Skip to main content

American Anthropologist 1977

Adams, Robert, McC. World Picture, Anthropology Frame, Distinguished Lecture.American Anthropologist June, 1977. Vol. 79(2): 265-278

Research horizons can be expanded by occasionally considering the relationship between models of research and the bigger picture of societal change. In his lecture, Robert Adams addresses the need to look at broader perspectives by looking for patterns of similarity or lack of it, by going past the boundaries put up by one’s own predictable research models and consequences. He further expresses the need to expand into each other’s different areas of study, which have common subject matter such as peasant studies, marketing systems, and urban-rural relations.

Adams asserts that archaeologists have recently begun to study variation over time within and between progressively larger, more complex social and spatial units. They study different styles within culture units and view them as expressions of reciprocity and symbolic relationships found in specific groups in local and regional social hierarchies instead of viewing them as appearing to mysteriously spread themselves among independent cultural groups. As another example, he suggests that ethnology and archaeology have intersected accidentally in areas tied to zones of irrigation, population density, and generalized cultural co-traditions while studying in their respected fields of ethnologically recognized communities and culture areas and the archaeological sites of civilizations.

DOREEN BLAKER Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Adams, Robert McC. World Picture, Anthropological Frame. American Anthropologist June 1977 Vol. 79 (2): 265-276.

This article is the seventh Distinguished Lecture of the American Anthropological Association, presented by Robert McC. Adams at the 75th Anniversary Meeting in 1976. Adams, an archaeologist and comparative anthropologist, uses this lecture as an opportunity to discuss trends in anthropology. Drawing from his own experiences, as well as the research of various anthropologists, Adams suggests that anthropology is abandoning its centralized, holistic view of culture for a more diverse and network-oriented approach. To substantiate his assertion, Adams compares anthropology’s internal reorganization to the changing anthropological views of the metropolis.

Adams’ lecture begins with the assertion that anthropologists often construct arbitrary boundaries between themselves and other social scientists. These boundaries produce communication barriers within the greater realm of social science, and contribute not only to an intellectual stagnation within the discipline, but also foster a continued isolation of anthropological research design and theory. To illustrate his point, Adams explains how anthropology has redefined its analytical model of the city. In classical anthropological perspectives of the metropolis, the city was likened to an independent organism. Analysis focused on a dominant central business district, and the rise and decline of concentric neighborhoods. As city sprawl has increased, anthropologists have reformed their focus and now study the metropolis as an interdependent network of ecological and institutional subsystems. This new network-oriented approach allows for the examination of a variety of individual factors, including wide-ranging flows of people, innovations, cultural symbols and authority hierarchies.

This new network-oriented anthropological approach to social phenomena is also seen in the evolution of ethnographic and archaeological theory. To reiterate this multifaceted ecological trend, Adams briefly discusses the work of various anthropologists, including Sydney Mintz, Stephen Feutchwang, Robert Redfield, Julian Steward, Octavio Paz, and Kent Flannery. Adams ends his lecture with the suggestion that anthropologists recognize the complex interrelations of groups and individuals on a worldwide level.

MICHELE ROSNER University of North Carolina, Charlotte (Greg Starrett)

Adams, William and Lorraine T. Ruffing. Shonto Revisited: Measures of Social and Economic Change in a Navajo Community, 1955-1971. American Anthropologist 1977 Vol.79 (1): 58-83.

This article examines economic and social change in the small Navajo community of Shonto. It is a comparison of data from two studies, one done in 1955 and the other in 1971, in an attempt to define and explain the changes that occurred. The article also seeks to measure the extent of social and economic change and make inferences about the stability of Navajo culture.

First, the article gives a detailed statistical analysis of the social development that has taken place. Rate of population increase, migration into and out of the community, and numbers of people per age group are discussed. Also, the authors examine the size and patterns of residency in the community, along with rates of divorce and plural marriage. The article concludes that while the population has increased, the rates of divorce and migration out of the community have remained constant. Also, while the size of most residences has diminished and a shift from matrilocal residence to patrilocal residence has occurred, the fundamental structure of the residence group remains intact because of its economic advantage for the community. The residence group shares land and all members of the group must participate in the work. Thus, although the number of people living in the group has changed, the pattern of residency remains the same.

Although there is an increase in the level of education and job opportunities, a growing number of Shonto residents are becoming dependant on welfare and more traditional income. The point is made that in the early seventies the eligibility requirements for welfare were liberalized to allow for public assistance of “able-bodied” individuals. The Navajo prefer on-site reservation jobs, like weaving blankets and field agriculture, which are largely traditional and allow them to remain at home, but do not pay well. Thus, they depend on the use of welfare as a supplementary income.

The article concludes by stating that the evidence of social and economic change presents us with the view of an “unyielding social and cultural value system”. It disproves the idea that once educated the Navajo would submit to “white man ways” and reinforces the idea that the culture would rather modify its structure to maintain as closely as possible its original ways of subsisting. The adherence to that structure is what has enabled the Navajo to retain their social and cultural tradition despite environmental and political changes, for so many generations.

ROBERTSON PENELOPE University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Adams, William Y, and Ruffing, Lorraine T. Shonto Revisited: Measures of Social and Economic Change in a Navajo Community, 1955-1971. American Anthropologist March, 1977 Vol. 79 (1): 58-83

This article is a comparison of 2 studies done on the social and economic activity of the community of Shonto, a Navajo Indian Reservation in northeastern Arizona, between 1955 and 1971. The studies provide unique measures of not only social and economic change but also social and economic persistence in the community, during a time of growth and modernization of the Navajo Reservation.

Adams and Ruffing look at several concepts including: the population, social development, economic development, and their implications on the society. They find that the housing, education, and transport systems have all been modernizing during these 16 years. Statistics and charts show population increases and the changes within the households. The authors give detailed descriptions of the households of this community, showing structural changes and residence group changes. These changes show that there has been an overall trend in the deferment of marriage, the end of plural marriages, and the increasing number of residences to be patrilocal (a household originally established within the husband’s rather than the wife’s natal group). Social development within Shonto is one without change, since there has been a multiplication of traditional households and no sign of a breakdown in this type of social organization.

The economic development lags far behind the rest of the United States although the rate of real income has been increasing during the 16 years. The Navajo have traditional resources including labor, land, and livestock. Overgrazing and poor sheep-raising practices have had long-term effects on the people of Shonto. Welfare has dramatically increased there. From 1955 to 1971 it has increased by over 900%. This program has contributed to a declining interest in local agriculture, which lessened the necessity for off-reservation wage work allowing people to find time for more economic, social, and ritual activities. Adams and Ruffing conclude the article by stating that their observations show that the social development exhibits little change, while the economic development exhibits change with a decreasing self-sufficiency and lessened dependence on unearned income. Shonto is an example of a community that is holding on to their traditional activities while other Navajo communities seem to be more involved with the modern US culture.

NICOLE CARLSON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Almy, Susan W. Anthropologists and Development Agencies. American Anthropologist June, 1977 79(2):280-292.

In this article, Susan Almy looks at the different aspects of work by anthropologists in development agencies, which she defines as entities that exist to alter (presumably for the better) the living conditions of people and communities (typically from the third world). Anthropologists, who are trained to carefully observe and analyze large-scale interactions within cultures as well as between individuals (with particular sensitivity to class, regional, and occupational conflicts), possess major disciplinary advantages to add to the work and goals of development agencies. In addition to their observational and analytical skills, anthropologists are adept at locating and assessing work on comparative problems (or cultures), which may bear light on an appropriate path for the agency to take in order to reach its goals. Despite the advantages for the agency in hiring an anthropologist, there are some drawbacks, including the anthropologist’s tendency towards individualism, the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the “anthropologist” (there exists a large amount of variation within the discipline), and general public disapproval for a scientist manipulating society.

