37, 182 GMOs (genetically modified organisms), 195, 238 gold, 208, 209 Golden Bough, Te, 20 Goodall, Jane, 43 Gorer, Geoffrey, 106 Gough, Kathleen, 144 Gramsci, Antonio, 198 greenhouse gases, 182 Green Revolution, 238 Griffin, Marcus, 235 Guajá, 19–20, 77, 185, 226 ethnonyms and, 79 marriage practices o, 24 sharing and, 63–64 subsistence, 224–225 Gwatirisa, Pauline, 237 H
hair, 60, 75 Haiti, 236 Hall, Edward ., 45 Hammel, Eugene, 213 Handsome Lake religion, 203, 204 Harris, Marvin, 36, 76 Hawai‘i, 58 Hawaiian kinship system, 155, 157 health, 236–237 hierarchy,, 161 hierarchy hieroglyphics, 172 Hill, Robert, 201 Hindus and Hinduism, 77, 167 historical ecology, 179–180 historical particularism, 100, 115 history ethno-, 18, 24–26, 132 lie, 132, 133, 232 oral, 132 HIV/AIDS, 236–238 Hobbes, Tomas, 134–135, 168, 217 holism, 35 Holmberg, Allan, 231 hominins, 28, 29, 30–32, 41 Homo erectus, 29, 30 Homo ergaster , 29 Homo floresiensis, 30–32
Homo habilis, 29
Hornborg, Al, 208 horticulture, 183 Houk, James, 202 Huguenots, 78 humanism, 125–126, 265 human nature, 102 human rights, 254, 256, 261 Human errain eams eams (H), (H ), 235–236 humor, 127, 131 Humphrey,, Caroline, 71 Humphrey hunger, 237, 238 Hunn, Eugene, 242 hunter-gatherers, 87, 186–189, 222–223 armers and, 223–224 landscape and, 185–186 time and, 135 hunting, 29, 181–182 Hurston, Zora Neale, 21, 22, 99, 132 Hutchinson, Sharon, 249, 250 hybridity, 257 hydraulic theory, 170–173 hypergamy, 224 hypodescent, 80 hypogamy, 224 I
Ibibate Mound Complex, 260–261 identity. See ethnicity and ethnic groups; indigeneity ideophones, 34, 46 Inca, 58, 83, 88–89, 171–173, 177 incest taboo, 57–59 cousins and, 154–155 structuralism and, 118, 121 India, 167 indigeneity, 245, 253–258 landscapes and, 261 Mashpee, 210, 254, 257–258 Nuer,, 252–253 Nuer 252– 253 Indo-European, 93 Industrial Revolution, 182 inequalities, 81–82, 164 inormants, 19 inrastructure, 122, 123 initiation rites, 72–75 institutional review board (IRB), 130, 230 institutions, 17–18, 69, 90 in complex societies, 151 ecclesiastical, 84, 85 globalization and, 250–251 power and, 125 instruments (musical), 61
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
INDEX
intensification (agricultural), 180, 219 interviewing, 129–130, 132 Inuit, 81, 158 Boas and, 99–100 Iraq, 235 Iroquois, 95–96, 120, 204 agriculture, 191–192 descent and, 149 religion, 203, 204 Iroquois kinship system, 155, 156 irrigation, 87, 193 by Paiute, 185 states and, 170–173, 174 Ishi, 50, 50, 103, 104 Islam, 76, 175 J
Jackson, Antoinette, 132 Japan, 106, 255 Jefferson, Tomas, 91–92, 93–94, 204 Jivaro, 128 Jones, Sir William, 92–93 Judaism, 76 Ju/’hoansi, 21, 23, 143, 185 marriage and, 147 naming, 71 political organization o, 164–165 reciprocity and, 63 shamanism, 85 tourism and, 240 use o time by, 135 K
Ka’apor, 19, 79 ancestors and, 83 cooperatives, 241 development and, 232–233 orests and, 192 gender, 60, 81 gestures and, 45 naming, 70, 71 religion, 203 ritual, 73, 74–75 taboos and, 73, 76 Kahn, Miriam, 150 kaiko cycle, 121–122 Kanzi (captive bonobo), 43, 44, 102 Katin, Nicole, 131 Kaxinawa, 242 Kay,, Paul, 64–65 Kay 64– 65 Kayapó, 232 Kehoe, Alice, 25–26 Kelly,, Raymond, 102 Kelly
kindred, 159 kinship, 51–54, 141, 155–159 affinal, 52, 73, 74, 153 atom o, 152–154 classification and, 89, 155–158 consanguineal, 153 descent and, 149–151 fictive, 52, 159 naming and, 71 residence and, 145, 147–148, 149 salience and, 137 structuralism and, 118 study o, 97 Kluckhohn, Clyde, 36 Koran, 56, 76 Kroeber, Alred L., 36, 103–105, 112 kula ring, 108–110 Kwakwaka’wakw Kwakwaka ’wakw (Kwakiutl), 105–106, 188 L
