Current Anthropology
1982

Abruzzi, William S. Ecological Theory and Ethnic Differentiation among Human Populations. Current Anthropology, Feb. 1982. Vol. 23 Issue 1

William Abruzzi seeks to explain why ethnic boundaries occur within human ecological communities by applying ecological theory. Abruzzi explains that human and nonhuman organisms form communities that are socially organized and function to divide labor. These communities function as energy flow systems also known as ecological systems. Energetically efficient systems are comprised of specialized groups of individuals who are adapted to exploit certain resources by specialized means. These adaptions can cause boundaries to develop among human and non-human communities. Abruzzi first looks at the occurance of species boundaries in order to understand how ethnic boundaries develop. Natural selection operates under stable ecological conditions and increases the number of independant isolating mechanisms which in turn enhance the stablitiy of the ecological community.

Abruzzi defines species as genetic units connected by the abiliy to exchange hereditary material. From this he considers species boundaries to be evident, genetic discontinuities in nature brought on by reproductive isolation between two sympatric populations as a result of isolating mechanisms. Abruzzi applies the selection theory to understand how species boundaries evolve. The selection theory predicts that in competiton the organisms whose energy-capturing devices can most efficiently channel available energy are at an advantage. He finds that species originate and are determined according to their selected specialization for efficiently exploiting available resources.

The formation of ethnic populations can be seen by applying the selection theory to human populations. According to Abruzzi, human communities are organized by the division of labor requirements necessary to exploit resources given the conditions imposed by ecological systems. Stable ecological conditions select for increasing legitamacy of the social and reproductive isolation of potentially competing ethnic populations. An increase in the complexity of isolating mechanisms separating ethnic populations reduces the permeability of ethnic boundaries and standardizes social behaviors as they relate to intra- and interethnic relations. This shows an accordance of ethnic boundaries and certain behavioral characteristics For Abruzzi, the formation and maintenance of distinct ethnic populations should be viewed as a function of niche diversification at the community level and the selection of labor diversitfication.

COMMENTS

Thirteen anthropologists commented on Abruzzi's article, and generally found it to be an interesting and valid approach to investigating the possible effect ecological systems have on the emergence of ethinic differentiation among human populations. In general the anthropologists agreed that there is similarity between species' biological adaptations to ecological environments for the exploitation of resources, and humans' behavioral adaptations to social organization for the same purpose. However some, such as Richard Fidler felt that the comparison was too general, and while very much alike, the concepts and definitions of ethnic populationas are certainly not the same. Also, Peter Hinton mentioned many of the adaptations Abruzzi spoke of where cultural, and culture and ethnicity are two distingusishable concepts, and also that his accounts ignored the importance of certain factors, such as historical and political, which can also serve to categorize humans in communities.

REPLY

William Abruzzi defends his article by stating that his intent was to focus primarily on the processes that are similar between the models he uses, and not the structures. He agrees that when the models are considered from a structural view, they are not comparable, but the processes of change and organization within the models are in fact similar. He also argues that certain factors which the commentors claimed were ignored, were actually just redefined in terms of general ecological princibles. Abruzzi also notes that his intention was not to explain all the features associated with ethnic relations, but merely to create a model which attempts to explain occurances of human behavior and possible external conditions that effect and mold it. In order to do this, Abruzzi explains that it is necessary to isolate these conditions, and look at them in their relation to a variety of circumstances.

CLARITY: 2

JESSICA BELL Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Abruzzi, William. Ecological Theory and Ethnic Differentiation among Human Populations. Current Anthropology February, 1982 Vol.23(1):13-32.

ARTICLE

In this article, Abruzzi argues the formation of individual human ethnic populations in multiethnic societies can be compared to the process of species formation in multispecie communities. Each ethnic population holds a niche in the environment; if two populations are trying to survive in the same niche, the better adapted population will succeed. To base this argument, Abruzzi gives a brief history of the study of human ecology within anthropology, saying that the subject has only been explored since the 1970s, although it is somewhat brought up past in environmental considerations in the earliest anthropological theory. He supports most of his argument on findings in biological ecology.

Abruzzi uses this article as a way to compare ecology to human populations. He gives examples of species that do not breed together, not because of an inability to produce offspring, but because of reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation between two populations involves many forces, most of which have nothing to do with the ability of the to exchange genetic information.

To prove this point, Abruzzi defines an ethnic population as “the assemblage of persons with a considerable number of behavioral characteristics in common, a shared historical identity, and a higher incidence of marriage with members of the same population than members of other populations” (16). This meaning is derived from Boughey’s definition of a population in ecology as “an assemblage of organisms with a considerable number of characteristics in common, a similar origin, and no barriers that prevent individual members’ freely interbreeding with one another when heterosexual organisms are brought together” (16). Abruzzi prefers the term “ethnic population” because it is a term that can be universally used and because such wording recognizes the analytical difference between populations and other groups like religious congregations or political factions. Ethnic populations do not rely on genetic mechanism, but rather on the transmission of learned behavior.

Abruzzi continues by demonstrating the evolution of species borders and that species are created in specific areas because of the ability of one species can best exploit the land. He also points out that decreased community stability leads to the decline of certain populations. Following this point, he shows that the formation of ethnic populations is similar to the formation of species. He notes that although not in total symbiotic relationships, many ethnic populations do live in a semi-symbiotic state. Examples of niche diversification between ethnic populations that Abruzzi uses are in Rwanda with Hutu farmers and Tutsi herders, castes in India and Anglo-Amerindians relations in the American West. Because this relationship is not fully symbiotic, the ethnic populations that can exploit the land most efficiently are the ones that succeed.

COMMENTATORS (Judith Brown and Thomas Durbin, Richard Fidler, Donald Hardesty, Peter Hinton, M.C. Hurlich, John Kennedy, H.B. Levine, Ubaldo Martinez Veiga, Michael MOerman, F.L. Pelt, Eric Barry Ross, T.S. Vasulu and Bruce Winterhalder)

There are mixed reviews of this article from the commentators. Most commentators feel that the article addresses important points that should be looked at in anthropology. Nevertheless, some commentators thought that Abruzzi takes the concepts of ecology and the formation of species too literally when applying it to ethnic populations and that, as a result, his theory is reductionist. Many of the commentators note examples of ethnic populations where these rules do not apply. Richard Fidler states that maybe this theory would work if one was looking at an untouched ecosystem, but in a multiethnic population, everything stops working. As well as using the metaphor of ecology too literally, the commentators also felt the article ignored social, political economic and historical factors. On a readability level, there was a general sentiment that Abruzzi’s work was dry and mechanical with a lack of concrete examples of ethnic populations that follow this theory and too many examples of species formation in ecology.

REPLY

Abruzzi defends his article by saying his system of defining ethnic populations is not reductionist, but systematic. He does not claim that the formation and maintenance of distinct populations within human and non-human communities derive from the same principles. He goes on to say that concepts of ethnic population must be simplified to understand them. At the end of the response he states that this kind of research is important within the field of anthropology, as it moves scientific explanation forward.

CLARITY: 3

HELEN BAKER Macalester College (Karen Nakamura).

Alden, John R. Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran. Current Anthropology, 1982. Vol. 23: 613-640.

Alden argues that the Proto-Elamite period, from 3300-2800 B.C., reflects changing political and economic relationships in the southwestern highlands of Iran. The main power of this Proto-Elamite hegemony originates in control over major trade routes, as opposed to control over means of production such as arable land or natural resources. The Proto-Elamite sites, including Susa, Nineveh, Ghazir, among others, are characterized by shared styles in ceramics, art, and architecture and by a unique system of writing and recording. The author maintains that Proto-Elamite sites are inherently more difficult to discover and interpret due to lack of controlled excavation and repeated surface collecting. These features resulted in the removal of a significant portion of the diagnostic pottery from many sites and make Proto-Elamite occupations likely to be proportionately underrepresented in the survey data. However, Alden is able to utilize Proto-Elamite documentary sources, in the form of economic tablets found in Susa, Shahr-I Sokhta, and Sialk, to support his hypothesis. He concludes that Proto-Elamite influence grew rapidly at the end of the 4th millennium B.C. and declined equally rapidly with the establishment of maritime trade in the Persian Gulf several centuries later. He supports this by documenting the chronological relationships between excavation levels showing dramatic increase of highland materials in the lowland areas in principal Proto-Elamite sites. This increase supports Alden’s thesis that Proto-Elamite hegemony decreased in the later Early Dynastic to no longer restrict Mesopotamian access to resource areas of Iran. Rather, Mesopotamian merchants could sail further east to bypass the entire area under Proto-Elamite control to access old and new sources for highland products. The highland Proto-Elamites, losing their Mesopotamian trading partners, had to reintegrate the lowland areas into their economy. Hence, since the Proto-Elamites no longer dominated the trading, their hegemony decreased, highlighting the importance of control over trade.