From the perspective of the anthropologist, work within a development agency holds both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, anthropologists need jobs, generally like trying to improve the situation of the poor, and have more control over the use of their theories and data if they are involved in agency work. Potential drawbacks include lack of job security, freedom of person and research, as well as questions of the ethics of attempting to change social systems.

In conclusion, Almy gives a brief overview on how anthropologists can obtain employment within agencies and reasserts that “Anthropologists have much to add to the present emphasis on integration and micro-level analysis in rural development as well as in other agency concerns”.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Almay, W. Susan. Anthropologist and Development Agencies. American Anthropologist June 1977 Vol. 93 no.2: 280-292

The numbers of anthropologists working in developing and administrative agencies have grown tremendously. The number of doctoral and masters graduates has become too much for the potential academic demand. Thus the expanding number of anthropologist is apparent and if approached wisely can be beneficial to the individual and the agency.

One example of the contributions anthropologist can make to agencies is help in rural development. Rural development deals with the process of increasing productivity and welfare of poor people outside cities. Anthropologist can be very helpful in methodological approaches used in maintaining and modifying effects on these people in this sectoral program.

Social Scientists deal with the analysis and the modification of human organizations things that physical scientist do not deal with, which are very important in dealings with humans and culture. When agencies introduce technologies into a locale they must also take into consideration the socioeconomic and cultural factors. The lack of disciplinary definition is one reason for the low level of involvement of anthropologist in agencies. Like physical scientists, anthropologists, many times are specialized in a particular field. Many times anthropologists do not receive recognition because their work deals more with relations and behind the scenes work, which enables change to happen. Past social science contributions result in an equivalent ignorance in potential social science contributions.

Some of the disadvantages of anthropologists in agencies deal with are individual’s ideas about change. The researcher who is working towards explanations of human behavior has to deal with its implementation and its results, whether they turn out wrong, or even how accepted the ideas will be. Other disadvantages include comparative lack of security and freedom of research. Sometimes a disagreement in goals can come between researchers and agencies.

On the other hand, there are quite a few advantages for anthropologists to go into a career working for an agency. Agencies have many jobs to offer. Anthropologists like to see themselves fighting for the poor, helping society in some way. Agency anthropologists are also able to control, partially, the operational use of their theories and data. Agency anthropologists have more access to data through contacts and “power elites”. In many ways the door is open and more freedom is available when you work with an agency than in academia.

Another task is getting anthropologist into agencies. One of the main ways anthropologists have gotten their foot in is through personal contacts. Another way has been through fieldwork carried on in a certain agency. Anthropologist can put more focus into a certain area such as agencies while they are in school, allowing them more qualification and premeditated focus in the job field.

JOHN SHEEHAN University of North Carolina Charlotte (Greg Starrett)

Bates, Daniel G., Lees, Susan H. The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialization. American Anthropologist December 1977 Vol. 79(4): 824-841

Nomadic pastoralists maximize their land use to the fullest potential. However, any change in the rate of exchange for other goods can result in a variety of implications for local groups. Pastoralists are sensitive to changes that occur within the economic subsystems of which they are a part. Short and long term changes within their environment will bring about different reactions. Specializations of these groups depend on the linkages between groups engaged in producing different items.

Pastoralists have a population that is determined largely by the forage that can support their animals. The number of animals needed to support a household depends on the rates of conversion of imported goods from other groups. Grain, used to feed their animals, is an example of an essential import for the pastoralists. The flow of imports needed to support the group will depend on how much they can obtain by trading their animals with other groups in exchange for these supplies. Access to imported goods can be affected by an increase in agricultural growth, technological changes, environmental changes such as drought or floods, or the growth of urban sectors and nonagricultural businesses.

Responses to these changes include cutting back on the group’s own pastoral goods in order to trade more meat at a lesser price. Pastoralists may try to increase head productivity by increasing labor input or work with other groups. They may even resort to raiding other groups in order to increase their herds. If the problem of imports continues through scarcity or rising costs, the reaction to the problem by the pastoralists will increase dramatically. The degree to which they will react depends on the immediate circumstances, past history of access to imported goods, and the intensity and length of time the problem has been around.

DOREEN BLAKER Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Barash, David P.; van den Berghe, Pierre L. Inclusive Fitness and Human Family Structure. American Anthropologist December, 1977 79(4):809-823.

In this article, Van Den Berghe and Barash continue the exploration of the ways that biology can explain basic family structure and how the perpetuation of one’s genes can fuel seemingly altruistic acts. They point out that these acts of “selfless” kindness toward one’s relatives can be seen as a means of helping to perpetuate one’s genes and that the closer one is related to another, the more sacrifices one will make to ensure the safety and well-being of the other. In justifying the existence and universality of the family structure, the authors list predominant traits of families and then give biological reasons for these traits. Most families consist of kin-related individuals, which can be explained by the above assertion that one helps others who share one’s genes and therefore, one works to maximize one’s reproductive fitness. Also, families are composed of relatively enduring pair-bonds, explained by (theoretically) ensuring paternity for the male and protection, social status, and wealth (since women tend to “marry up”) for the female. Thirdly, human societies tend toward families with a husband with many wives instead of families with one husband and one wife. This is explained by females’ propensity to choose “high quality” mates, those with wealth, status, and power and males’ tendency to aim for “high quantity”, since the physical and time investment for males is lower on a per-child basis. Finally, all families have distinct gender roles pertaining to the care of offspring, explained by the time and energy investment for women is, relative to males, higher and therefore women tend to care intensely for the children that they do bear while men, who can potentially sire hundreds of children, do not need to concern themselves as much with each individual progeny. In their conclusion, while the authors admit that biology may not be “the ultimate or the best framework” in which to analyze human behavior, they claim that it does have its place and assert that it should not be discounted or ignored in deference to purely social and cultural explanations for family structure and behavior.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Beals, Ralph. Harry Hoijer 1904-1976. American Anthropologist March, 1977 79(1):105-110.

After obtaining his PhD from the University of Chicago and serving there as a temporary instructor for a short time, Harry Hoijer entered UCLA’s anthropology department as Assistant Professor in 1940. Teaching a heavy schedule, serving on a wide range of committees and periodically as chairman of the department, he was instrumental in the development of both the linguistics and anthropology department. He complemented his avid teaching with many research publications dealing with technical linguistic problems and relations between language, culture, and perception. Also active in the field nationwide, Hoijer served both as president and vice-president for the American Anthropological Association and the Linguistic Society. Besides working briefly with the Tonkawa in Oklahoma, all of his fieldwork took place with Athapascan speakers, especially those of the Southwest and Pacific Coast, with his primary questions geared towards problems of language in culture and the relationship between language categories and peoples’ perception and classification of their experiences.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Beals, Ralph L. Harry Hoijer. American Anthropologist March 1977 Vol. 79 (1): 105-110.

This obituary provides a brief account of Harry Hoijer’s life and describes his vital contributions to the fields of anthropology and linguistics. A selected bibliography of Hoijer’s work is presented at the end of the article.