labor corvée, 171, 216 globalization and, 250, 251 slave, 201–202 tax, 171 time and, 134–135 See also division o labor Lahu, 82 Lamarck, Jean, 94–95 landscapes agrarian, 189–192 alteration o, 259–261 Amazonian, 102, 179, 192, 193, 260–261 early human impact on, 179–180 hunter-gatherers and, 185–186 indigeneity and, 258 North American, 186 states and, 174 language, 33–35, 45–48, 49, 221, 255 as arbitrary, 46 Boas on, 100, 101, 103 capacity or, 44, 45 classification and, 64–66, 89 fieldwork and, 129, 130 gender and, 61–62 genetics and, 44–45 loss, 207, 258–259 prestige, 258, 259 Lattimore, Owen, 171
|
299
Leach, Melissa, 260 leadership, 169 see also chies learning, 42, 44 see also enculturation Lee, Richard, 63, 85, 143, 164 study o time by, 134–135 leisure, 134–135 Leopard Skin Chie, 162–163 leprosy, 133 leveling mechanism, 164 Leviathan (Hobbes), 169 levirate, 145 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 118–121, 118, 153 Leviticus, 76 Lewis, Oscar, 123–124 Lewis-Williams, David, 55 lie cycle, 72, 150 lie orm, 65 lie history, 132 lineage matri-, 82, 95–96, 149 patri-, 83, 149 segmentary, 161–163, 163 see also descent; kinship linguistic anthropology, 33–35, 38, 39, 93 study o color and, 64–65 linguistics, 92–93 Linnaeus, Carl, 92 Linton, Ralph, 152 Locke, John, 200 luck, 86 Luque, John, 238 M
Ma’Betisék (Mah Meri), 70 MacMahon, Darcie, 221 magic, 84, 86 Maku, 165, 223 Malaysia, 21, 243 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 20, 108–110, 126, 128, 233 Malthus, Tomas, 217 mana, 88 mandarins , 171, 216–217 Mandela, Nelson, 207 Manderson, Lenore, 237 manioc, 225 Maori, 151, 166 Mardu, 74 ancestors and, 53, 83 division o labor and, 143 gender, 81 initiation o, 74 religion and, 84
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
300 | INDEX marine resources, 187, 189 Marquardt, William, 221 marriage, 141–142 cross-cousin, 153 defined, 144 gender and, 143–144 plural, 21, 23, 24, 144, 145 property and, 146–147 residence and, 147–148, 149 rules, 118, 120–121 status and, 224 Martin, Paul, 181 Marx, Karl, 97–98, 112, 170 Mashpee, 210, 254, 257–258 materialism, 97–98, 115, 121–123, 170 matriarchy, 96 matrilineal descent, 82, 95–96, 149 matrilocality, 147, 149 Matsigenka, 70 Mauss, Marcel, 63 Maya, 190, 201, 219–220, 221 Mayoruna, 77 Mbuti, 87, 185, 223 Mead, Margaret, 105–107, 124, 133–134, 234 medical anthropology, 28, 133 megaauna, 181–182 Melanesia, 166, 205–206 menstruation, 74–75 Mesopotamia, 168, 173, 174, 216 methods, 125–127, 131–137, 139, 231–232 Mexico, 200, 208 migration, 41, 251–253 military ethnography, 99 millenarianism, 202–203, 204, 205–206 Miller, Daniel, 250 Milton, Katharine, 77–78, 223 minorities, 17, 211, 238, 255 See also ethnicity and ethnic groups missionization, 200, 201, 205, 207 Mocambo, 255, 256 Moche, 171 mode o production, 87, 170 modernism, 115–116 moiety, 120, 154 money, 64, 97, 207–209, 250 general purpose, 88, 197 globalization and, 248, 249 Nuer and, 249–250 Mongolians, 71 monogamy,, 141–142, 144 monogamy Montagnard, 190 Mooney,, James, 25, 26 Mooney
Morgan, Lewis Henry, 95–97, 96 , 112, 149 morphemes, 46 Moseley, Michael, 89 motion, 133–134 moundbuilders, 91–92 mounds, 260 Mucajai Yanomama, 24 Munduruku, 60–61, 71, 154, 165 Murphy, Robert, 61, 154 Murphy, Yolanda, 61, 154 museums, 98–99 music, 56–57 Muslims, 76 Muyuw, 70 myth, 61, 86–87 N