Alden concludes with two general principles supported by his model: 1) single elite groups in pre-historic complex societies controlled and manipulated both political and economic institutions, and 2) controlling elites attempted to control the supply and minimize the procurement costs for the items and materials their societies require. An excellent demonstration of this theory is Tepe Farukhabad, a lowland site in western Iran, peripheral to Proto-Elamite dominated highland areas. Being within the Mesopotamian sphere of influence, the imported highland materials at this site should be expensive (rare) during Proto-Elamite hegemony and cheaper (more common) both before the Uruk and after the Early Dynastic, according to Alden’s theory. Indeed, Alden’s data, taken from Wright (1981a), shows a peak in price of highland imports (chert, shell, carnelian, lapis lazuli) during the Late Uruk and Early Jemdet Nasr periods, when the Proto-Elamite hegemony controlled access to the Iranian highlands.

Although the evidence for the movement of small groups of Proto-Elamites into the Iranian highlands is strongest only in the Kur River Basin, there are several possible causes for the movement: 1) population growth, 2) lowland attempts to control highland populations, 3) military/political pressure forcing groups out of lowlands, and 4) attempt by lowland societies to control the movement of highland resources. The growth of Proto-Elamite economic power ultimately resulted in the decline of Susa and the Susiana region, with a shift to Malyan, in the Kur River Basin. While Alden recognizes that other factors such as social, religious, and ethnic relationships between highland and lowland groups are integral to the cultural evolution, he maintains that trade is an important and necessary variable to be explored.

COMMENTS

Numerous commentators critiqued Alden’s simplicity in approach, for example his focus on peripheral expansion (Johnson), lack of consideration for usual difficulty connecting archaeological records with short, precise time intervals (Hodges), lack of sufficient empirical evidence beyond the Proto-Elamite tablets (Kohl), and insufficient consideration of other societal and interregional interactions (Marchese, Shaffer). While Kohl admits that nearly all archaeological reconstruction involves imaginative use of an imperfect database, Kohl, Kormann, Nissen, and Watkins point out the constant danger of inappropriately associating material culture with distinct groups of people, as Alden did with Proto-Elamite potsherds. Lamberg-Karlovsky maintains that Alden ignored the previous chronological historical background of the “early integration” of lowland Mesopotamia and later emergence of the Proto-Elamites. Moreover, Lamberg and Watkins find it inconceivable that small outsider Proto-Elamite colonies could have monopolized long-distance trade.

REPLY

Alden states that he did not assume all sites in the region were culturally Proto-Elamite, but that several sites during that time range were relevant to the Proto-Elamite phenomenon. In response to his inappropriate correlation of people to pottery, Alden reiterates his original argument that material culture gives some support to the possibility that ethnic homogeneity occurred, however political hegemony does not require nor suggest cultural similarities. Alden regrets that Kohl distorts his ideas without putting forth any alternatives. Alden asserts he is not interested in determinism, thus enabling him to see a highland group seizing power given geopolitical opportunity. Alden also articulates that the “inconceivability” of small groups gaining power is lessened when considering the span of several hundred years and the small, peripheral locations. Finally, Alden points out that much of the difference between Lamberg-Karlovsky and himself stems from differences between the past and present. For instance, Lamberg-Karlovsky criticizes Alden’s small number of sites to back up his thesis, yet Alden points out the inaccuracy of expecting the same type of data sets during the two periods, if only for the extreme increase in Mesopotamian population six to seven centuries later. Thus, economic comparison between the two eras is unsurprisingly illegitimate.

CLARITY: 3

MARY SCHMITZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Bossen, Laurel. Plantations and Labor Force Discrimination in Guatemala. Current Anthropology June, 1982 Vol.23(3):263-268.

This article appears in a special issue of Current Anthropology devoted to prize-winning papers from the XLIII International Conference of Americanists, and it studies labor patterns on plantations from a political economy perspective. In her article, Bossen describes factors that determine and influence labor recruitment on plantations in Guatemala, and how they affect the overall community. Her data result from four months of research on two plantations in Guatemala that she names Montecafé, which grows coffee, and Cañaveral, which grows sugar.

Montecafé is a small, family run plantation while Cañaveral is a large, unionized corporate plantation. Bossen shows that between these two plantations, the patterns of sexual discrimination in labor are distinctive. Montecafé hires equal numbers of men and women for seasonal workers, whereas Cañaveral has no seasonal female workers and only 1% of the permanent (unionized) workers are women.

Bossen shows that past explanations for the sexual disparities in labor recruitment are not sufficient. She proves that cultural factors, the traditional divisions of labor, and special capabilities of men are not the reasons for the discrimination by evaluating certain case studies on other plantations. She claims that when plantations become more highly mechanized and unionized, fewer females are hired. Bossen shows that the pattern of labor discrimination at Cañaveral has happened at plantations in other countries. Bossen believes the reason for the discrimination is due solely to the plantation recruitment policy, not outside factors.

Plantation owners, Bossen states, are interested in keeping a high degree of control over their workers. Unionization and worker solidarity threaten that control. By excluding women from the workforce, they are dividing the workforce population and decreasing their chances for solidarity. Also, Bossen believes that plantation owners want to secure cheap labor now and in the future. Cañaveral hires a number of migrant peasants for seasonal jobs. By solely hiring men and not women, Bossen states, they are encouraging a stable peasant population. The men leave the village to work, and then return to their wives. The workers will not choose to reside permanently close to the plantation without their wives. Lastly, if the women are staying in the village, the children most likely will as well, allowing them to grow up in the village and remain ignorant to national culture and langauge. This ensures future populations of peasants. Bossen believes that for these reasons, excluding women from the workforce at Cañaveral achieves their goal of securing cheap labor. Since Montecafé does not have a unionized labor force, they do not feel the need to leave out women to maintain control over the laborers.

Bossen concludes by assenting that not enough research has been done on the subject of labor discrimination on plantations and urges others to continue study. Understanding more about labor recruitment policies can prove to be beneficial in learning their far-reaching affects to society and culture.

CLARITY: 5

DEBRA MORAVETZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Bossen, Laurel. Plantations and Labor Force Discrimination in Guatemala. Current Anthropology June, 1982 Vol.23(2):263-268.

In this article, Laurel Bossen examines factors that influence labor force recruitment on Guatemalan plantations. She argues that, along with rural wage laborers’ desire to work, the interests of plantation owners dictate recruitment policies and are based not only- or even primarily- on immediate cash concerns, also on long-term or less explicit factors. Bossen looks at the effect of selective plantation recruitment both on the plantation as well as the rural peasant communities that supply labor. She laments that the consequences of plantation hiring policies have, for the most part, been brushed aside by anthropologists, who have instead tended to concentrate on the conditions that provoke rural peasant migration.

After beginning with a brief discussion of the history of the subsistence peasant and commercial plantation sectors, Bossen sexual differentiation as a principal means of comparing two Guatemalan plantations with distinct labor contracting policies. One is a large-scale modern business with unionized workers that contracts an all-male labor force for both permanent and seasonal employment. The other plantation is significantly smaller with a non-unionized, family labor force comprised of both men and women.

The smaller of the two plantations, Montcafé, relies on coffee as its principal export crop, while citrus and dairy products play subordinate roles. This plantation employs a small number of regular male workers, most of who earn only slightly more than the migrant workers. Montcafé has 24 permanent employees and 400-500 seasonal workers at the height of the coffee picking season. Seasonal and temporary labor needs are filled by both sexes, either from peasant migration or available resident labor. Montcafé has no labor union and “troublesome” workers are swiftly let go.

