linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity · linguistic diversity, cultural diversity,...

AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

Linguistic, Cultural,and Biological DiversityLuisa MaffiTerralingua, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia V8K 2N6, Canada;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 29:599–617

First published online as aReview in Advance onJune 28, 2005

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437

Copyright c© 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0599$20.00

Key Words

linguistic diversity, cultural diversity, biodiversity, bioculturaldiversity

AbstractOver the past decade, the field of biocultural diversity has arisenas an area of transdisciplinary research concerned with investigat-ing the links between the world’s linguistic, cultural, and biologi-cal diversity as manifestations of the diversity of life. The impetusfor the emergence of this field came from the observation that allthree diversities are under threat by some of the same forces andfrom the perception that loss of diversity at all levels spells dramaticconsequences for humanity and the earth. Accordingly, the field ofbiocultural diversity has developed with both a theoretical and apractical side, the latter focusing on on-the-ground work and policy,as well as with an ethics and human rights component. This reviewprovides some background on the historical antecedents and begin-nings of this field and on its philosophical and ethical underpinnings,and then surveys the key literature on biocultural diversity, concen-trating on three main aspects: global and regional studies on thelinks between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity; the mea-surement and assessment of biocultural diversity; and the protectionand maintenance of biocultural diversity. The review concludes withsome considerations about future prospects for this emerging field.

599

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS . . 600DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT

LINES OF RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 601PHILOSOPHICAL AND

ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS . 602LINGUISTIC AND BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY: GLOBAL ANDREGIONAL STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . 604

MEASURING AND ASSESSINGBIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY. . . 610

PROTECTING ANDMAINTAININGBIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY. . . 612

FUTURE PROSPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 612

INTRODUCTION

If the 1980s might be remembered as thedecade of biodiversity—in which the termbiodiversity was coined to call attention to themassive, human-made extinction crisis threat-ening the diversity of life in nature—then the1990s might be dubbed the decade of biocul-tural diversity—when the concept of an in-timate link between biological, cultural, andlinguistic diversity was put forth and its im-plications for life in both nature and culturebegan to be explored. By the mid-2000s, asmall but significant body of literature on bio-cultural (or, in a less widespread version, bi-olinguistic) diversity has accumulated, and arelated field of both scholarly research andpractical applications is emerging.

The main foci of this emerging field areas follows: (a) the parallels and correlationsbetween biodiversity and linguistic diversity,the overlaps in the global distribution of lan-guages and biodiversity, and the relationshipsbetween language, traditional knowledge, andthe environment; (b) studies and assessmentsof the common threats to biodiversity, cul-tural diversity, and linguistic diversity and ofthe sociocultural and environmental conse-

quences of loss of these interlinked diversities;(c) approaches to the joint maintenance andrevitalization of biocultural diversity; and (d)development of the related aspects of humanrights.

This review first outlines the history of thefield’s emergence and then appraises variousaspects of the relevant body of literature.

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

Parallels and affinities between evolutionarybiology and historical linguistics and betweenlanguages and species were already drawn byCharles Darwin (in both his Origin of Speciesand The Descent of Man; Darwin 1859, 1871)and commented on by linguist August Schle-icher in Darwinism Tested by the Science of Lan-guage (Schleicher 1863), although such re-marks soon led to a reaction in linguisticsagainst what was interpreted as a likeningof languages to natural organisms. Analogiesbetween languages and species became dis-credited and were relegated to the shelves ofmisconceived ideas until recently.