names, 69–72 See also classification Nanook o the North , 133, 134 national character studies, 105, 106–107, 234 nation-state. See states natural selection, 95 Neandertals, 29, 30–32 necklaces (shell), 108–110 Neolithic, 190 neolocality, 147, 148 New Deal, 233 nomadism, 195 Northwest Coast societies, 88, 119–120 Nuckolls, Janis, 34 Nuer, 52, 72, 82, 83, 148 Evans-Pritchard and, 128 exchange and, 249–250 kinship, 52, 157, 157 lineages, 161–163, 163 marriage and, 144, 146, 249 migration and, 251–253 political organization, 164 Nukak, 185 numbers, 86 O
obesity, 239 Oceania, 88, 259–260 Occupy movement, 243 ochre, 41 Office o Strategic Services (OSS), 234 oral history, 132 Orang Asli, 243, 255, 262 ordeals (initiation), 75 Orisha religion, 202 ornaments, 41, 60, 108–110
overshoot, 216 overkill hypothesis, 181–182 overnutrition, 239 P
pair bond, 141–142 See also marriage Paiute, 25, 185, 187 Palau, 260 Palenque, 217 paleoanthropology, 28 paleodemography, 28 paleopathology, 28, 30–32 paleoprimatology, 28 palms, 185, 206, 224–225, 252, 253 Parakanã, 77 participant intervention, 231 participant observation, 20–21, 22, 27, 38, 126–127 pastoralism, 87, 195, 209–210 paternity, 24, 72, 82, 95–96, 144 patrilineal descent, 83, 149 patrilocality, 147, 149 patronym, 70 peasants, 173, 176–178, 193, 194, 242 rebellion by, 176, 216–217 periphery. See core-periphery relations personality (culture and), 105–107 Peru, 170–171, 211, 231 Phipps, Susie, 80 phonemes, 46, 47 phonology, 47 physical anthropology, 27–32, 38, 39 pigs, 76, 121–122 Pinker, Steven, 49 Pleistocene, 29, 30, 181 Pliocene, 29 political organization, 164–166, 167 politics, 61 Politis, Gustavo, 223 Pollard, Sidney, 94 Polynesia, 88 polyandry, 23, 24, 145 polygyny, 23, 24, 145 population density, 187, 188, 190, 199 Portugal, 178, 199 positivism, 94, 112, 116 postcolonialism, 198–199, 247 postmodernism, 115–116, 123–125, 126, 139 potatoes, 183, 184, 184 potlatch, 88, 105, 188
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
INDEX
Powell, John Wesley, 99, 99, 103 power (institutional), 125 precious metals, 209 prestige, 166, 167, 188–189 priests and priestesses, 85 primates, 27–28, 29 primatology, 28 primogeniture, 151 prisons, 125 productivity (linguistic), 48, 49 progress (cultural), 93–94, 95–97, 112 Project AGILE, 235 Project Camelot, 234–235 proletariat, 97 property, 96, 146–147, 149–151, 200 “fighting with,” 88 prophets, 203, 205, 206 Pygmies, 223–224 Q
Quechua, 34, 177, 211, 231, 240 quipu, 172, 173 R
racism, 79–81, 101, 201, 206–207 Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., 108, 110–112, 117, 145, 233 rank (ethnobiological), 65–66 ranked societies, 166, 168, 187 reparations, 258 Rappaport, Roy, 121–122 Rashid, Razha, 243 rationality, 108–110 rebellion, 216–217 reciprocity, 63–64, 88, 109–110, 187 Redfield, Robert, 123–124, 234 Redord, Kent, 102 redistribution, 88–89, 166, 187, 188–189 reductionism, 35, 107, 210 Regnault, Félix-Louis, 134 regression, 219, 225, 226–227 reincorporation (rite), 72 relatedness. See kinship religion, 26, 55, 87, 175, 202 totems and, 82–85, 120–121 See also millenarianism relativism, 116 see also cultural relativism residence, 145, 147–148, 149, 152 resistance, 210 to centralization, 225–226 to colonialism, 201, 202–203, 205 See also millenarianism