The larger plantation, Cañaveral, is a sugar plantation that harvests coffee as a secondary crop. As one of the largest sugar plantations in the country, Cañaveral, though mostly family-owned, is organized as a public corporation and employs just under 500 rancheros, who make up the unionized labor force. The workforce at Cañaveral is overwhelmingly male and the seasonal and temporary labor is all male. During the off-season, the labor force includes hundreds of men and reaches nearly 1,000 during the height of the sugar harvesting season. The only women recruited as seasonal laborers are women who work as cooks. While cane-cutting is considered a male activity in Guatemala, coffee picking is done by women throughout the country. On this plantation, however, this is not the case, a fact which Bossen labels “surprising.” In fact, the only possibilities for nonprofessional women are work as a washerwoman, midwife, camp cook, or domestic employee for the management.

Bossen rejects the argument that different patterns in labor force recruitment are simply due to self-selection on the part of the workers, local culture, or women’s capacity to perform certain manual labor tasks, since cane-cutting is one of many tasks on the plantation. She also refutes that the higher wages earned by male resident laborers of Cañaveral allow women the luxury of remaining outside the labor force and instead attributes the differences between the two to long-term “political-economic” considerations. Specifically, she highlights the importance given by plantation management to the likelihood of worker solidarity through collective organization and the long-term effects of plantation employment on the supply of cheap labor. Bossen posits that mechanization of labor affects women’s’ work because their nonprofessional status prevents them from having a voice. She points out that this has occurred in sugar plantations throughout the Caribbean and thus concludes that “the exclusion of women on sugar plantations is related to the greater centralization, mechanization, and unionization of sugar production as compared with coffee production in Guatemala” (266).

Bossen argues that recognizing such differences in labor force recruitment is a necessary first step in better understanding “the impact of selective plantation recruitment not only on plantation communities, but also on the peasant communities which supply workers.” She argues that we need additional comparative studies examining both large and small, unionized and nonunionized, plantations in Guatemala.

CLARITY: 5

EMILY SAUER Macalester College (Karen Nakamura).

Brennan, Curtiss T. Cerro Arena: Origins of the Urban Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast. Current Anthropology June, 1982 Vol.23(3):247-254.

This article by Curtiss T. Brennan is a reprint of his award-winning paper from the XLIII International Congress of Americanists. In it, he argues that the Salinar culture of northern coastal Peru was transitional between the Cupisnique phase (c.1250-400 BC) to the Mochica civilization (100-800 AD). Most of Brennan’s inferences come from the large Salinar site of Cerro Arena located in the Moche Valley.

Cerro Arena is the first large, highly organized, nucleated site before the Mochica period. Brennan uses architectural analysis to understand the social and economic organization of Salinar society by dividing the rooms into five different types: Class 1, finely finished residential rooms (i.e. having smooth clay walls, floors, and roofs); Class 2, roughly finished residential rooms (i.e. having rough walls, earth floors, and grass roofs); Class 3, small, finely finished “administrative” rooms; Class 4, roughly finished social-purpose rooms; and Class 5, small, well-finished rooms (i.e. having smooth unplastered walls, level sand-covered floors, and straw roofs). Next, Brennan categorizes building types. Type I buildings are large and finely finished. He further divides this group into: Variety A, the elite residence (a Class 1 room with attached “specialized” rooms); Variety B, the finely furnished administrated structure (Class 2 and Class 4 rooms separated by a corridor); and Variety C, the finely furnished ceremonial structure (finely finished platforms with adjacent Class 5 rooms). Type II structures, which make up most of Cerro Arena’s architecture, are small and roughly finished. Type III buildings consist of any number of well-built Class 5 rooms. Brennan argues that the segregation of building types implies activity specialization coordinated by a central authority. The wide range of architectural types at Cerro Arena indicates a complex diversity in social status. Similarly, the further diversity of elite structures corresponds to a well-developed specialization of political and economic organization. The site’s nucleation and proto-specialized activity areas argue for a centralized administration of political and economic activities.

Brennan also mentions that Cerro Arena’s location on a ridge bisecting the Moche Valley gave its occupants a way to regulate travel and also had defensive advantages. Cerro Arena also appears to be at the top of a settlement-size hierarchy for the Moche Valley and possibly the Virú Valley.

Brennan closes the article by restating his theory that the Salinar phase must be intermediate between the Cupisnique and Mochica cultures. Cerro Arena is the first large, nucleated, predominately residential North Coastal site with a diverse and specialized economy and social organization before the Mochica period. Although this topic is very briefly discussed in main article text, Brennan also adds his belief that endemic warfare, a major element of Mochica society, first appeared in the Salinar phase. The article concludes by stating that Salinar phase settlements distributed in both the Moche and Virú Valleys suggest that Mochica’s multi-valley influence began in Salinar times.

CLARITY: 4

JACQUELINE F. PETKEWICZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Brennan, Curtiss. Cerro Arena: Urbanization on the Peruvian North Coast. Current Anthropology June, 1982 vol.23: 247-254

Brennon begins his article with the assertion that a lack of understanding exists, concerning the period of transition between the Cupisnique, the Mochica and the Chimu. He bases this on his own research concerning the composition of Cerro Arena’s architectural remains and pre-existing research about the distribution of Salinar-phase sites elsewhere in the Moche Valley.

Brennan divides his research into two groups. The first, types of rooms, is made up of five classes, while the second, types of buildings, consits of three varieties (A, B and C). According to Brennan, the degree of localized architectural specialization found, indicates the presence of a central authority and class stratification. The site’s nucleation, as well as the areas of specialized activity, implies administration of political and economic activities. He also talks about Salinar-phase sites located throughout the Moche Valley, which “support a view of Salinar society as economically, and perhaps also politically, well integrated and highly centralized.”

Brennan states that present evidence indicates that Cupisnique society had a well-developed system of social ranking, but no residential nucleation nor centralized economic and political organization, which are found later in the Mochica culture. Evidence points to the presence of a highly centralized Mochian society, composed of numerous complex social strata where the elite implemented authority in social, political and economic life. He uses this evidence to illustrate the main point of the article, centralizing around his belief that Cerro Arena and the Salinar can be seen as a transition from Cupisnique to Mochica. He concludes, “In all these respects-urbanism, commerce and sociopolitical administration- Cerro Arena and the Salinar can be said to constitute the beginnings of that distinctive North Coastal cultural complex which culminated in the successive Mochica and Chimu civilizations.”

CLARITY: 5

AMAYA WEBSTER Macalester College (Karen Nakamura)

Brooks, Robert L. Events in the Archaeological Context and Archaeological Explanation. Current Anthropology Feb., 1982 Vol.23(1):67-75.

In this article, Robert L. Brooks attempts to show that general explanation is restricted by its penchant for examining the “modal” pattern of the cultural system. He believes that archaeological explanation and New Archaeology are inadequate because they have neglected to explore variation in the archaeological context, especially the substantial individual and small-group behavior. Brooks suggests that before general explanation can be attempted, variable behavioral data must be studied. He proposes a scheme that distinguishes between the various levels of occupation in a cultural system and argues that its use will help archaeologists to conceptualize the behavioral elements that make up a cultural system and how they may be demonstrated in the archaeological context. The scheme is a matrix that distinguishes between actors and activities during the life-span of a site. The matrix, itself, is a box divided into nine smaller squares. Along the top, from left to right, Brooks lists the Actors, which consist of: 1) an individual, a single person; 2) an aggregate, two or more individuals; and 3) a composite, all of the individuals and aggregates of the settlement during its life-span. Along the left-hand side, from top to bottom, are the Actions, which consist of: 1) an event, an activity or task; 2) an episode, all of the events that take place during a day at the site; and 3) a series, all of the episodes that occur during the occupation of a settlement by a given society. The upper left-hand corner of the matrix represents what Brooks deems a behavioral pattern, an individual involved in one specific activity. The lower right-hand corner represents a normative pattern, what he calls all individual and group activities for the entire existence of the settlement. In general, the behavioral pattern is the representation of the actions of various members of society and a normative pattern is the more abstract, general impression of the actions of the society as a whole. In this way, the matrix provides a general diagram of the distinction between behavioral and normative patterns. Brooks suggests that archaeological features are one way in which individual and small-group activities can be discerned. Brooks hopes that when his scheme is used heuristically, it can lead to the identification of sets of particular events and this will permit the identification of variation in prehistoric cultural patterns. He concludes by adding that ethnoarchaeology appears to be the best way to correlate between the systemic context and the archaeological or behavioral context.