Harry Hoijer was born in Chicago on September 6, 1904 to Swedish immigrant parents. Hoijer grew up in Chicago, and eventually enrolled in the University of Chicago, where he obtained his B.A. in 1927. He continued his studies in anthropology at the University of Chicago, getting his M.A. in 1929, and his PhD in 1931. While in Chicago, Hoijer met and became greatly influenced by Edward Sapir. Hoijer conducted his fieldwork in Oklahoma, where he studied the Tonkawa, and in New Mexico, where he studied the Jicarilla and Chiricahua. This experience prompted a lifelong fascination with American Indian languages, and Hoijer conducted most of his research for the rest of his life on the Apachean languages of the Southwest, and the Athapascans of the Pacific Coast. After receiving his degree, Hoijer taught at the University of Chicago for a year before accepting a position as Assistant Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles in 1940.

Hoijer played a pivotal role in building UCLA’s Anthropology Department, and establishing a separate Linguistics Program, which he chaired from 1959-1963. Hoijer also served as the University’s Anthropology department chair from 1942-1943, and from 1948-1952. While a professor at UCLA, Hoijer was active in a variety of University committees, including the Academic Senate, the Graduate Council, the Committee on Academic Freedom, and the Executive Committee of the School of Business Administration. Hoijer was popular among students and faculty alike, and was the recipient of the Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year Award for 1957, as well as being named the Faculty Research Lecturer for 1958.

Hoijer was also active in the American Anthropological Association, and served as the organization’s Vice President in 1949, as an Executive Board Member from 1953-1956, and as President in 1958. Hoijer also participated in the Linguistic Society of America, serving as Vice President in 1951, and President in 1959. A prolific writer, Hoijer authored many texts on technical linguistic problems, and the relationship between language and culture.

Harry Hoijer died in Santa Monica, California on March 4, 1976, leaving behind his wife, Dorothy, and their three children, Charlotte, Peter and Susan. Despite all of his academic achievements and contributions to the fields of Anthropology and Linguistics, Hoijer will be most remembered as a staunch defender of academic freedom, and as a passionate individual who spoke out often against racism.

MICHELE ROSNER University of North Carolina, Charlotte (Greg Starrett)

Brown, Cecil H. Folk Botanical Life Forms: Their Universality and Growth. American Anthropologist June, 1977 Vol. 79(2): 317-342

In his article, Folk Botanical Life Forms: Their Universality and Growth, Cecil H. Brown addresses the recent interest in the predictable and uniform ways in which human groups name plants and add plant terms to their vocabulary. Brown’s objective is to show that the development of plant vocabularies is the same in all societies. More importantly, Brown also addresses the question as to why these terms are ordered as they are.

For evidence, Brown collected data from a total of 105 languages from a cross-cultural study. These languages were divided into two different classes. The ‘Type A’ language classes were data that came from first hand investigation of botanical life forms. The ‘Type B’ language classes were data obtained from dictionaries and other secondary sources.

First, he addressed the development of plant life form vocabularies. This development occurs in stages, with ‘tree’ always being the first term that is added and the reference point for all other added terms. As specificity grows within a society and a society needs new terms to refer to objects, new terms are added in the order of GRERB (‘grass’ + ’herb’), ‘bush,’ and ‘vine.’

Brown further argues that this highly predictable manner of adding botanical vocabulary to a language is directly related to complexity in society. Arguing that the size of the plant vocabulary positively corresponds with the diversity of plant life that exists within a society, he furthers asserts that the vocabulary complexity is positively correlated with the complexity of the political structure, technological innovations, and social stratification of a society in general.

Because of the human tendency to classify things in binary oppositions. Brown argues that plant terms are added to a life form vocabulary by a process of elimination, with the size distinction being of most importance. However, grass and vine are not distinguished by size. Brown speculates that vine comes before grass because of its distinctive shape and importance of other parts of that culture that resemble the ‘vine’ shape.

ANNA K. SWARTZ Michigan Technological University (Josiah Heyman and Susan Martin)

Brown, H. Cecil. Folk Botanical Life-Forms: Their Universality and Growth. American Anthropologist 1977 Vol. 79 (2):317-33

In this article, Brown forms a correlation between multiple languages and the way these languages address botanical life. According to Brown, the first life form to be “lexically encoded” is always tree. The second is always a small herbaceous plant class (Grerb). For example, if a language has only one botanical life-form word, it always labels members of a large plant category. This term can be roughly glossed as “tree”. Therefore, if a language as word for bush or some other small plant life, then it has a word for tree. But a language that has a word for tree does not always have a word for bush. Along with this discovery, the author has put language development into stages based on botanical life terms. Languages lacking all words for botanical life are at Stage 1. Languages at Stage 2 have only “tree”. Languages in Stage 3 add a Grerb term. Finally, from stage 4 to 6 “bush”, “vine”, and “grass” are added. The author also points out that “grass” never comes before “vine”. This is because “grass” usually results from a division of the Grerb group. This article reports a survey from 105 languages. Though most of the data is “second hand” the author organizes the data well. Brown set up to groups of languages based on how the data was obtained. Group A consists of published and unpublished first hand accounts of investigations of native botanical life terminology. Group B is made up of dictionaries, including word lists and vocabularies. The author clearly comes from an linguistic research method, and manages a very concise analysis of a large based topic.

SEAN A WHITAKER University of North Carolina Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Cohen, Ronald. Charles William Merton Hart, 1905-1976. American Anthropologist, March, 1977. Vol. 79 (1): 111-112.

As the first person to complete an in-depth participant observation study on an aboriginal group that still relied totally on hunting and gathering for subsistence, Charles William Merton Hart helped shape anthropology in many aspects. He received his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Sydney, where he studied with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown.

In Toronto, he showed interest in applied anthropology and helped create the first well-developed anthropology curriculum in Canada. Later, at the University of Istanbul, he chaired the social anthropology department.

He was also instrumental in describing how power and the defined roles of society are actually different than how people actually act. Because of this interest, rather than just slices of people’s interactions in groups, he was the first to see the Natchez social organization model as a functioning whole.

AMANDA MCMAHON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Draper, H. H. The Aboriginal Eskimo Diet in Modern Perspective. American Anthropologist June, 1977 79(2):309-316.

This article examines the traditional Eskimo diet in respect to modern nutritional analysis. Consisting almost entirely of meat, supporting an extremely active lifestyle, and seeming to diverge completely from what is considered nutritionally adequate, this diet has long seemed paradoxical to nutritionists, leading to speculations of Eskimos possessing unique metabolic capabilities enabling them to escape the nutritional needs that constrain the rest of humanity. If available in adequate quantity and prepared according to traditional methods, Draper asserts, the traditional Eskimo diet provides all the vitamins, minerals, energy, and protein necessary for good health for any human, regardless of race. He supports this argument with a nutritional analysis—examining the specific vitamins and minerals and the quantities in which these are present in the diet. Also, he provides historic evidence that the Eskimos have not evolved special metabolic capabilities with an example of how Europeans followed the regimen in order to prevent scurvy during Arctic expeditions during which European methods for meeting all necessary nutritional requirements were infeasible.

Despite the Eskimos not escaping the need for vitamins and minerals, they have developed at least two characteristics divergent from Europeans. Having lacked dairy in their diet for a long period, Eskimos generally exhibit lactose intolerance. Also, having a diet devoid of sucrose for many generations, Eskimos also tend to have sucrose intolerance. While these are characteristics different from Europeans, Draper emphasizes that these are not unique to Eskimos: that any culture lacking in dairy or sucrose consumption for many generations will also exhibit lactose and/or sucrose intolerance.