revitalization, 203, 204 rice, 183 rituals, 70, 75, 85, 86, 189 rites o passage, 72–75, 84 Roman empire, 219, 220, 221, 247, 255 Romney, A. Kimball, 137 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 102 rules, 57, 64 descent, 149–151 marriage, 118, 120–121 residence, 145, 147–148, 149 See also taboos Russian, 71, 106–107 S
Saami, 255, 256 Sahlins, Marshall, 63, 135, 205 salience, 135–138 salvage ethnography, 103, 108, 116, 117 Samoa, 106, 124 sampling, 131 Sapir, Edward, 89, 103 Sapir-Whor hypothesis, 89 Savagery (stage), 95, 97 scavenging, 29, 30 Schaan, Denise, 260 Schneider, David, 53, 141 science, 87, 92 o society, 94, 125–126 Scott, James, 169, 201, 225–226 Scott, Rick, 265 sedentism, 247 segmentary lineage, 161–163, 163 segmentation, 161 Seligman, Brenda, 224 Seligman, Charles, 224 semantic domains, 135–138 separation rite, 72 Service, Elman, 88 sex, 60–61, 164 sexual dimorphism, 60 sexual division o labor. See division o labor shamanism, 84–85, 203 Shandy, Dianna, 252 sharing. See reciprocity shell (trade in), 108–110 shifing cultivation, 180, 190, 191–192 Shoshone, 116–117, 187 Shostak, Marjorie, 23 Shuar Federation, 241 sickle-cell anemia, 79 sign language, 45 simplification, 219, 225, 226–227
|
301
Sinclair, Karen, 151 Sirionó, 62 skin color, 79 slash and burn cultivation. See shifing cultivation slavery, 80, 132, 201–202 Sloane, Patricia, 21 Smith, Jerry, 136 Smithson, James, 98 Smith’s s, 136, 138 social anthropology, 117–118 See also cultural anthropology sociality, 50–51 social organization, 27 society, 15, 121 Society or Applied Anthropology, 234 sociocultural universals. See universals sociology, 37–38 sodalities, 75 solidarity, 111, 162 Solomon Islands, 260 sororate, 145 souls, 82, 83 South Arica, 206–207 Soviet Union, 106–107 Spain, 178, 199–201 spear throwers, 30 specialization, 167, 174 species (human), 16, 30 speech. See language Spencer, Herbert, 83 Spier, Leslie, 25 spirits, 71 Sri Lanka, 224 states, 164, 167–169 ethnic groups and, 169, 176, 177–178, 211–213 ormation o, 161, 168, 169–171, 173–175 indigenous people and, 254–255 pristine, 167–168, 170, 173 religion and, 84, 85 status, 51, 167 stereotypes, 17 Steward, Julian, 116–117, 138, 173 strata (social), 164, 168, 176 stratification, 98, 167, 174 structural-unctionalism, 111–112 structuralism, 118–121 structure, 118, 120, 122, 123 subincision, 73 Sudan, 164, 251 Sudanese kinship system, 155,
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
302 | INDEX 157, 157 sugar, 201 superorganic, 103–105, 112 superstructure, 122, 123 surplus, 88 hunter-gatherers and, 187, 189 states and, 171, 173, 216 Suruí, 24 survey, 130, 131, 232 sustainability, 187, 192, 242 swaddling clothes hypothesis, 107 Sweden, 255, 256 swidden cultivation. See shifing cultivation syncretism, 202, 205 See also millenarianism syntax, 46 T
taboos, 57, 64, 75–77 chies and, 88 dead and, 53 ood, 72, 73, 75–76 incest, 57–59 names and, 70 ahiti, 88 allensi, 149 atum, a tum, Beverly, B everly, 81 taxation, 88–89, 172, 194, 216–217 technology, 30, 225, 226–227 teknonymy, 70 terracing, 87, 174 ett, Gillian, 266 thick description, 130–131 ibet, 71, 145 ikuna, 120, 154 time, 134–135 ito, Josip, 212 iwi, 52, 73–74, 77, 142, 186 lingit, 242 onkinson, Robert, 53, 143 tools, 29, 30, 41, 43 see also technology totemism, 73, 82–83, 119, 119–121 tourism, 206, 239–241 sembaga-Maring, 121–122 121– 122 trade and exchange, 63–64, 88 ethnicity and, 165–166