COMMENTS

Nine commentators reviewed Brooks’ article. Robert L. Bettinger, Luis Alberto Borrero, David L. Carlson and David L. Pokotylo disagree with Brooks’ emphasis on individual and small-scale sites and his belief that analyses of these sites are essential to archaeological theory. Gordon Bronitsky, Kenneth L. Brown, John Clegg, Peter Ihm, and Ronald T. Marchese agree with the author on the subject. Carlson and Borrero believe the word “normative” can have a variety of meanings and object to its use. Borrero, along with Brown, questions the usefulness of Brooks’ matrix. Finally, Borrero, Brown and Pokotylo would like to see further testing of Brooks’ scheme, especially applied to small sites.

REPLY

In his reply, Brooks separates his colleagues’ comments into three issues. First, the author reaffirms his belief that discrete analysis of individual and small group behavior is essential to archaeological theory. Next he waylays concerns about the usefulness of his matrix by saying that it is still in a formative stage. The last issue is whether small-site analysis is the most appropriate way to study individual and small group behavior. In response, Brooks regrets that he did not include a discussion of small-site analysis, but believes that it might only be effective when the sites are recent and single-component. Concluding, Brooks notes that his colleagues’ comments will help him elaborate on his scheme.

CLARITY: 2

JACQUELINE F. PETKEWICZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Brooks, Robert L. Events in the Archaeological Context and Archaeological Explanation. Current Anthropology Feb. 1982 Vol 23 (1): 67-75

Brooks’ main concern in this article is that archaeology has a fault in that it fails to adequately explain culturally normative behaviors. He notes that some archaeologists think that being more scientifically precise is a solution to the problem, but Brooks does not agree. He explains that variable behaviors must be looked at before explaining a culture nomotheically.

Brooks argues that this fault is a result of characteristics inherent to the “archaeological context.” He gives the examples of Schiffer and Deetz’s ways of dividing cultures into units. Schiffer divides societies in this way: individual, small group, larger aggregate; whereas Deetz uses four units: individual, group, community, society. Brooks makes the case that “new archaeologists” haven’t considered these distinctions and are thus not examining the variation that they claim to, but instead are simply looking at the modal patterns.

Brooks diagrams a matrix that he proposes should be used to interpret site-formation processes. The diagram considers the effects of the sizes of actors and actions. The actors are individual, aggregate, and composite, while the actions are event, episode, and series. Using this matrix could help archaeologists to determine to what extent an action is normative or behavioral. He claims that this type of analysis is necessary due to the increased focus on individual roles in societies. After using this matrix to identify group size versus activity size, it is easier to look at variation in the organization of a settlement.

Brooks opines that archaeologists have not paid enough attention to the relationships between actors and actions in the past. In paying attention to them, behavioral patterns and their material manifestations can be better examined, as through the examples he gives of the Southwest Jefferson Archaeological Project in Kentucky, the Flint Run Paleo-Indian complex in Shenandoah River valley, Galley Pond in Illinois, and the Valley of Oaxaca studies.

In his conclusion, Brooks notes that he has not addressed the issues of procedure or interpretation in this article. He says that these issues are better left for the individual archaeologist or ethnoarchaeologist, respectively, to determine. He concludes that when events can be considered in the archaeological record and then interpreted through ethnoarchaeology, better nomotheic explanations will be achieved.

CLARITY: 5

CAROLYN WATERS Macalester College (Karen Nakamura)

Brown, Judith K. Cross- Cultural Perspectives on Middle- Aged Women. Current Anthropology, Apr., 1982. Vol. 23 (2): 143- 165.

The purpose of Judith Brown’s paper on middle- aged women in a cross-cultural perspective is to examine the discontinuity in women’s lives as they age beyond the childbearing years. The changes in lifestyle, daily chores, and responsibilities to the family between young adulthood and old age are what Brown means when she refers to the “discontinuity” in women’s lives. Although there is a lack of demographic data, especially concerning relationships between mothers and her adult children, Brown argues that women’s lives appear to improve with the onset of middle- age. Brown divides her paper into two sections, one dealing with the positives changes of middle- aged women and a second section concerning various theoretical interpretations. The reader is reminded that the idea of the “empty nest” syndrome is unique to Western cultures and that it does not appear cross culturally. A variety of ethnographic studies are used in order to prove that removal of restrictions, the ability to exert control over certain kinsmen, and achievement and recognition beyond household are all changes that occur in many socities. Restrictions placed on women due to menstruation and the consequences of sexual activities no longer apply to middle- aged women. According to Brown, women also make important decisions on the lives of their juniors, especially regarding marriages. The section on theoretical interpretations is broken down into two subsections, one dealing with the differences in magnitude of changes and the other deals with the variability of women’s experiences between societies. In this section, Brown addresses several questions. (1) Why the changes among middle- aged women in some societies are more dramatic, (2) and what accounts for these changes in all societies. Two factors are identified as being influential in the differences in magnitude, inheritance, and the relationships between spouses. The relationship between spouses is studied by the aloofness and intimacy between wives and husbands, for example in some societies spouses do not eat together, sleep together, or relax together as a result of menstruation taboos. In the later part of the theoretical discussion, Brown addresses the question of why middle- age brings fewer restrictions, increased authority over kinsmen, and greater opportunity for achievement outside the household. Four different theories, she suggests, are (1) personality development, (2) parental investment and reproductive success, (3) parenting behavior and species survival, (4) and the relationship with adult children. For each theoretical position, Brown gives examples of various theorists and their suggestions on the reasons behind the changes that occur in the lives of middle-aged women. Brown agrees that physiological aspects of middle age, the four theories presented in her paper, provide a partial explanation, but additional explanations are needed. Brown concludes by restating her thesis that the degrees of discontinuity can be accounted for by variations in the rules of inheritance as well as by variations in the separateness of the sexes in daily life.

COMMENTS

Although most of the nine commentators praised Brown’s work, she did receive some criticism and suggestions for future research. Several peers (Freed, Anderson, and Counts) stated that Brown should further develop the definition of middle-aged women. Dougherty thought that Brown should examine the role discontinuity among women who are not mothers in order to fully test her hypothesis. It was also suggested by Fennell and Vatuk, that the author should examine other relevant variables, such as employment, status in the community, and poverty levels. A concern that many of the commentators held was that in studies such as these, it is imperative to make sure we (westerners) do not project our cultural norms onto other groups, that is we should not make western assumptions concerning appropriate sex roles. Many of her peers commended her work on the grounds that she was doing research and writing that would capture a woman’s perspective. One reviewer, Jacobs, stated that Brown’s paper was the first attempt to research and assert male- female hierarchy arrangements are not uniform in all cultures throughout adulthood, and commended her paper for its organization and content, but it and theoretical discussion. Brown’s work is an important beginning for intensive hologeistic research in this area.

REPLY

Brown acknowledges that her definition of middle-aged women is incomplete and needs to be further developed. She also recognizes the importance of investigating the roles of older childless women, in order to better test her hypothesis. She states that she is grateful to the commentators who have filled in the gaps of her paper with facts from their own knowledge. Brown addresses Anderson and Datan’s concept of “rest” among older women, and replies by saying that in order to “rest”, these women must delegate their work to younger women. She also responds to Gutmann’s opinion concerning her over emphasis on the importance of food. Brown states that although provisioning in western culture is not very important, among other cultures it is vitally important. In a cross-cultural context, the production of food is much more demanding and therefore the reliance on the mother is greater. Hence, the importance of older women in the food distribution and the supervision of its preparation suggest real power.

CLARITY RATING: 5

LESLEY ELLEFSON Marquette University (Dr. Jane Peterson)

Brown, Judith K. Cross-cultural Perspectives on Middle-aged Women. Current Anthropology, April 1982 Vol. 23: 143-155.

Judith Brown offers a near-unprecedented discussion of the role of middle-aged women in society. She writes this article in face of a lack of demographic data, as well as a troubling problem of how to approach or define this period in women’s lives – defining middle-aged women as mothers who are not elders but who have fully grown offspring She uses the ethnographic work and data of Bart, Griffen, Kaufert, Kerns, and her own previous work to arrive at these more generalized findings about “middle-aged women.” Through analyzation of these works, she explains that the data available unanimously shows an improvement in women’s lives with the advent of middle age.