As for the links between language and theenvironment, interest in this topic has prece-dents in the history of anthropology. In theNorth American anthropological tradition,the study of Native American languages nat-urally led to such interest, as linguistic an-thropologists such as Boas, Sapir, and Whorfwere struck by the elaborate ways in whichindigenous languages encoded and invento-ried, among other things, the characteristicsof the local landscape and its flora and fauna.In particular, Sapir noted that language bears“the stamp of the physical environment inwhich the speakers are placed” while reflect-ing “the interest of the people in such en-vironmental features” (Sapir 1912, pp. 228,229). From Boas’s famous notes on Eskimowords for snow (Boas 1911; see Martin 1986,Pullum 1989 on the later vast misinterpreta-tions and distortions, both scholarly and pop-ular, of this topic) to Whorf’s related remarksin his popular 1940 article “Science and Lin-guistics” (Whorf 1940), these early studies had

600 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


a foundational role in anthropology. How-ever, this was not specifically to the effect ofgiving rise to a distinct tradition of research onthe relations between language (and/or cul-ture) and the environment. By and large, theseearly observations on the language of the en-vironment rather contributed to the devel-opment of concepts of linguistic and culturalrelativity.

Another pioneer of North American an-thropology, Alfred Kroeber, studied the re-lationships between Native American cul-ture areas and the natural areas (today, wewould say ecosystems or ecological niches)of the North American continent, findingsignificant geographical correlations betweenthe two (Kroeber 1963). Whereas several ofKroeber’s students (including Julian Steward)later developed a focus on cultural ecology,Kroeber’s specific approach in this classicwork did not directly result in an establishedresearch tradition on the links of cultures(and/or languages) and biogeography. Rather,the idea of such correlations tended to be un-popular among scholars, as it was also beforeKroeber’s work, because it evoked romanticnationalist theories of geographic and biolog-ical determinism.

This unpopularity is somewhat of a para-dox in light of Kroeber’s conviction that thisarea of inquiry offered a special opportunityfor “a modern, nonsimplistic environmentalstudy which would almost certainly stimu-late analogous research elsewhere” (Kroeber1928, quoted in Heizer 1963) and that hiswork in no way represented “a relapse to-ward the old environmentalism which be-lieved it could find the causes of culture inenvironment” (Kroeber 1963, p. 1). Kroebermade it clear that “[w]hile it is true that cul-tures are rooted in nature, and can thereforenever be completely understood except withreference to that piece of nature in whichthey occur,. . .[t]he immediate causes of cul-tural phenomena are other cultural phenom-ena. . . .[T]his does not prevent the recogni-tion of relations between nature and culture,nor the importance of these relations to the

full understanding of culture” (Kroeber 1963,p. 1)—a statement that might be taken as pro-grammatic for the current lines of research,if with the addition that recognition of theserelationships is, conversely, also central to thefull understanding of nature.

DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENTLINES OF RESEARCH

Despite such significant antecedents, the de-velopment of an integrated field of research oncultural, linguistic, and biological diversity haslong been in the making. Recent interest inthe links between language and the environ-ment has arisen in part from the work carriedout over the past few decades by ethnobiolo-gists and ethnoecologists studying indigenousknowledge and use of local flora, fauna, andecosystems, as well as by researchers inter-ested in indigenous place naming. In part, thisinterest also stems from research in linguisticson the notion of “linguistic ecologies,” seen asnetworks of human relationships that encom-pass not only the linguistic and social envi-ronment, but also the physical environment,as interrelated parts of a whole (Muhlhausler1996). Investigation of these topics has led toincreasing recognition of the value of the eco-logical knowledge and practices of indigenousand other local peoples, and of the significantextent to which such knowledge and prac-tices are developed, encoded, and transmittedthrough language.

More specifically, a focus on the relation-ships between linguistic, cultural, and biologi-cal diversity, their global overlapping distribu-tions, and the common threats they are facingemerged in the mid-1990s in the wake of analarming and thought-provoking observation:that the ongoing worldwide loss of biodiver-sity is paralleled by and seems interrelatedto the “extinction crisis” affecting linguisticand cultural diversity (Krauss 1992; Harmon1996, 2002; Nabhan 1997; Posey 1999; Maffi2001c).