In his conclusion, Draper analyzes the effect of the replacement of the traditional Eskimo diet with a diet imported from Western culture of processed foods high in sugar, dairy products and saturated fats. While the increased diversity of the non-traditional diet seems to indicate that the Eskimos nutritional status would increase, they tend not to have adequate nutritional information to make healthy choices or simply do not make the effort to eat a well-rounded diet. When the traditional diet was firmly in place, the Eskimos had a nutritional diet simply because there was nothing else to choose.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Draper, H.H. The Aboriginal Eskimo Diet in Modern Perspective. American Anthropologist 1977 Vol. 79 (2): 309-316.

For many years now scientists and anthropologists alike have scrutinized the diet of the aboriginal Eskimo. In our society it is necessary to eat the proper amounts of both meat and vegetables to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Until now it was unknown how the Eskimos were able to survive living with a diet consisting primarily of meat. Draper has found some interesting information about the nutrients found in Eskimo foods, and some facts that show how unhealthy our diet actually is.

For some time it was theorized that Eskimos bodies were more able to break down the foods that they subsisted on than the average person was. This is entirely untrue. The fact is the Eskimo diet provides all the nutrients we consider necessary for a healthy life; they just come in a different form. Vitamins A through D are needed each day to help our bodies build resistances and produce new growth. The oils in fish are high in Vitamins A and D, while eating slightly undercooked meat can provide plenty of Vitamin C. Minerals such as phosphorus are found readily in meat, but calcium is not. What was discovered is that a diet with large amounts of phosphorus requires little to no calcium intake. A diet of all meat can provide all the needed nutrients, but can it provide energy as well as a mixed diet can?

Meat is very low in its carbohydrate count. Since our bodies require glucose and carbohydrates for energy Eskimos must get it somewhere. It was soon discovered that glucose could be produced by the body through the breakdown of dietary protein. If the diet of aboriginal Eskimos provides all the needed nutrients, does it have any effect on their bodies? Lactose tolerance in the Eskimo population is low, the same as other populations without a history of dairying. The Eskimos also have little tolerance for sucrose. Although their bodies have made small adjustments to compensate for a diet of all meat, the theory that Eskimos have different digestive abilities is once again found to be untrue.

The biggest reason for the ability of Eskimos to remain healthy while eating a diet of meat is found not in their physical bodies, but in their social life. Their remote location keeps the group separated from the outside world. Tribes that come into regular contact with our society suffer from our health problems the same as we do. This is due to their diet. Unlike their northern relatives they eat the same foods that are found throughout the United States. These foods tend to be high in one nutrient while lacking in the others. Since our foods are specialized we have to eat a variety of foods to stay healthy. Junk foods also contribute to our unhealthy lifestyle. The northern Eskimo diet contains a good variety of nutrients allowing the Eskimos to survive off their one staple, meat.

WERNER, DAMIAN M. UNC Charlotte (Gregory Starrett).

Drummond, Lee. Structure and Process in the Interpretation of South American Myth: the Arawak Dog Spirit People. American Anthropologist, December, 1977. Vol. 79(4): 842-868.

Through his study of myths and, more specifically, their oral narratives, Drummond hopes to develop a theoretical perspective of myth based on previous approaches to the topic. These approaches are structuralist and processual.

He cites Levi-Strauss as an example of the structuralist approach, claiming myth is given meaning through transformation (myths’ meaning comes from the recombination of interchangeable elements). Drummond then takes Wittgenstein’s theory that myth is given meaning and affirmation by the narrator reciting the myth as an example of the processual approach. As the oral retelling of the myth is important in both theories, he focuses on this factor. The paper has a broader meaning in that it emphasizes the debate between structure and process going on in the field at that time.

Drummond also gives examples of four Amerindian myths, gathered through salvage anthropology. Though they differ greatly in detail, all have similar underlying themes of ethnicity and kinship. As kinship is a fundamental institution in all societies, it is not surprising to find it is important in myth as well. The similarities in the structural properties of the myth conform to the structuralist theory of transformation. However, this only serves as groundwork for the processual theory of kinship to take shape. In this way, myths help form individual and group alliances between people and groups and convey a sense of human distinctiveness from the rest of nature. Drummond concludes by emphasizing that these characteristics of myth are just as important in modern societies as in traditional ones.

Clarity: 3
TAMARA OJANEN Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Evens, T. M. S. The Predication of the Individual in Anthropological Interactionism.American Anthropologist September, 1977 Vol. 79 (3): 579-598.

In his article “The Predication of the Individual in Anthropological Interactionism.” Evens attempts to examine how the individual works within societies. He uses people’s previous works, including Fredrik Barth, to explain how his views differ from others and how other works may have faults. Mostly, Evens tends to base his opinion and findings against that of Barth.

The main areas that Evens mentions are: physicalism, values and preferences, the abstract individual, a generative analysis, and an attempt at incorporation. With physicalism he argues that people have a reason to be in groups, and that reason is a “function.” However, since a group is not really a physical entity, this argument may not be as great otherwise. Evens remedies this by explaining that people are moved to do things based on moral purpose. This same idea is what Evens uses to argue a value and preference: people do what they feel morally responsible to do; however, people can make decisions based on preferences in the material world. The abstract individual is an idea that people do things based on what is best for their own self interest, but still take into consideration how a decision will affect a group.

The generative analysis that Evens attempts at is the balance between a person’s self interest decision and their group-based decisions. He sees the idea of incorporation as being a nearly impossible task. People work on what they need personally, not in the best interest of a group. “Where incorporation is incompatible with the self-interested and rational individual, it cannot proceed.”

Evens’ basic argument is that people work on both individual and social reasons. “Choices of this kind cannot be boiled down finally to mechanisms of self-interest and rationalityóthey are genuinely matters of choice.” He believes that people have social pressures that help their decision making, but in the end, they make their own choices. People are not robots of a system, and make personal decisions, and when it comes down to it, are not as self sacrificing (for a group) as Barth would like it to be.

AMANDA MCMAHON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Goldschmidt, Walter. Anthropology and the Coming Crisis: An Autoethnographic Appraisal. American Anthropologist June, 1977 Vol. 79 (2): 293-308

This article was originally written by Walter Goldschmidt as a presidential address delivered at the 75th Anniversary meeting of the American Anthropological Association, which was held in Washington, D.C. on November, 17 1976. Goldschmidt gives a critical description of the practices of anthropology, how it is going through a crisis, and ways that it can improve its reputation.

Goldschmidt begins with the explanation of the social function of knowledge. This knowledge is a commodity of both economic and political values, which our modern society has been built upon. He then explores the ecological factors in the culture of anthropology, accusing that anthropology is in crisis itself. Goldschmidt describes anthropology as the “child” of biology and humanistic studies, before going on into an intense description of field experience, where he explains how close the relationship between researcher and environment are to each other. He mentions characteristics that anthropologists should have and how their attitudes need to be strong and dedicated to the field. Afterwards he gives a brief history of the profession from the depression until the Vietnam War. At this point of the article, Goldschmidt tells of the emerging crisis of values and culture, a turning away from the scientific and scholarly world in American society. There has been a shift in the ecology of American life and certain cultural markers tell of the increasingly troubled and dissatisfied population. This is leading to a loss of community. He suggests that the field should be looking at the problems that are happening in our society and giving anthropologically based solutions to benefit the society on a larger context.

If anthropology is to play a role in the reorganization of our social order, there has to be a change in attitude toward public performance, its self-denigration, its distractions, and for anthropologists to curb their prejudices. He also says that anthropologists must learn to adapt and become interested in the study of power, even when it includes their own society as well as others. There is a need to preserve the ability to see things as interrelated, to correlate relationships, and maintain a holistic outlook even when it comes to looking at our society. Goldschmidt believes that society needs anthropology and through its use, anthropology as a scholarly discipline will be strengthened.