The author lists numerous positive changes in women’s lives which coincide with middle age. It is found that middle age brings fewer restrictions in women’s behavior, perhaps because menstrual customs and taboos no longer apply, and because of the cessation of the threat of pregnancy, women’s sexuality and subservience to men is freed. Women are less tied to place; with fewer societal and child-rearing restrictions, they are free to travel, trade, and partake in previously inconceivable activities. Middle-aged women also enjoy a unique neutrality in political and some gender situations. Women profit a great deal from the transition from wife/mother to mother-in-law. They earn kind treatment from their older children, and the graduation to positions of more control and respect within the household. They control the divisions of labor within their family’s sphere, as well as control of assets, especially food, which is often a powerful control. Finally, upon reaching middle age, they may become eligible for increased achievement and recognition, allowed greater roles in important ceremonies and spirituality, as well as perhaps taking on a new, auspicious profession (such as midwifery, holy-woman, etc.).

The changed role of the middle-aged woman in society, Brown argues, does not fit easily into any existing theoretical framework. In relation to the varying levels of change in status during middle-age, Brown cites “aspects of inheritance,” arguing that her age qualifies her as someone to be inherited from, according more status, as well as “relations between spouses” marking a freeing change in gender relations. In seeking explanations for this “discontinuity” in women’s lives, Brown incites a psychoanalytic and discussion suggesting the personal development of women as effecting this change, as well as a sociobiological explanation for the survival of women in a different role past their reproductive years (further here, Brown also discusses evolution in relation to the issue).

The comments consisted largely of praise for Brown’s work in a previously seldom-explored area and for original research and ideas. Criticisms, however, included a request for a broader use of ethnographic examples, more thorough explanation of the concepts, the need to break out of analyzing women within the contexts of the mother-child relationship, criticism of her older-child-parent bond theory as well as her incorporation of psychoanalysis and sociobilogy, and a demand for drawing out the implications of this work in further study.

The majority of Brown’s response is a recap of her original ideas as well as specific comments to specific authors. She agrees that she could incorporate more aspects into her definition and analysis of middle-aged women’s lives. She also upon request explores the possibility of women’s improved middle-aged status as an asexual one. She thanks commentors for enriching her factual inadequacies, as well as for their interest and demand for increased research, refocusing of the subject’s goals, and the prediction of the implications and practical applications of the study.

CLARITY: 4

KJERSTIN GURDA Macalester College (Karen Nakamura)

Hartung, John. Polygyny and Inheritance of Wealth. Current Anthropology, 1982. 23(1):1-12.

Hartung is testing the hypothesis that in polygynous societies, male offspring are more likely to inherit wealth. His hypothesis stems from Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the individual’s innate goal to increase transmission of genes and culture through high fitness. Hartung bases his argument on the presumption that human polygyny can be defined as resource-defense polygyny. By resource-defense polygyny, he means that the more wealth or status an individual has, the more wives/mates the individual has access to. Using Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas he attempts to demonstrate that human polygyny is resource-defense polygyny through correlations between 850 societies that practice both polygyny and bride prices. Hartung also uses resource-defense polygyny to explain father/son conflict as exhibited in Freud’s Oedipus complex. He hypothesizes that the complex stems from sexual competition between the father and the son, not over the mother, but rather over which family member will be the resource-defense polygynist. Hartung argues that every successful male consequently has a highly successful mother who has an extraordinary number of grandchildren. This is how females indirectly gain reproductive success in polygynous societies. Mothers favor their sons receiving inheritances because inheriting wealth improves the male offspring’s’ chances of finding additional mates. This enhances reproductive fitness of both mother and son.

Hartung emphasizes the importance of culture transmittance in conveying instructions down family lines. Culture, like genes, is successful if it increases its transmitters reproductive success. He also states that unlike genes, culture can be transmitted along lateral lines to individuals of the same generation. Therefore it can spread either quickly or slowly. This flexibility means that its followers are subject to faster rates of evolution or disappearance of culture.

COMMENTS

A common problem the commentators have with Hartung’s article is his use of the term resource-defense polygyny. Some commentators think Hartung needs to clarify his definition of resource-defense polygyny. Others see it as an inexact metaphor for human economic decision-making. The original definition by Emlen and Oring refers to patchy environments and females choosing males who occupied superior-quality territory as opposed to poorer-quality territory. Another problem commentators have is that Hartung’s data are drawn primarily from the Ethnographic Atlas. They believe Hartung’s correlations only show a relationship whereas actual conclusive arguments can be better supported from in-depth analysis of relevant societies.

REPLY

Hartung’s reply to commentators is very brief. He thanks his commentators for their comments and agrees that he should have coined a new term/phrase instead of using “resource-defense polygyny,” thereby causing more confusion than clarity.

CLARITY:4

ELIZABETH LANGENFELD Marquette University (Dr. Jane Peterson)

Hartung, John. Polygyny and Inheritance of Wealth. Current Anthropology February, 1982 Vol.23(1):1-12.

In this article, John Hartung uses cross-cultural data to confirm the hypothesis that polygyny in the human species is resource polygyny and that parents pass wealth on to their sons when doing so would increase the likelihood of his marrying multiple women. Hartung relies heavily on behavioral biology in his argument, basing it upon the assumption that the ways in which humans act result from the influence of those behaviors that provided reproductive success to their ancestors. Hartung also includes a reanalysis of Freud’s “Oedipus complex” in which he posits that this complex results from sexual competition between father and son over which will be a resource-defense polygynist. Throughout the article, Hartung uses a number of visual models to support his most salient points.

Hartung begins by tracing the origins of the hypothesis to Darwin’s work and the fact that in polygynous societies, those men who can afford to do so attain numerous wives. He refers to his own earlier work and argues that, while a male can achieve great reproductive success by impregnating many females, a female can only be impregnated approximately once per year, no matter the number of mates she has. Thus, since material wealth plays an important role in obtaining multiple wives in polygynous societies,

“a variance in male reproductive success is not simply a reflection of genetic variance within the sex, but is due in part to extraneous variables such as nongenetically determined resource status. It follows that ancestors (both male and female) would maximize the reproductive-success value of their transferable wealth by leaving it to offspring of the sex upon which it has the highest probability of having the largest positive effect – usually males” (Hartung 1977:336).

Hartung describes the phenomenon in another way: “[If] a set of parents left wealth to a son who could thereby afford an additional wife, that inheritance would, on average, increase their number of grandchildren more than if it were left to a daughter who was thereby able to gain an additional husband” (1). Nevertheless, Hartung concedes that this view ought not to imply that parents consciously act accordingly so as to boost long-range reproductive success. In connection with this discussion, Hartung extensively discusses the conception of bride-price.

Hartung explains, “Like genes, culture is a mechanism that transmits instructions down family lines” (5). Regardless of the fact that most cultural differences arise from learned (rather than inherited) behavior, “if one culturally transmitted behavior causes its bearers/transmitters to have higher reproductive success than another, it will increase in frequency” (5). Natural selection, Hartung argues, does not guarantee any degree of reproductive success, but rather makes certain that its offspring have had such success in the past. Thus, while the process of natural selection does not itself possess “foresight” it can and does push the evolution of organisms that do. Hartung thus concludes, expressing his personal objective “that investigating the influence of natural selection on our cultural legacy will facilitate changing it when major discrepancies exist between human nature as we would like it to be and human nature as we find it” (6).

In their responses to this article, the commentators (Mildred Dickemann, Umberto Melotti, Leopold Pospisil, Eugenie C. Scott, John Maynard Smith, and William D. Wilder) raise a number of interesting points. A number of commentators were critical of the methodology employed by Hartung in his argument and question some of the causal relationships implicit in his argument. Scott critiques his use of the term “resource-defense polygyny,” since he argues that it does not sufficiently characterize the “economic basis which … underlies mate selection in humans” (10).

Hartung responds very briefly (in only two sentences) to his commentators. He acknowledges, in accordance with Scott, that new vocabulary is necessary in place of “overextending” the phrase “resource-defense polygyny” (11).

CLARITY: 2

EMILY SAUER Macalester College (Karen Nakamura).

Johnson, Allen Reductionism in Cultural Ecology: The Amazon Case. Current Anthropology Vol. 23, No. 4, Aug. 1982

In this article, Johnson discusses how various elements of ecology influence native lowland South American cultures, while defending his belief that the most effective way to understand this process is through synthesizing structural and ecological perspectives, and to avoid the polarization that often occurs around them. He also defends the idea of reductionism, an idea that the structuralists accuse ecologists of and discredit their work for.