In the early 1990s, linguists started call-ing attention to a worrisome trend that was

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 601

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Bioculturaldiversity: diversityof life in all itsmanifestations—biological, cultural,and linguistic—which areinterrelated within acomplexsocio-ecologicaladaptive system

becoming increasingly apparent: Many of theworld’s languages, especially those spoken bysmall-scale indigenous and minority societies,were seriously under threat of replacement by“larger,” majority languages, whether nationalor transnational (Robins & Uhlenbeck 1991,Hale et al. 1992). This loss of linguistic di-versity was estimated to endanger the survivalof 50%–90% of the 6000+ currently spokenlanguages by 2100 (Krauss 1992). In the effortto rally linguists and others around this issue,parallels were drawn with the better-knownphenomenon of biodiversity loss and with theendeavors undertaken by biologists to stemthis loss (Krauss 1992).

This clarion call did not go unnoticed bynonlinguists, soon reaching a small but activecontingent of social scientists and conserva-tionists who had independently been point-ing to the links between and the commonthreats to cultural and biological diversity(Dasmann 1991, Harmon 1992, Nietschmann1992, Clay 1993, Durning 1993; see also theDeclaration of Belem issued in 1988 by theInternational Society of Ethnobiology, whichaffirmed the existence of an “inextricable link”between cultural and biological diversity). Itwas increasingly apparent that the variety ofcultural knowledges, beliefs, and practices de-veloped by human societies, as well as the lan-guages that embody them, are being placed atrisk by the socioeconomic and political pro-cesses threatening the integrity and the verysurvival of indigenous and local cultures andof the environments in which they live—andthat this massive and rapid change has pro-found implications for the maintenance of lifeon earth. It became clear that an interdisci-plinary effort was needed to bring togetherthese different threads and begin to portray anintegrated picture of the state of the diversityof life in all its forms—biological, cultural, andlinguistic—the pressures it is undergoing, andthe possible actions to ensure its perpetuation(Harmon 1995, 1996; Krauss 1996).

Among the events that catalyzed suchan interdisciplinary effort was the interna-tional working conference “Endangered Lan-

guages, Endangered Knowledge, EndangeredEnvironments,” held in Berkeley, California,in 1996. This conference brought togetherscholars and practitioners in the linguistic, so-cial, behavioral, and natural sciences, alongwith members of indigenous peoples, to iden-tify avenues for theoretical investigation ofand applied work on what was beginning tobe labeled as “biocultural diversity.” (For theoutcome of the conference, see Maffi 2001c.)The conference was organized by Terralingua(http://www.terralingua.org), an interna-tional nonprofit organization also created in1996 with the specific purpose to promoteknowledge and protection of biocultural di-versity through research, education, policydevelopment, and on-the-ground action.

As a result of the confluence of these andother related endeavors, a multifaceted fieldof inquiry on linguistic, cultural, and biolog-ical diversity, with both a theoretical and anapplied side, has begun to develop—an inter-esting case of a new domain of interlinked in-vestigation and practice arising from a per-ceived urgent need in the real world, similarto the prior development of conservation bi-ology in response to the biodiversity extinc-tion crisis. At this point, a picture of language-environment interrelations is taking shape atvarious degrees of resolution, from a globalto a local scale. The following sections re-view some of the key aspects of this emergingpicture through the recent literature. First,though, it may be useful to touch on some ofthe philosophical and ethical underpinningsof this new field, as they have been exploredin some of this literature.

PHILOSOPHICAL ANDETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS

Harmon has offered the as yet most thoroughand thoughtful approach to the philosophi-cal and ethical foundations for the field ofbiocultural diversity. In his work, he has pro-vided the first comprehensive review of thestate of linguistic diversity and the geographi-cal overlaps between linguistic and biological

602 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


diversity pointing to the “converging extinc-tion crises” of these diversities (Harmon 1995,1996; see next section for details). With ap-propriate caveats, he takes linguistic diver-sity to be a major indicator for cultural di-versity and the loss of “language richness” asa proxy for the loss of “cultural richness.” Onthis basis, he addresses a fundamental question(Harmon 2002): If the world’s diversity in na-ture and culture is indeed rapidly diminishing,why should we care?