NICOLE CARLSON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Goldschmidt, Walter. Anthropology and the Coming Crisis: An Autoethnographic Appraisal. American Anthropologist. 1977. Vol. 79 No 2.:293-

Walter Goldschmidt’s 1976 presidential speech to the American Anthropological Association addresses the internal issues within the science of Anthropology. Goldschmidt discusses the forthcoming social and cultural problems in America and voices him opinion on the Anthropologists role in the changing world.

In the beginning Anthropologists, according to Goldschmidt, were the outcasts in the science realm. They looked at things holistically and disassociated themselves with mainstream culture. They felt like they had very little political and social power. Goldschmidt explains how Anthropologists inadvertently had a lot of power. He gives examples like Morgan and how his theory supported many ideas concerning slavery, and how ethnographic studies about Native American’s have brought their culture to the masses. The problem has been that Anthropologists have been too passive with their power. They have not exerted their strength in the political world enough and Goldschmidt is calling on them to do so.

The decline in the birth rate and the lack of territorial expansion by American’s leads Goldschmidt into a discussion about the current crises of the country. He feels the economy is stagnate and the political powers are not trusted. This leads to a recession not only monetarily but socially too. People are passive about situations. Goldschmidt explains how no one really made a moral stand on Nixon’s Watergate incident. He also talks about the people’s fear of the Vietnam problem. He then calls on the Anthropologists to take a stand and make a difference in their culture. He wants them to recognize their power and make use of it without losing the intrinsic values that make them Anthropologists. He feels the passive nature of the culture will bleed into the 80’s and will be detrimental to the American culture as a whole. He wants Anthropologists to use their collective power and their commitment to humanity to intervene and restore the American culture to its once thriving state.

BONNIE STROUPE University of North Carolina-Charlotte (Greg Starrett)

Isaac, Glynn L. Obituary: David Leonard Clark 1937-1976. American Anthropologist. 1977 Vol. 79 No. 3:642-.

David Leonard Clark was an English Archaeologist. He spent his life in Cambridge, getting his Master’s and PhD there, and dying there on June 28th 1976. He was an author and a professor and his interests included all aspects of European Archaeology. Clark’s fame in America lies in his writing of Analytical Archaeology. This book details what he considered important methods and theories in studying archaeological data. Clark believed that all information and data should be carefully scrutinized and taken in its true context. He felt that applying universal ideas to artifacts led to assumptions about a culture that may not be true. The book was too lengthy to be used in standard academic settings but a student of Clark’s is attempting to edit it so that it may be useful to students everywhere.

BONNIE STROUPE University of North Carolina-Charlotte (Greg Starrett)

Legros, Dominique. Chance, Necessity, and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism. American Anthropologist. 1977 Vol. 79(1) 26-41.

Cultural evolutionism studies long-term change in human societies. This article contends that there has been a predisposition to identify cultural evolutionism by American anthropologists with Marxism. In her paper, LeGros attempts to prove that cultural evolutionism in anthropology is not the same as Marxism. The author bases her findings on three main points; the concepts of “society” and “mode of production” are two different theories; the Marxist theory of infrastructure is explained by the relationship between the economic bases and a given mode of production, and the critique of the origins of the capitalism. LeGros examines the writings of 6 anthropologists who are cultural evolutionists (White, Steward, Carneiro, Helm, Sahlins and Harris) to characterize how their school of thought differs from Marx. She discovers that they do not all agree with one another nor do they represent clear Marxist models.

When analyzing capitalism, she concludes that Marx looks at its development through monetary capital and expropriation of peasants. The merging of these was due to violence and not technology. This mode of production can never be considered pure and changes to adapt to the needs of the society where it functions. The mode of production will vary from society to society and by looking at societies, enables the study of the one particular mode that is found in these communities. By looking at its variations, one allows the further study of what are the main components and what are secondary components in a given society.

The author goes on to state that Marx surmises the economic base of a superstructure was determined by various factors of production, ideology, law, education, etc. and these factors are related and define the mode of production. These factors shape the economic base of each superstructure in varying degrees. Marx emphasizes that the varying factors mentioned are not recognized concepts for all societies.
Anthropologists really know only a little about the variation in modes of production historically, and that modes of production are always altered by conditions around them. The classing of societies into general evolutionary stages is purposeless. For Marx, each society is a “unique synthesis of heterogeneous modes of production” that cannot be boxed into categories.

LeGros concludes by stating that Marxism is not mechanistic, like cultural evolutionism, nor does it yield tight definitive answers. Instead, it is a way of seeing human history that shares a lot with theories of biological evolution. One important element of biological evolution is chance. For Marx, there is nothing inevitable about the rise of capitalist modes of production. Chance may have played a role.

DOREEN BLAKER Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Legros, Dominique. Chance, Necessity, and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of Cultural Evolutionism. American Anthropologist 1977 Vol. 79(1): 26-40.

Dominique Legros’ purpose is to “indicate the ways in which Marxism represents a radically different approach from that of cultural evolutionism.” Legros represents the basic premise and trends of cultural evolutionism, and how it differs from Marxism. She makes three major points. Firstly, the two theories differ in their fundamental definitions of society and mode of production. There is little relation between what cultural evolutionists term the mode of production, and the Marxist concept of mode of production. Marx uses the terms slavery, feudalism, and capitalism and cultural evolutionists use the terms band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. Secondly the Marxist thesis concerning the determination of superstructures by the infrastructure aims at explaining the relationship within a given mode of production. The determination of superstructures by the economic base is how Marx sees elements of production interrelating and constituting a given mode of production. Marx asks why categories such as labor and law are not recognized in all societies. Lastly, “Marx’s materialism is historical, not economic, and gives as much emphasis to chance as to necessity.” Also considered here is Marx’s formulation of the problems of capitalist modes of production. New modes of production can be born as the social conditions change and needs change. It was when machines were introduced that the function of labor power was transformed from individual craftsmanship to the mechanical mode of production. Marx saw no technological necessity in cultural evolutionism.

MARSIA YENCSKO University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Marx, Emanuel. The Tribe as a Unit of Subsistence: Nomadic Pastoralism in the Middle East. American Anthropologist June 1977 79(2):343-363.

Emanuel Marx begins his article by forming a definition of the term ‘tribe’ as applicable to nomadic pastoralists of the Middle East. The two dominant views hold the tribe to be (1) a cultural and linguistic unit, and (2) a political unit. Marx asserts that, in respect at least to Middle Eastern nomadic pastoralists, the ‘tribe’ can be defined as a unit of subsistence, referring both to an area controlled by the tribesmen and areas used by them for subsistence. He supports this view of the tribe as an economic group with a discussion of the environment in which these pastoralists live, control of resources, personal relationships (both within and between tribes), and cooperation of individuals and small groups in solving problems about subsistence activities. All of these aspects show that the pastoralists resist political affiliation or leadership, and instead organize themselves economically, relying on social ties to do so. Marx emphasizes this, stating: “Unity exists primarily in the consciousness of its members to whom it is self-evident that their livelihood depends on their gaining free access to pastures, and whose networks of personal relationships often help them achieve this end.” He concludes that the nomadic pastoralists of the Middle East do not fit nicely into either the cultural and linguistic definition or the political definition of the “tribe”.

By creating this new meaning for the term ‘tribe’, Marx wishes not to push aside the cultural or political versions but rather to add another completely new definition that may perhaps hold true for nomadic pastoralists beyond those in the Middle East, but at least is applicable to those of that geographic region.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Rosen, Lawrence. The Anthropologist as Expert Witness. American Anthropologist September, 1977 Vol.79 (3): 555-578

This article investigates the appropriateness of anthropologists as expert witnesses in legal cases. These kinds of witnesses must have specialized knowledge, skill, or experience in the area of their testimony. Professionals within the social sciences are often called upon to present their testimony on issues including child custody, parental rights, minority employee cases, and even land title rights.