Johnson refers to the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon in his effort to illustrate how he believes that structuralism and ecological perspectives can be effectively combined. In his evaluation of the Machiguenga, Johnson finds that their perception of what constitutes acceptable land and resources is highly selective and discriminatory. The Machiguenga base their lives around the resources that allow them to enjoy what they perceive to be an acceptable quality of life. Therefore they adapt their behaviors around the resources they wish to exploit. These behaviors are translated into behavioral choices that are encoded into structural elements such as firewood and soil categorization as well as a variety of fishing techniques that allow them flexibility in changing conditions. However, due to their highly selective nature, Johnson argues that what the Machiguenga consider to be scarce resource conditions often does not correlate with what many anthropologists would universally consider as such. He mentions that government intervention has isolated the Machiguenga to a specific area, this has led to resource depletion and stressful conditions within the village.

DISCUSSION

Johnson admits that the structuralists are right in their assessment that ecological research is often reductionistic in its attempt to explain cultural phenomenon. However, he claims that the structuralists’ preference for holism, which seeks to explain the whole as such, is a no more valid approach. He explains that holism is also prone to the possibility of infinite egress toward higher-order wholes. Johnson explains the concept of “tacking” by which an anthropologist separates from their pure view and considers the open spaces where other approaches may apply. To strike an effective balance Johnson contends that it would be effective to remain primarily focused on one theory, for example ecological, but remain cognizant of another theory, such as structural, in order to see a different angle.

Johnson concludes that individuals are constantly evaluating structural categories and understandings that are relevant and applicable to their particular circumstances, and these categories and understandings refer to measurable attributes of the world, such as ecologically relevant conditions. This evaluation helps them to make proper decisions concerning significant processes in their life. He explains that the researcher may choose to emphasize the structural framework, the decision process, or the ecological imperatives, but should not eliminate any one of them in their research as a basic understanding of their relationships with each other is essential to reveal the whole picture.

COMMENTS

Johnson received commentary from eleven anthropologists regarding his article. The nature of the responses varied. Some were positive and in agreement with his contentions, such as that of Steve Brian Burhalter who affirmed that Johnson’s research and stance on reductionism was very much in accord with his own observations concerning the Machinguenga. Others were disapproving and critical, as was the opinion of Paul Diener who criticized Johnson’s multi-perspective approach as being biased and not fair in its assessment of the various perspectives. Many of the responses remained relatively neutral, finding merits to his approach and adding their own takes on the theories.

REPLY

Johnson addresses the anthropologists’ responses by defending his criticisms and affirming his agreements. He mentions his agreement with Olga Linares on the idea that cultural ecology should refer to an approach that admits both ecological and structural analyses without reducing one entirely to the other. He also defends and justifies his suggested approach to understanding cultural ecology that includes consideration of three sides (ecological, structural, and economic), a point that was challenged by Eric Ross. He also defends the cultural ecologists’ continual attempts to explain the elements of culture with reference to the basic fulfillment of needs because, he contends, it is the only approach that doesn’t lose sight of the focus of its explanations.

CLARITY: 4

JESSICA BELL (Marquette University) Jane Peterson

Johnson, Allen. Reductionism in Cultural Ecology: The Amazon Case. Current Anthropology, August, 1982 Vol. 23 (4): 413-426.

At the time this article was written, several disagreements were underway that concerned the degree to which aboriginal cultures of lowland South Americans have been influenced by ecology. The disputes mainly centered on the extent to which resource scarcity and the resulting competition between groups might account for major societal features of Amazonian communities such as patterns of resettlement, population size, and patterns of warfare. According to the article’s author, the issue became quite divisive between the anthropologists who link these societal features directly to ecological factors and those who explain such features through the community’s cultural values – ecologists and structuralists, respectively. In particular, structuralists criticized ecologists for being reductionist, arguing that the societal features of Amazonian groups are far too interrelated and complex to be explained through ecology alone.

Johnson’s main objective in the article is to discredit the conflation of ecology and severe reductionism and to advocate for the resolution of such disputes. While the author claims that moderate reductionism is a natural part of science, he asserts that this approach alone is not enough for a deep understanding of Amazonian cultures. Thus, in the following analysis, Johnson draws on both ecological and structural approaches – demonstrating how they can be used harmoniously – with the aim of proving that ecological factors have an impact on societal features of a population. In other words, the author focuses both on how communities understand their circumstances as well as on the quantitative measures that correspond to these understandings, demonstrating the correlation between these approaches. Johnson hopes that this effort will lead to increased collaboration between the structuralist and ecologist positions in general.

The data are drawn from the author’s research of the Machiguenga, an aboriginal group of slash-and-burn horticulturalists that dwells in the tropical rainforest of Peru. While Johnson does not directly describe his data sources or methodology (instead referring to prior work for this information) he offers a substantial amount of primary ethnographic evidence on the Machiguenga as well as quantitative data on the population’s nutrition. The author’s argument is constructed through an analysis of three examples of perceived resource scarcity – soil quality, protein, and firewood – that are representative of structural understandings but are also assessable in terms of ecological criteria. Thus, he explains why Machiguenga villages move – proving that resource scarcity exists in the perceptions of the Machiguenga despite apparent abundance – by drawing on a structural perspective while grounding his argument in ecological data.

This article elicits mixed reviews. While most of the respondents applaud Johnson’s attempt to increase understanding between these two polarized perspectives, other comments serve to simply rearticulate the arguments from the same old debate. In fact, apart from the positive reviews, the reply section offers a brief display of several of the dispute’s main arguments. Aside from this, a couple of respondents question Johnson’s explanation of who is actually involved in the dispute; one respondent offers alternate labels for those involved; he suggests “human ecologists” and “cultural ecologists” rather than “cultural ecologists” and “structuralists.”

In his reply, Johnson points out those reviewers who have fallen back into the old trap of increasing polarization between structuralists and ecologists. Additionally, he reiterates the differences between the structuralist and ecological perspectives and emphasizes the possibilities of correspondence between the two approaches.

CLARITY: 4

LAURA MOENCH Macalester College (Karen Nakamura)

Kennedy, Allison Bailey. Ecco Bufo: The Toad in Nature and in Olmec Iconography. Current Anthropology, 1982 23(3):273-290.

This article, “Ecco Bufo: The Toad in Nature and in Olmec Iconography,” was printed in the June, 1982 issue of Current Anthropology. This special issue featured prizewinning papers from the XLIII International Congress of Americanists. In this article, Kennedy begins by concentrating on the mystery that has been always been associated with the Olmec civilization, and more specifically, their art. She explains that anthropologists have normally seen the Olmec as an extremely difficult puzzle to solve, they are treated like a tiger ready to pounce that no one wants to approach. Finally it was hypothesized that the Olmec and their art are connected to the jaguar. It was theorized that the Olmec believed that they were descendents of a jaguar and an Olmec woman.

However, in disagreement with this theory, Kennedy argues that nobody ever really took the time to closely investigate their art in relation to the alleged jaguar. Kennedy feels that what has long been interpreted as a jaguar in Olmec art, actually represents a toad. She goes on to give many examples of how their art symbolizes the toad physically and metaphorically. In addition, she provides many pictures that show how the art may really be portraying a toad.

First, she states that “cleft brow” which has been said to be deterministic feature of Olmec iconography is considered to be a symbol of fertility, an aspect of life held in high regard by the Olmec. Kennedy goes on to explain how the toad and its way of life, in many ways, compares to the many stages of human life. Toad features such as spread legs, the tongue, and toothless gums translate to mean human words or situations. For example, the word for an up-ended frog’s head is interpreted “to be born.” In addition, the Olmec saw the toad as a representation of renewal. The manner in which the toad sheds is the best depiction of this. The toad continually sheds then ingests its skin. As the toad eats the skin it, the skin of the legs is the last to be ingested, and Kennedy states that it is very likely that this image could actually be what is mistaken for the fangs of the jaguar.

Following this, Kennedy goes on to discuss an experiment done to determine the taste of tadpoles. It is uncertain whether or not it was likely that the frogs ever would have been included in the diet of the Olmec or if they may have been used for hallucinogenic purposes. There are many theories surrounding this, but Kennedy states that the answer can be found in Olmec art, specifically in jade work. There are many examples of jade spoons fashioned to look like tadpoles that appear to function in as dehydration or separating vessels to get rid of poisonous substances. Plus, it is thought that the presence of the duck in Olmec iconography parallels the notion that ducks ate the toads and then the Olmec ate the duck, thus reaping the hallucinogenic properties of the toads without experiencing the poisonous qualities. (Kennedy explains that this phenomena is present is other relationships in nature as well.)