His answer stems from an examinationof philosophical, biological, psychological,and linguistic literature from the Enlighten-ment to the present. Through this excursus,he shows the interwoven (and possibly coe-volved) diversity in nature and culture to bethe “preeminent fact of existence,” the basiccondition of life on earth. The continued de-crease of biocultural diversity, he concludes,would “staunch the historical flow of being it-self, the evolutionary processes through whichthe vitality of all life has come down to usthrough the ages” (Harmon 2002, p. xiii).

Others have similarly stressed the evolu-tionary significance of diversity not only innature but also in culture and language asa way of “keeping options alive” for the fu-ture of humanity and the earth (Maffi 1998,2001a). Bernard (1992, p. 82) has suggestedthat “[l]inguistic diversity. . . is at least thecorrelate of (though not the cause of) diver-sity of adaptational ideas” and that therefore“any reduction of language diversity dimin-ishes the adaptational strength of our speciesbecause it lowers the pool of knowledgefrom which we can draw.” Muhlhausler (1995,p. 160) has argued that convergence towardmajority cultural models increases the like-lihood that more and more people will en-counter the same “cultural blind spots”—undetected instances in which the prevailingcultural model fails to provide adequate so-lutions to societal problems. Instead, he pro-poses,”[i]t is by pooling the resources of manyunderstandings that more reliable knowledgecan arise”; and “access to these perspectives is

Language richness:the total number ofdistinct languagesfound in a givenregion or country orworldwide, as ameasure of linguisticdiversity

Logosphere: thesymbolic planetaryweb of the “logos,”or spoken word,represented by theglobal network ofhuman languages

best gained through a diversity of languages.”(And see Fishman 1982 for an early, mas-terful treatment of this topic from a Whor-fian perspective.) Along similar lines, Krauss(1996) has proposed that global linguistic di-versity as such constitutes an intellectual webof life, or “logosphere,” that envelops theplanet and is as essential to human survivalas the biosphere—a concept of course remi-niscent of Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere”and of the classical notion of the Logos.

Further, from both a psychological and anethical perspective, Harmon (2001, 2002) pin-points the enduring fallacy of equating unitywith uniformity (which underlies all efforts topromote homogenization, whether by nation-states or by the forces of economic globaliza-tion). Rather, he argues that the perception ofdiversity is the basic condition for the func-tioning of human consciousness (through thedistilling of sameness from difference) so thatif consciousness is what defines us as humans,then diversity makes us human. From this, hederives a “moral imperative” to preserve di-versity and to strive not for uniformity but forunity in diversity.

Wollock (2001) reaches analogous conclu-sions through a critique of Western linguisticscience. He suggests that, if this scholarly tra-dition has largely been silent about linguis-tic diversity and has ignored or even deniedany connection between language and the realworld, it is because it was born of the nomi-nalist philosophical tradition that has takenhold in the history of Western thought. Nom-inalism treats all universal concepts (includ-ing “nature” and “community”) as arbitrarysocial constructs with no connection to thereal world. Within this tradition, languageitself is seen as an arbitrary system of signsthat bears little or no relation to the extralin-guistic world (on this point, see also Pawley2001). Such a conception of language, Wol-lock argues, is by definition incapable of ad-dressing the relationship between languageand the environment or with the ways inwhich language may orient the mind in


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


GIS: geographicinformation systems,a technology forrepresenting andanalyzinggeoreferenced data

certain directions—including directions thatmay be either beneficial to or destructiveof the environment. According to the au-thor, nominalist philosophy in fact lies behindmost of the discourse of “colonizing cultures”about both language and the environment,and behind the increasing tendency for thisdiscourse to treat diversity as an epiphe-nomenon at best and a nuisance and a threatat worst.