Nuer, 249 Roman, 247 robriand, ro briand, 108–110 108– 110 See also money; reciprocity traditional ecological knowledge (EK), 242–243, 251 trance, 26, 84, 85 transition rite, 72 transportation, 250 tribute, 88 robriand r obriand Islanders, 72, 76, 108–110, 128 matrilineality and, 82, 149 trumpets, 61 ukanoans, 165–166, 223, 224 upinambá, 78, 203, 204 urgot, A.R.J., A.R .J., 93 urner, erence, 232 ylor, Edward Burnett, 42, 57, 82, 84 U
Uceda, Santiago, 171 unilineal descent, 149 United Buddy Bears, 266, 267 United Nations, 251, 254 universals, 41, 48–50, 67 urbanization, 257 Urton, Gary, 173 uxorilocality, 147, 148, 149 V
validity, 17, 59, validity, 59, 127, 229 value (noninstrum (noninstrumental), ental), 109 109 Van Maanen, John, 126 vaygu’a, 108–110 Vedda, 224 Vicos project, 231 video, 133–134 133–134,, 232 Vietnam, 235 Vilaça, Aparecida, 86 virginity, virgini ty, 82 virilocality virilocali ty,, 147–148 147–148 visual anthropo anthropology logy,, 133–134 133–134 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo, 164 voicing, voici ng, 46
W
Wade, Bonnie, 56 Wallace, A.F.C., 84, 203 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 257 Wamura, 150 Wanniyala-aetto, 224 warare, 17, 102, 121–122, 176–177 Wari’, 78, 85, 86–87, 146–147 Washington, George, 98 water management, 170–173 Weiner, Annette, 149 Westermarck, Edvard, 58 whales, 44 wheat, 183 White, Cassandra, 133 Whitley, David, 56 Whitman, Walt, 48 Whor, Benjamin, 89 wild yam question (exclusion hypothesis), 222–223 Wittogel, Karl, 170, 171, 173 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 35 Wogeo, 75 Wol, Eric, 170, 176–177, 240 World Bank, 233, 251 world system, 197, 198, 209, 247–248 World War II, 17, 106, 230, 234 Wovoka, 25–26, 204 writing, 130–131, 171, 172 X, Y, Z
Xocó, 255, 256 Yahi, 50, 103 yams, 222–223 Yanomama (Mucajai), 24 Yapese, 53 Yoruba, 202 Yugoslavia, 212–213 212– 213 Zimbabwe, 237
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
�
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
William Balée is Proessor o Anthropology at ulane ulane University. University. He has taught cultural anthropology at ulane since 1991. He has also taught at the State Uni versity versi ty o New York, York, Purchase Colleg College; e; City University University o New York, York, Hunter Hunter College; City University o New York, Queensborough Community College, and the State University o New Jersey, Rutgers at Newark. He earned a B.A. (1975) in anthropology rom the University o Florida. He received M.A. (1979), M.Phil. (1980), and Ph.D. (1984) degrees in anthropology rom Columbia. He has conducted extensive fieldwork among the upi-speaking Ka’apor Indians o the eastern Brazilian Amazon, as well as among other indigenous lowland South American societies in Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. He is the author o Footprints o the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany—the Historical Ecology o Plant Utilization by an Amazonian People (1994), which won the Mary Klinger Award rom the Society or Economic Botany. Among the books he has edited or co-edited are Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies (with D.A. Posey, 1989), Ad Advan vances ces in Histo Historical rical Ecol Ecology ogy (1998), and ime and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands (with C.L. Erickson, 2006).
303
View more...
Comments