In conclusion, it is difficult to determine the exact meaning of Olmec art due to the lack of any extensive Olmec literature, but it is not impossible. Kennedy feels that it is very likely that the Olmec were portraying the toad in their iconography due to the fact that they lived in such close ties with the nature and the toad is a common presence there, but it is obvious that more research is required.

CLARITY: 3

AMANDA SUCHARDA Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Lewis-Williams, J.D. The Economic and Social Context of Southern San Rock Art. Current Anthropology August, 1982 Vol. 23 (4): 429- 449.

Lewis-Williams is concerned with interpreting the function of ritual behavior in a wider socioeconomic context; his overlying theory is that societal infrastructure is key in understanding ideology. He begins by stating that innatism and functionalism, the two current theories on the meaning of rock art painted by the southern San of southern Africa, are insufficient. The innatist position holds that the San paint merely as a form of expression, an inherent artistic disposition present in the culture. Lewis-Williams argues that the lack of research and data to back up this claim invalidates it. Functionalism posits that the ritual of painting helps to maintain social cohesion among the group, but the author states that though the ritual may have that effect, it is not a cause of the art.

Lewis-Williams then goes on to formulate his own theory, relying on historic data collected on the southern San and cross-referencing it with data from modern ethnographic studies. He first gives a background of the environment of the San, as well as the structure of their society. They are egalitarian, living in small, dispersed camps prone to migration dependent upon the availability of game, vegetation and especially waterholes. He then focuses on the important role of medicine men in the society of resolving environmental and social tensions like scarcity of resources. Furthermore, he comments on the importance of the eland (a type of antelope) in San spirituality. Much of the medicine man’s dance imitates the moves of the dying animal after a hunter has shot it. Many of the rock paintings, he maintains, are artistic representations of the same ritual beliefs expressed in dance.

The author goes on to describe the significance of widespread kin relationships governing access to waterholes. He states that trances undergone by medicine men, in which they spiritually visit distant camps, serve to remind the rest of the group of their relationship with the other group and, therefore, help to maintain access to their waterholes. These trances are, he believes, also represented in some rock paintings. In summary, Lewis-Williams emphasizes that the paintings are full of ritualistic meaning, and are not just artistic expressions. He also believes they were conscious representations of ritual behavior that played an important role in San culture and economy.

COMMENTS

Patricia N Bardill appreciates the challenge to the old theories made by Lewis-Williams, but states that much of his work is only speculative and lacking in data. Biesele and Yearwood laud Lewis-Williams’ rejection of functionalism and innatism. Clegg finds that Lewis-Williams has found a “best fit” in his theory, but wonders if it is the truest fit. Groenfeldt objects to the Lewis-Williams’ claim to the importance of the paintings in maintaining social systems, pointing out that some Kalahari San groups have similar systems without painting. He furthermore objects to Lewis-Williams’ rejection of functionalism and innatism, calling the author’s own approach “megafunctionalism,” and asserting the importance of aesthetics.

RESPONSE

Lewis-Williams begins his response by claiming that he is neither anti-function nor anti-aesthetic. He goes on to ask that objections to the connection between ideology and infrastructure be backed up by evidence and alternative interpretation on the rock art. He admits that he is unable to explain the significance of the paintings’ locations, and that his economic model does not explain the San choice of eland as ritual animal, when eland are not the only game animal. He ends by agreeing with a majority of commentators that further debate and research is needed to rightly interpret the meaning and function of prehistoric art.

CLARITY: 5

ADRIANNE DAGGETT Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Littlefield, Alice, Leonard Lieberman, Larry T. Reynolds. Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology. Current Anthropology December 1982, Vol. 23 (6): 641-655.

Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds argue that the increasing diversity of faculty and students at institutions of higher education has led to a de-emphasis of biological race concept. Institutional relations, university programs and professors have all had a great influence upon concepts dealing with race, but they have also been especially influential in the context of textbooks.

The authors describe the procedure used to test their thesis. Fifty- eight textbooks were selected based on three criteria: (1) that they were used in an introductory physical anthropology course, (2) had one chapter dedicated to physical anthropology, (3) and that they were not an anthologies. A group of undergraduate students were given sections of the textbooks to read and they were to place the book into one of four categories based on how the author expressed the concept of race. The four categories were as follows: (1) race exists, (2) races do not exist, (3) author seems contradictory or noncommittal, (4) or race is not mentioned. Of the twenty books that were published between 1932 and 1969, thirteen (65%) accepted that race does exist. Only three rejected the race concept, two texts did not mention the concept of race, and in two cases the panel was unable to reach agreement of the text’s classification. However, after 1970 a dramatic change occurred, of the thirty-eight books that were looked at, only twelve authors (31%) supported the existence of racial categories and fourteen (37%) did not. The remaining twelve post 1970 textbooks did not mention race or the author seemed contradictory or noncommittal.

The rest of the article consists of the authors’ interpretation of their findings. They state that the data supports the thesis that anthropological views are influenced by society at large and, specifically that the increasing diversity of faculty and student body of higher educational institutions led to the shifts in textbooks in the treatment of race.

The authors proceed to give a brief history of the importance of American Anthropological movements and how the idea of race in anthropology has changed. For example, up until the 1960s there were a limited number of PhD programs in Anthropology. After the 1960s, however, more programs were established throughout the country, thus including students from a wider variety of soci-economic backgrounds. Statistical data showing the increasing PhD programs is included in the text, however only the percentages of minorities in anthropology programs in 1981 were included. The increased variety of both students and professors resulted in an expansion of ideas that were taught and discussed. The authors conclude by stating that the rapid expansion of anthropology and higher education during the 1960s and 1970s had a greater role than scientific discoveries, in the increased use of the “no- race” view in physical anthropology textbooks.

COMMENTS

Of the twelve commentators that read this article, the majority of them did not agree with the authors’ argument that more diverse faculty and student body have been the most important variable in how the concept of race has been viewed. Brace and Kelso stated that the authors did not give enough attention to the importance of biological theory and Darwin’s influence on the evolutionary theory. Rose and Livingstone also thought that the advancements in the field of genetics had played a greater role than socio-cultural factors in how race has been defined among physical anthropologists. Beals and Garn both suggested that in science, overall, there has been a decrease in the importance of taxonomic categories. Moreover, this decreased importance has been more influential than what the authors claim. Although Jensen commented on the fact that science should be objective and not influenced by culture, Wolfe stated that the authors gave adequate proof that culture does influence scientific thought. Wolfe, however, does not believe the authors have defined race well enough; instead they used broad categories in reference to race. For example, some physical anthropologists define race as a breeding population, while other physical anthropologists who use the race concept do so with the idea that a racial group has pre-historical/historical continuity. Gloor and Laska-Mierzejewska, remarked that whether or not we use the term “race”, sociological problems derived from racial categorization will not go away. Recognizing differences among races, however, should not equate a value judgment and nor should it be used for the justification of slaver and imperialism.

REPLY

The authors agree with Garn that physical anthropologists have become less concerned with taxonomy, but then present the question of why they have lost that interest. They also agree with Beals, Brace, Kelso, and Livingstone that internal developments within science have had an influence on changes in the presentation of race as a biologically valid category. However, they maintain that these changes have not been as influential as those within academic institutions. In response to Jensen’s comment, the authors point out that he is unconscious of the socio-cultural influences and wrongly trusts that scientific inquiry is a neutral or objective activity. Scientists are part of a larger community; they take their influences with them into the laboratory, field, and classroom. The most important criticism they received, according to the authors, was Wolfe’s concerning the broad categories. They agree with Wolfe’s comment, but point out that many of the commentators also use the term in a variety of ways, which shows the confusion that exists in anthropology as a whole.

CLARITY: 4

LESLEY ELLEFSON Marquette University (Dr. Peterson).

Littlefield, Alice, Leonard Lieberman, Larry T. Reynolds. Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology. Current Anthropology, December, 1982 Vol. 23 (6): 641-654.

In this article, the authors examine the decline in popularity of the race concept within the field of physical anthropology. According to Littlefield et al., the ongoing debates surrounding this concept have undergone three distinct phases in the scientific world. In the first phase of the debate, scientists argued over whether races had one origin or several. The second was characterized by a debate over whether or not the various racial groups of Homo sapiens could be considered equal. Finally, the concept of race itself was deconstructed, with many anthropologists declaring it scientifically useless. Physical anthropologists separated into those who still considered race a useful concept, called “splitters,” and those who didn’t, who were called “lumpers.”