On the other hand, Wollock also con-tends that the response does not lie in the re-cent postmodernist trend, which, in reactionto the centralizing and homogenizing ten-dencies of modernism, denies the existenceof any overarching system of meaning andonly admits of diversity, decrying unity asan illusion. Wollock observes that all greatmetaphysical traditions recognize endless di-versity as the reality of the planet, and in-deed the universe, while perceiving a funda-mental unity in it—the unity of the Logos,whose likeness can be approximated onlythrough the maximum diversity. He arguesthat only a shift from viewing language asgrammar to viewing it as action within thesocial and natural world can make it possi-ble to talk adequately about the relationshipof linguistic diversity to biodiversity, of howlanguages as repositories of cultural memoryand guides to action can influence the land-scape and its biodiversity. In understandingand celebrating unity in diversity, he con-cludes, lies our best hope for a sustainablefuture.

From yet another complementary angle,Suckling (2000) suggests that the deep con-nections between language and ecology, andthus the mutual consequences of linguisticand biological diversity loss, are apparent es-pecially in the role of metaphor in humancommunication and the extent to which bi-ologically based metaphors support our un-derstanding of the world. As both biologicaland linguistic diversity are eroded, he argues,these fundamental metaphors are also beinglost as tools for thought and for recognitionof identity and otherness.

LINGUISTIC AND BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY: GLOBAL ANDREGIONAL STUDIES

The tasks of systematically testing the claimthat biodiversity and linguistic and/or cul-tural diversity are mutually related and ofassessing the state of each of these diversi-ties in relation to the others depend largelyon the availability of effective ways to rep-resent, locate, and measure these diversities.The focus of much of the “first generation”of biocultural diversity research, begin-ning with Harmon’s groundbreaking work(Harmon 1995, 1996), has thus been on de-veloping such tools. This effort has been facil-itated by the progressive accumulation of dataon biodiversity and linguistic diversity (and, toa lesser extent, other aspects of cultural diver-sity), as well as by the recent development ofelectronic means for representing geospatialdata [that is, geographic information systems(GIS)].

In approaching this challenge, Harmon(1996, 2002) first revisited the once-tabooedissue of the comparison of species and lan-guages, dispelling the misperception that ananalogy between the two implies equating lan-guages with natural organisms. He illustratedhow, although the concepts of species and lan-guages (and speciation and language gene-sis) are unquestionably fuzzy categories withporous boundaries and defy ironclad defini-tion, they are not arbitrary and correspond toreal entities (and processes) in the world. (Foranother recent view of languages as species,see Mufwene 2001.) The factual observationthat the global distributions of species and lan-guages significantly overlap, Harmon pointedout, then begs for explanation as well asheightened attention to the common threatsboth species and languages are undergoing.

Drawing on global biodiversity data as wellas catalogs of the world’s languages (Harmon1995), Harmon showed notable correlationsbetween linguistic and biological diversityon a global scale (Harmon 1996). He foundthat 10 out of the top 12 “megadiversity”

604 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


countries for biodiversity [as defined byIUCN—The World Conservation Union;McNeely et al. 1990] also figure among thetop 25 most linguistically diverse countries.His global cross-mapping of languages andhigher vertebrate species (see Maffi 1998for the earliest printed version of this map)(Figure 1) brought out a remarkable over-lap between linguistic and biological diver-sity throughout the world, with the high-est concentration of bioculturally megadi-verse countries in Central and South Amer-ica, central Africa, South and Southeast Asia,and the Pacific. Similar results emergedfrom a global comparison of languages andflowering plant species. These correlations,Harmon argued, suggest that both biologicaland linguistic diversity in such countries areespecially vulnerable to the effects of adversepolitical, economic, and social processes andpolicies.