The author, Lawrence Rosen, questions how interpretations from anthropologists are correct in context with the legal proceedings after having experience being an expert witness in a court trial. He argues that the testimony of an anthropologist presents problems within the interpretation of the circumstances, the relationship between the legal issues, and the relevance of the findings of the anthropologist.

Rosen uses several examples from different court proceedings to support his argument. He examines the anthropologists’ role in cases surrounding the community and the law. Not only does he look at ethical issues and historical contexts but he also mentions the problems that arise when there are expert witnesses on each side of the case both on defense and prosecution.

Towards the end of the article, Rosen goes on to establish his own set of rules for cases in which an anthropologist is called in to testify. He says that the jury should be indicated that the anthropologist’s testimony is more of a second opinion on the issue and is also subject to a full cross-examination by both sides after the presentation of his findings. Pretrial procedures of some kind should also be included leading to a full discovery and understanding of all the expert testimonies. Another important rule that ought to be integrated into the legal proceedings is that the presentation by the expert witness should be in narrative and not a question and answer format. This allows a full explanation of the statement before it is cross-examined. Rosen concludes with a brief statement that the frequency in which we see anthropologists appearing as expert witnesses in legal situations is increasing and how reforms may help solve problems of misinterpretation in some situations.

NICOLE CARLSON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Rosen, Lawerence. The Anthropologist as Expert Witness. American Anthropologist September, 1977 vol. 79(3): 555-573.

Anthropologists have appeared as expert witnesses in a wide range of legal cases, raising significant questions about the appropriateness of anthropological knowledge to adversary proceedings. The present article proposes a set of recommended standard and reforms of legal proceedings that could both serve and benefit the anthropologist’s involvement in the legal process.

Anthropologists have appeared in a number of cases dealing with racial segregation, the nature of religious communities, and the identification of Indian social groupings. The expert witnesses have been troubled by some aspects of the American trial procedure and tactics, feeling that their testimony may be distorted or inappropriate by the context of courtroom proceedings. It is, then, suggested that some reforms be implemented to sustain the witness’s testimony and its significance to the case.

One suggestion is that the law should rely on court-appointed expert witnesses rather that experts presented by contending parties. This would have the advantage of decreasing the expert’s tendency to be an advocate for one side, and would increase the scientific stature of the expert’s testimony. Another suggestion is that some of pretrial conference be held in which all of the experts, representatives of the parties, and presiding judge would be involved. The purpose would be to narrow the factual issues and to allow the experts to confront one another and discuss the nature of their findings and opinions. Moreover, the counsel could be required to raise at that time all objections to the proffered testimony. This would not only speed up the trial, but also lessen interruptions and grandstanding by lawyers when the case comes to trial. In addition, before leaving the stand during trial, the court could ask the witness whether the points of his testimony were adequately conveyed, and whether he would like to make any further comments. This would afford the expert witness the opportunity to summarize his testimony so that it not be distorted or misconstrued by interfering questions.

The use of anthropologists as expert witnesses is likely to increase in the coming years. The lack of communication within and beyond anthropology has inhibited the recognition of common problems and the development of potential reforms. Whether anthropological testimony is central to the legal decision or serves to point out the inadequacy of casual assumptions underlying public policies, anthropology can both serve and benefit from appropriate involvement in legal cases.

MIKE BROOKS University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Sankalia, H.D. Sir Mortimer Wheeler American Anthropologist December, 1977 Vol. 79(4): 894-895.

Sir Mortimer Wheeler is well known in the field of archaeology and many of his books are widely read as texts. Some of his published work includes Archaeology of the Earth (1954), Early India and Pakistan (1959), and Civilizations of the Indus Valley and Beyond (1966). Throughout his career in the field, he has held numerous positions, including the keeper of the Archaeological Department of the National Museum of Wales, as well as Professor of Roman Archaeology at the University of London. However, it is his work in establishing the study of archaeology in India for which he is much remembered.

Attributed to a “commander” and “leader,” (perhaps connected to his veteran status from his experience in two world wars), Wheeler was responsible for establishing a methodology to the study of archaeology. He set up training and teaching camps, which gave interested students the opportunity to conduct archaeological research in India.

Wheeler was instrumental in teaching the essentials of archaeological excavation, while at the same time focusing on “problem-oriented projects.” He created much interest and was largely responsible for facilitating the “Pottery Phase” that flooded India. He was largely responsible for remedying the neglect that had faced “true prehistory” in India for the longest time. And even though there emerged a neglect of Indian prehistory when Wheeler left, his influence in India was undeniably beneficial.

ANNA K. SWARTZ Michigan Technological University (Josiah Heyman and Susan Martin)

Sankalia, H.D. Obituary: Sir Mortimer Wheeler. American Anthropologist 1977 Vol. 79 (4): 894-895

Sir Mortimer Wheeler was a very influential archaeologist in the early twentieth century. He was born in Edinburgh on September the 10, 1890 and passed away July 23 1976. Wheeler was primarily interested in the past of India. In the fifties and sixties he published numerous books, primarily on the Indus River Valley. In addition to his personal research he was also appointed to lead numerous archaeological institutions. Some of these were Keeper of the Archaeological Department of the Museum of Wales, Director of General Archaeology in India, Advisor on Archaeology to Pakistan, and many more.

Wheeler was invited to lead the institute of Indian Archaeology in a new direction. When he came into the post he found that it was unorganized and unstructured. One of the first steps was to gain public support for his programs. He did this by establishing schools of archaeology in India for the first time. In these schools he developed the future leaders of Indian Archaeology in the fashion that he envisioned. Being a veteran of two World Wars Wheeler ran this new organization much like a military, with a strict chain of command.

Wheeler contributed even more by introducing his students and subordinates to new excavation techniques to assist in the study of Prehistoric India. Stratigraphy was for the first time incorporated into Indian Archaeology while studying the Megaliths of southern India. Wheeler believed that if the habitation sites are not excavated the socioeconomic and political background of these features can never be known. These excavations were used to create a timetable of India and its inhabitants, which is still in use today. Without Sir Mortimer Wheeler the archaeology of India may still be a secret today.

WERNER, DAMIAN M UNC Charlotte (Gregory Starrett).

Schneider, Harold K. Prehistoric Transpacific Contact and the Theory of Culture Change. American Anthropologist March, 1977 Vol. 79 (1): 9-25

Employing the genetic theory as a way of describing concepts, this article argues that the culture-change theory of anthropology follows a genetic model; cultural innovations diffuse in a way parallel to mutation of genetic traits. Genetic relationships and cultures share structural parallels; in theory, allowing culture change to be modeled as if it were genetic. Schneider explains that there are three distinct comparisons that the two theories share. The genetic processes of mutation, inbreeding, and selection are similar to the cultural processes of innovation, socialization, and selection, which is shared by both processes. He suggests that cultures come in contact with each other, borrow innovations, and how these innovations ripple throughout societies.

Schneider also differentiates society and culture. When social forms emerge, they show linear and parallel development. These social forms are usually general traits such as kinship and political organizations. When cultural forms emerge, they show non-linear and divergent development. These cultural forms include languages, artifacts, and complex technologies. He says that if cultural forms are so complex and detailed, a culture change model based on genetic theory would predict that they were probably developed only once and spread via diffusion rather than independent innovation.