It is this final phase of the grand “race debate” on which the authors focus. The race concept was first challenged in American physical anthropology in 1942 by Ashley Montagu, who pursued this argument independently for the next 20 years. While the new approach really only began to engender discussion in anthropology circles in the 1960s, it was generally omitted from textbooks until the 1970s. By the end of the decade, however, the expressed views on race in published textbooks had generally made a swift transition from a “splitter” (e.g. Coon, Garn, Birdsell, and Dobzahnsky) to either a noncommittal perspective or a “lumper” perspective (e.g. Montagu, Livingstone and Brace). In the article in question, the authors explore this late but swift shift in the treatment of race in anthropology textbooks.

Efforts to analyze this phenomenon motivated Littlefield et al. to undertake a study of a range of introductory-level textbooks of physical anthropology that were published from 1932-1979. Each of the 58 textbooks was independently evaluated by a panel of undergraduates, and classified as according to the authors’ expressed views on race. Additionally, the Littlefield et al. analyze secondary data gleaned from other studies to address their main question. These data include surveys comparing sociocultural backgrounds with positions on the race debate.

Based heavily on the secondary data presented in this article, Littlefield et al. come to some straightforward conclusions. The dramatic change in the treatment of race in undergraduate-level textbooks in the 1970s was due to the concurrent rapid expansion of the field of anthropology, and two important transformations that accompanied this expansion: a) the transition of anthropology from elite institutions to “mass” institutions, and b) the mass entry into the field of anthropology of individuals from less privileged sociocultural backgrounds.

Many of the respondents to the article express disagreement with the authors’ conclusions that the demonstrated change can be traced to institutional factors. Beals, Brace, Kelso, and Livingstone assert that research within the natural sciences and the accumulation of data is a better explanation for the shift. Others agree with Littlefield et al.’s conclusions, but cite various other causal factors as being more important.

Littlefield et al. express their disagreement with the commentators in their reply. They systematically discuss many of the respondents’ suggestions and explain why they perceive them as insufficient explanations. For example, Littlefield et al. agree that science contributed to the observed change, but does not explain why it happened when it did. Finally, they use the respondents’ comments to support their theory that people are generally unaware of the sociocultural factors that influence them, thus finishing their reply with an assertion of their original claims.

CLARITY: 5

LAURA MOENCH Macalester College (Karen Nakamura)

Majumder, Partha P. and Roy, J. Distribution of ABO Blood Groups on the Indian Subcontinent: A Cluster-Analytic Approach. Current Anthropology, October 1982. Vol.23(5): 529-565.

Majumder and Roy investigate the distribution of ABO blood groups on the Indian Subcontinent and the extent to which these genetic population groups differ with respect to geographical and socioreligious variables. The authors attempt to establish whether or not ABO gene frequencies are homogenous with respect to geographic and socioreligious classification (Ex. Hindu Upper Caste, Muslim, etc.), as well as whether these respective differences are due to chance fluctuations or can be proven to be statistically significant. To test for these resemblances, Majumder and Roy employ a technique known as cluster-analysis. To fully understand the extent of this data, it is important to give a brief overview of this technique.

In this empirical study, cluster-analysis techniques were used to identify three levels of genetic groupings. ABO blood frequencies were analyzed for those groups that fell in the same geographic and socioreligious regions in respect to these ABO blood frequencies and those that did not. Those that displayed considerable differences among population groups went through cluster analysis and formed nonoverlapping clusters, which, within themselves, were statistically homogenous. These clusters, homogenous in respect to geographic locale, socioreligious criteria, and gene frequencies were dubbed rational homogenous clusters (RHCs). These RHCs were then analyzed to form larger groupings called “superclusters”. Superclusters were not necessarily homogenous in relation to geographical location or socioreligious criteria. The third application of cluster-analysis yielded a final tree structure describing the resemblances between each of these superclusters.

After lengthy analysis of 405 data sets, Majumder and Roy concluded that there is great similarity within geographic zones and socioreligious categories with respect to gene frequency. For instance, the Hindu Upper Caste of the Central Zone was particularly homogenous in terms of A, B, and O gene frequencies as they stood on their own as a distinct supercluster. The same goes for the Hindu Middle Caste of this zone as well as the Muslims of both the Central and Northern zones. Upon complete evaluation, it was found that all superclusters, and RHCs therein, indicated high levels of similarities between particular gene frequencies to certain geographic regions and socioreligious groups.

However, Majumder and Roy do admit that there are some populations that do not fit this general claim. Socioreligious groups consisting of Tribal Mongoloid, Negrito, and Caucasoid populations were highly variable and seemed to intermingle with surrounding geographic regions of the same socioreligious influence. At last, Majumder and Roy recognize the possibility of error for, or course, there are many uncertainties in using statistical inference. But after lengthy analysis using a “cluster” approach, much was learned about the distribution of ABO blood groups and their relationships between geographic area and socioreligious criteria.

COMMENTS

The commentators commend Majumder and Roy on their comprehensive and full compilation of ABO gene frequency in the Indian Subcontinent. Many also agree with their method of interpretation, stating that a “cluster” approach provides many worthwhile correlations to socio-geographic criteria as well as other relationships to different populations around the world. However, they are modestly criticized for continually overstating the similarities of these ABO blood groups because they: (1) use a common selective history at only one locus (the ABO blood locus), and (2) because only six geographical loci are used in determining phylogenetic relationships.

REPLY

In their reply, Majumder and Roy comment on their main point of criticism: the use of only a single gene locus when using the cluster-analytic approach. While agreeing with their contemporaries that an increase in the number of loci directly improves statistical inferences used in the cluster-analytic approach, they believe that the single locus analysis is not always useless. They also attribute their choosing of a single locus to problems arising in data availability and the constraints it had on giving a complete evaluation of Indian Subcontinent gene relationships.

Another rebuttal to choosing a single locus was that with the increase in number of loci-even by one- would drastically reduce the number of populations that can accurately be studied and compared. This problem would’ve had a profound and severe affect on the Indian Subcontinent.

CLARITY: 3

ADAM FIEBELKORN Marquette University (Jane Peterson)

Marano, Lou. Windigo Psychosis: The Anatomy of an Emic-Etic Confusion. Current Anthropology, Aug., 1982. Vol. 23(4): 385-412.

The windigo is a cultural phenomenon appearing in various Native American groups, including the Northern Algonkian, the people discussed by Marano in this article. There are several types of windigo: the first is a supernatural monster associated with windstorms, uprooted trees and various other displays of rage. The second category applies to a person who may or may not have been possessed by the spirit of the windigo and driven to cannibalistic insanity as a result. The third group refers to a culture-specific psychotic syndrome in which the victims are compulsively driven to eat human flesh. Marano says that the first two categories are part of Algonkian culture and myth, while the third category is essentially the child of 20th century anthropologists. In this article, Marano tries to explain and analyze the evolution of the third category, using his own fieldwork with Algonkian people, specifically the Northern Ojibwa and Cree tribes, as well as the writings of others on the subject.

Marano writes that during the 1970’s among the Northern Ojibwa people individuals who were overcome with grief or worry were described as “almost turning to windigo”. The stress these individuals were under was starting to turn them into a windigo, but the afflicted individuals in these cases, and similar cases in earlier times, recovered over time. Marano goes on to say that other cases of reported windigo psychosis are the result of Algonkian peoples using windigo to describe any type of psychological dysfunction, and also using it as a justification for killing undesirable individuals, as people who had become windigo were subject to execution. In his study of windigo cases, cannibalism happened in only one case, and this case happened under starvation conditions. Marano notes that the only times that cannibalism actually occurred were when survival necessitated it. After these incidents, those who had survived by partaking in cannibalism were sometimes described having a craving for human flesh, although this was probably the result of stories told by those who had not been through the starvation situation. Marano describes the people who had not been through the starvation situation as potentially wary of those who had, as those individuals may seem to have a lower threshold for breaking the cannibalism taboo in subsequent starvation events. Marano argues that contrary to the opinions expressed by others, the Algonkian have no special cultural predisposition towards cannibalism. Cannibalism is only resorted to in survival situations, which is a universal trait, as demonstrated by incidents like the case of the Donner Party. Windigo, meanwhile, is the term that is used to describe any sort of psychosis, and cannibalism is a trait often attributed to these individuals, although actual incid