Harmon (1996) also pointed to severallarge-scale biogeographic factors that couldaccount for these correlations because theymight comparably affect the development ofboth biological and linguistic diversity (suchas extensive land masses with a variety of ter-rains, climates, and ecosystems; island territo-ries, especially with internal geophysical bar-riers; or tropical climates, fostering highernumbers and densities of species). In addition,he hypothesized a process of coevolution ofsmall human groups with their local ecosys-tems, through which, over time, humans in-teracted closely with the environment, mod-ifying it as they adapted to it and developingspecialized knowledge of it, as well as special-ized ways of talking about it. Thus the locallanguages, through which this knowledge wasencoded and transmitted, would in turn havebecome molded by and specifically adaptedto their socioecological environments. Alongthe same lines, Muhlhausler (1995, p. 155)notes, “Life in a particular human environ-ment is dependent on people’s ability to talkabout it.” (On the evolutionary dimensions ofhuman-environment relationships and the is-sue of the possible coevolution of cultural, lin-

IUCN: The WorldConservation Union

Sympatriclinguistic boundaryformation: thedevelopment oflinguisticdistinctivenessbetween humancommunities in theabsence ofgeographicdiscontinuity

Lineage density:the ratio of distinctlinguistic lineages toareas within acontinent or otherwell-defined region

Spread zone:geographic areacharacterized byrapid spread oflanguages orlanguage familiesand presenting lowgenetic linguisticdiversity

guistic, and biological diversity, see also Hunn2001, Maffi 2001b, Smith 2001.)

In contrast, Muhlhausler (1996) called at-tention to the fact that linguistic and cul-tural distinctiveness can develop also in theabsence of mutual isolation: for example,among human groups belonging to the samebroadly defined cultural area, or whose lan-guages are considered to be historically re-lated or to have undergone extensive mutualcontact, and who occupy the same or contigu-ous ecological niches. Such circumstances—high concentrations of linguistically distinctcommunities coexisting in the same areas andcommunicating through complex networksof multilingualism—have occurred frequentlythroughout human history (Hill 1997) andstill do today in many parts of the world,the Pacific being a prime example. This phe-nomenon of “sympatric” linguistic boundaryformation points to the role of socioculturalfactors, along with biogeographic factors, inthe development of linguistic diversity.

Other research conducted by linguists andanthropologists during the 1990s also soughtto correlate the global distribution of lin-guistic diversity with both environmental andsocial factors. Nichols (1990, 1992) devel-oped a theory of linguistic diversity in spaceand time in her work on linguistic typology.She identifies biogeographic factors similar toHarmon’s, which affect the worldwide distri-bution of lineage density. She lists featuressuch as low latitude, coastlines, high rain-fall, and mountains among the factors posi-tively correlated with high lineage diversity.To these, she adds historical and economicfactors such as scale of economy—large-scaleeconomies historically bring about both eco-nomic and linguistic spread and thus lower di-versity. This, she shows, has been the case es-pecially in the Old World (Africa and Eurasia),whereas early human colonization of the NewWorld and the Pacific brought about veryhigh lineage density. On this basis, she distin-guishes spread zones, characterized by rapidspread of languages or language families andwith low genetic linguistic diversity, from


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Residual zone:geographic areacharacterized byhigh geneticlinguistic diversityand presenting noappreciable spread oflanguages orlanguage families

Ecological risk: thelevel of risk thatecological factorssuch as climate andrainfall pose for apopulation’ssubsistence

UNESCO: UnitedNations Educational,Scientific, andCulturalOrganization

UNEP: UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgram

WWF: World WideFund for Nature

Ecoregion:relatively large landor water unitcontaining a set ofnatural communitiesthat share most oftheir species,dynamics, andenvironmentalconditions

residual zones with high genetic diversity andno appreciable spread of languages or lan-guage families.

In a study on density of human languagesin North America, Mace & Pagel (1995) hy-pothesized that group boundary formation inhuman societies may be an active process cor-related with competition over resources andthat this process in turn may lead to languagediversification. On a smaller scale, Hill (1996)reported comparable findings in a study ofdialectal variation in Tohono O’odham (aUto-Aztecan language spoken in Arizona, inthe United States), where the differentialsociolinguistic characteristics of two dialectcommunities of Tohono O’odham (a localistversus a distributed stance) correlate with theextent to which each community can make se-cure claims over vital resources such as water.