Schneider believes that the theory suggesting diffusion as a cause of similarities is more powerful than a theory that suggests multiple inventions of the same cultural forms. The theory suggesting diffusion can then be used to predict pre-Columbian contact between the Old and New World, which is supported by empirical similarities in cultural forms.

NICOLE CARLSON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Schneider, Harold K. Prehistoric Transpacific Contact and the Theory of Culture Change. American Anthropologist March, 1977 Vol.79 (1): 9-22.

Schneider argues that the concept of culture is separate from that of society. It will look at the culture-change theory based on a genetic model which can predict pre-Columbian contact in the Old and New World. The purpose of making a theory known is it allows us to make new discoveries with the use of predictions and tests. Radcliffe-Brown stated that society is a bond of “similarity” between two or more people while a cultural bond is genetic, real connection between the people. Social structures become determined by their situation, while culture has mainly been determined historically and rarely if ever invented.

The biggest problem with the culture-change theory is distinguishing the main unit of culture. Biology had the problem of finding out how separate continents carried the same biological forms. This would include the existence of monkeys in Africa and South America, and elephants in Africa and Asia. This was not a problem for divine creation, but for a genetic theory on creation it would have to show a prehistoric connection between these lands to be able to explain the parallels. The tectonic plate theory in geology solved the problem with Pangaea. When Pangaea broke up these forms were scattered around the world in areas they presently reside in today. There are three parallels between genetic change and culture change: mutation and innovation, inbreeding and socialization, and selection. A species becomes a more standardized biological group whose departure from other groups is based on unique mutations occurring distinctively and amplified by selection. Mutation and innovation must be product’s of chance.

The cultural parallelism between cultural change and biological processes in their divergence is sometimes used to explain similarities between areas of the pre-Columbian Old and New World. Language as a type of culture is a good illustration of the divergent process. Sadly, what makes up the basic forms of culture is not as clear as linguistics, but it is seen that divergence can distinguish these areas too. If you look at different origins of smelting copper to agriculture, this supports the divergence theory by showing these milestones in human technology were complex events that couldn’t have happened for only one person in one place. These processes end up scattered all over the world, as if by accident.

The problem of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact with the Old World is a test case over the theory of culture change. The author made a list of similarities seen in America and the Old World. This list has certain traits that resemble the Neolithic Middle East. Without the communication between these two different cultures the only way America could have come up with these traits would be through independent invention of diffusion. The usual treatment within the question of pre-Columbian contact between the Old World and the New becomes ,if I don’t see any evidence of contact, then it couldn’t have occurred. A Genetic theory of culture change would support the cross-cultural assumption that cultural drift follows an area of contact. It also shows that contact between two groups equal to the distance of their separation would not be good. If the genetic theory is correct, we have to understand that there is an immense amount of undiscovered culture out there.

JENNIFER LEDFORD University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Smith, Bruce D. Archaeological Inference and Inductive Confirmation. American Anthropologist September 1977. Vol.79 (3): 598-617

Archaeologists have integrated scientific methodologies with archaeological reasoning to validate their work. The author looks at the various methods employed by archaeologists and asserts his own ideas of how to support a hypothesis that is best supported by available data. Archaeological inference rests on a belief that problems and the shortcomings of an archaeological database can be overcome through continual reassessment.

The hypothetico-deductive method begins by formulating a hypothesis and proves the hypothesis through test implications or observational predictions. This is a deductive type of argument, meaning if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. The H-D method takes one step further and compares the observational predictions with reality and if this pans out, then the hypothesis is true to an extent. This could mean that even if all the observational predictions were demonstrated to be true, the hypotheses still might be false. Because of this, the H-D method is not truly a deductive method of analyzing data.

The hypothetico-analog method does not have to be deduced from a hypothesis and initial conditions therefore can address the problem of having more than one hypothesis. Plausibility considerations should be looked at before thinking of a hypothesis. Plausibility considerations require defining an attribute class and choosing a reference class by deciding which analogous situations are going to be considered. If one is to use alternative hypotheses, the following criteria should be considered: the number of situations, shared attributes, inferred attributes, the dissimilarity of the situations, the specificity of inferred attributes and the number of points of difference between situations.

The H-A method follows the format of the H-D method and any research project should be oriented toward providing answers to a number of explicit problems or research questions. The next step is to formulate a set of observational predictions for each hypothesis used in the H-A method. Once this is done, the final step involves the identification and collection of all data needed for comparison for which the observational predictions can be inferred from each alternative hypothesis. Each alternative hypothesis should include the following: the number of observational predictions and variety of independent observational predictions that are empirical true; the significance of observational predictions that are empirically true and false; and simplicity.

DOREEN BLAKER Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin, Josiah Heyman)

Smith, Bruce D. Archaeological Inference and Inductive Reasoning. American Anthropologist. September 1977 Vol. 79(3):598-618

This article focuses on the logic methods archaeologists use to validate research and problems inherent in these methods. Smith refers to two articles by philosopher Merrilee Salmon. Salmon concluded that the methods used by archaeologists were really inductive methods and that archaeologists do not really employ the hypothetico-deductive method, even if they think they do. Smith pursues some of the points brought up by Salmon. His main concern is with archaeological confirmation and he compares the H-D method and another called the H-A method. The H-D method begins with the creation of a hypothesis; next logical consequences are deduced. The consequences and the hypothesis together form a logical argument. This arguement is deductive in nature- if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is be true. Archaeologists go a step further by comparing the conclusion with reality to see if it is actually true. In this final step the hypothesis becomes the conclusion and the conclusion become the premise, thus becoming inductive. Even if all the premises are true the conclusion may still be false. The H-D method is limited by a question all archaeologists are familiar with- “What are the chances that a specific debris pattern was the result of the proposed behavior and not of something completely different?” For archaeologists the truth of a conclusion is highly probable if the premise is found true, but is not absolute because archaeological inference has to do with prehistoric behavior, which cannot be directly tested. It can be tested indirectly by having the predictions take the form of statements dealing with predicted patterns of cultural debris found at sites.

Smith considers a variation of the H-D method called the hypethetico-analog method as better for archaeologists. The obvious difference between the H-D method and the H-A method is that H-A method conclusions are not deduced from a hypothesis, rather, they are inferred with a high probability. The H-A method also addresses the problem of unlimited numbers of alternative hypotheses. Archaeologists must list the alternative hypotheses and tell why they were discarded.

Since archaeologists cannot accurately predict all patterns of cultural behavior there is constant reassessment of problem areas and hypotheses as expected and unexpected patterns of material remains are observed. This process continues through lab analysis and into the final phase of writing an account of the research effort. Archaeologists believe that if they are good enough puzzle-solvers to overcome the problems of inference methods then they will be able to see patterns of behavior reflected in material remains.

ASHLEY CLARK University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Smith, Frank J,. Crano, William D. Cultural Dimensions Reconsidered: Global and Regional Analysis of the Ethnographic Atlas. American Anthropologist. June 1977. Vol. 79(2):364-387

This article provides and clarifies the comparison of ethnographic data. It uses previous studies’ faults, failures, and limits as reasons to look into new ways to study the different dimensions of culture. One purpose of the study was to find similarities and differences among cultures all over the world, using 65 basic different cultural traits. However, the cultures they studied were traditional cultures; the article does not look at contemporary cultures.

The categories they constructed were based on things like food gathering techniques, family extendedness, cousin marriages, taboos and lines of descent. The groups were separated and generalizations were made about the groups. They used factor analysis, which allowed them to take the 65 traits and find where there was a correlation between the traits, to group the traits into 14 categories.

They studied 863 of these types of societies, grouping them into six regions, based on location. They then used cultural traits to find similarities and differences. With more societies and cultures being studied here, there is more of a chance that the generalizations made would be representative. The broadness of a term allowed Smith and Crano to accept a generalization to be representative of a group.

AMANDA MCMAHON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Smith, Frank J. and William D. Crano. Cultural Dimensions Reconsidered: Global and Regional Analyses of the Ethnographic Atlas. American Anthropologist. 1977 vol.79 (no. 2):364-

The focus of this article is the compilation of ethnographic data into an easily understood medium. The ethnographic atlas was (and still is) huge, and the data needs to be summarized occasionally. The research was performed to “satisfy, in part, the need for fuller utilization of new and improved methods of measurement and data analysis for the study of dimensions and structures of cultures”. This means that the authors will be using matrices and other complicated statistical analysis methods to simplify ethnographic data. There are four listed goals in the research: to improve data scaling, to use factor and “hierarchical cluster” analyses, to describe “regularities” (human universals) in data, and to discuss results and to consider the implications of the trait organization theory. This an ambitious task, to quantify human universals using advanced statistics, and is probably not attainable with the required certainty.

The authors attempt to condense and make generalizations about the Ethnographic Atlas (EA) utilizing statistical methods. One of the problems with the approach is the sample size. Of the 400 societies examined in the EA, 98 were selected. For these 98 societies, 488 variables were present. The text claims only 18% of the data is missing, which does reduce the inaccuracy, but only 82% accuracy is not the best possible basis for making generalizations about humanity. Of the variables, sixty-five were used in the data analyses. Eleven of the factors were in place to judge presence or absence of a trait. The remaining fifty-four are easily represented on the metric scale, from low (0) to high (100). These variables were further examined by analyzing male involvement in certain activities, such as weaving, masonry, gathering, etc. Females were not similarly examined, as male involvement denoted “importance” of an activity. Though this article was published in 1977, females still were not considered in the statistical analyses of the EA. The majority of the actual data is presented on tables showing the high/low presence of an activity in the culture. The data is explained in the text as variables correlate to each other. The main problem is that the math only produces percentages. Some of the figures produced are: 83.39% of the world cultures practice polygyny, 4.92% have male involvement in pottery, 13.5% has caste stratification, etc… These figures alone are helpful, but they are not practical. It is helpful to know that a certain percentage of the world’s cultures practice agriculture, but how can the data be integrally applied in research? Alone these numbers are just another set of statistics, which are nothing more than mathematical generalizations.

Overall, the approach of statistics in studying humans produces one thing: percentages. There can be few conclusions drawn from straight numbers alone, even after examining the correlations. Even the authors cannot refute this claim; for 21 pages of text and tables, only ¾ of a page of conclusions are drawn. One of these conclusions is “In primitive economies, the correlation between dependence (on an activity or practice) and male involvement is small, but as the economy type progressively becomes more advanced male involvement becomes increasingly more closely associated with trait dependence”. This states that as a society becomes sedentary (and later towards industrialization), males become more and more dominant. This has been obvious for years without the aid of 54×54 matrices.

G. THOMAS BENTON JR. UNC Charlotte (Gregory Starrett)

Webb, Karen E. An Evolutionary Aspect of Social Structure and a Verb “Have”. American Anthropologist March, 1977 79(1):42-49.

Seeking to establish a link between ethnography and linguistics, Webb posits the universality of a link between the evolutionary sequence of word specificity and social-political complexity. This article, while merely representing a pilot study, seeks to explore the relationship of language and culture from an evolutionary or developmental perspective, arguing that in order for a society to develop a verb indicating ownership (such as English’s verb “to have”), it must have the concept of property and ownership. Webb constructed this preliminary study by taking a random sample of languages and cultures, organizing them on the basis of property-based versus non-property based, distinguished by the presence or lack of differential access to the means of production. By analyzing this sample, Webb demonstrates that all societies viewing ownership as unimportant and where people are relatively equal in terms of possessions (if concepts such as ownership and possessions even exist in the society) do not have a verb in their language that expresses ownership. In her conclusion, she emphasizes the link between archeology and linguistics, stating: “As an ethnographic tool, this type of study can be used to shed light on the political organization of an extinct culture with surviving written records”, since state-level societies with strong concepts of property and ownership would have a verb “to have” and those political structures with more equality (such as bands or tribes) would tend to lack such a verb.

KATHERINE STRONG Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Witkowski, Stanley R., Brown, Cecil. An Explanation of Color Nomenclature Universals.American Anthropologist March, 1977 79(1):50-57.

This article examines the theories and regularities of color naming behavior. Witkowski and Brown attempt to find the “basics” of color naming; asking which colors are at the basics for all cultures. In some studies, the idea of color starts off with “blacks” and “whites.” However, they make it clear that this is not their belief because in their system, “black” and “white” are not used as the primary terms to describe colors.

Instead, the idea of a cross section is used to describe where a color is in visibility. From there colors are named using the idea of opposites. On a vertical line there is “light” versus “dark.” On a horizontal line that crosses the other to form the cross section, there are “warm” and “cool” colors. The idea of “amount of color” is described as hue. Keeping with the idea of opposites, they use the terms “macro-white” and “macro-black” for describing light colors combined with warm hues and dark colors combined with cool hues, respectively.

The way in which Witkowski and Brown name colors can also be used in other naming theories.

AMANDA MCMAHON Michigan Technological University (Susan Martin and Joe Heyman)

Witkowski, Stanley and Brown, Cecil. An Explanation of Color Nomenclature Universals.American Anthropologist. March 1977. Vol. 79 (1): 50-57

The authors present an article which tries to explain the nature of color classification in the human species. They present these explanations using the works of other anthropologist to strengthen their theory of color nomenclature universals.

To start off, the authors mentioned the anthropologist Marc Bornstein, who determined experimentally that human beings are in some ways “wired” for dispersing continuous hue spectrum into the categories of red, yellow, green, and blue. Bornstein describes these color classifications as existing in infrahuman species and in human infants and adults. The identification of these colors lends support to Berlin and Kay’s hypothesis that similar color categories are lexically encoded in the development of the color terminology of all languages. However, wiring of these colors does not account for all the encoding regularities described by Berlin and Kay and others.

Berlin and Kay did an encoding sequence, which explains the color nomenclature universals. It explains that the four natural colors are encoded first, while the derived categories brown, pink, purple, and orange are secondary. This fits nicely with the theory of “marking,” which was developed by Greenberg. Marking finds expression in adjectival pairs such as wide/narrow or deep/shallow. In these pairs one item will be marked and the other unmarked. Unmarked terms occur more frequently in the ordinary use of language. For example, questions about width and depth are more often framed with the unmarked forms, “wide,” and “deep,” then the marked terms, “narrow,” and “shallow.” Also, since marked terms tend to be more complex than unmarked items, it is suggested that the unmarked form is older than the marked form. Putting this together with Berlin, Kay and Bornstein’s work, the spectrum is divided into four natural categories of red, yellow, green, and blue, which are unmarked vis-B-vis of the derived color categories brown, orange, purple, and pink.

Kay and McDaniel note that one should not assume that color nomenclature systems have stopped developing. They hypothesize that more terms may be added beyond the universal set of eleven so far identified. Bornstein, Kay and McDaniel have shown that red, yellow, green, and blue are natural color categories for the human species. The explanation also implies the general principles of naming-behavior such as marking sequences, conjunctivity, and binary oppositions.

NIKIA REAVES University of North Carolina at Charlotte, (Gregory Starrett)