On similar grounds, Nettle (1998, 1999)aimed to develop a theory of linguistic diver-sity and its global distribution by correlatingthis distribution with ecological and socioe-conomic factors. He identified seasonal ver-sus nonseasonal climates, with the attendantpatterns of rainfall, as the key factors affectingthe distribution of linguistic diversity world-wide. He subsumes these factors under theconcept of ecological risk. His data show thatareas with lower rainfall and shorter growingseasons, where people are at higher subsis-tence risk, tend to correlate with geograph-ically more extended ethnolinguistic groupsand fewer different languages, whereas areaswith higher rainfall and longer or constantgrowing seasons (such as in tropical and equa-torial regions) correlate with higher num-bers of smaller-scale ethnolinguistic groupsand thus higher linguistic diversity. He at-tributes this difference to the fact that in theformer case people need to establish largernetworks of exchange to mitigate their eco-logical risk, whereas in the latter case peo-ple can be more self-sufficient in their local-ized ecological niches. [See Harmon (2002)and Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon (2002) forsome of the theoretical and methodologicalshortcomings of Nettle’s work that limit the

generalizability of his otherwise significantfindings.]

Early work on the links between bio-diversity and linguistic and cultural diver-sity soon attracted the attention of conser-vation organizations and other internationalagencies concerned with implementing themandate of sustainable development issuedby the Rio Summit of 1992, and particu-larly with the call for protection and pro-motion of the “innovations and practices ofindigenous and local communities embody-ing traditional lifestyles relevant for the con-servation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity” (Convention on Biological Diver-sity, Article 8j; CBD 1992). The United Na-tions Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Or-ganization (UNESCO), the United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP), the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Societyfor Conservation Biology, and IUCN all com-missioned and published articles and studieson biocultural diversity (Borrini-Feyerabendet al. 2004, Harmon & Maffi 2002, Maffi1998, Maffi et al. 1999, Oviedo et al. 2000,Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), propelling thiswork into the domain of policy.

In particular, Oviedo et al. (2000) under-took the further development of Harmon’sinitial work on the global overlaps betweenbiological and cultural diversity through theuse of GIS. Again with due caveats, the distri-bution of the world’s languages (based on theGIS database elaborated by SIL International,the makers of Ethnologue, the as yet most com-plete catalog of the world’s languages; Grimes2000) was taken as a convenient proxy for cul-tural diversity at large and plotted against thedistribution of the world’s ecoregions (as iden-tified by WWF), with special reference to the∼200 ecoregions chosen by WWF as priori-ties for conservation, to determine the extentto which cultural diversity abounds in thosebiodiversity-rich and threatened ecoregions.A map of the global overlapping distributionsof ecoregions and languages was produced forinclusion in the publication. An initial analy-sis of the results of this mapping showed that

606 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


the highest concentration of ethnolinguisticgroups occurs in tropical forest ecosystems,whereas lower densities are found in arctic anddesert environments (a finding that coincideswith Nettle’s, reviewed above, and for whichOviedo et al. similarly provide an explanationin terms of subsistence strategies).

The applied goal of this project was to pro-mote an integrated biocultural approach tothe conservation of WWF’s priority ecore-gions and of biodiversity at large, throughmutually beneficial partnerships with indige-nous and traditional peoples living in thoseregions and the promotion of their land andtraditional resource rights and linguistic andcultural rights. At this level, the project drewsome criticism from observers (e.g., McIntosh2001) concerned that WWF’s shift from a lo-cal to an ecoregional (thus often transnational)scale in their conservation efforts may actu-ally purport a move away from the greateraccountability involved in community-basedconservation, particularly in regards to in-digenous counterparts. (Concerns of this na-ture are part of a larger ongoing debate aboutthe goals and modus operandi of conservationorganizations and the successes and failuresof the sustainable development paradigm; seeChapin 2004, Maffi 2004 for reviews.)

At the same time, these critics salutedthe key finding that emerged from this map-ping exercise, that is, the strong correlationsbetween biodiversity and cultural diversity,pointing out that this finding stresses the cen-tral role of indigenous peoples in the globalconservation initiative. The significance ofthis issue, and more generally of the role ofculture in conservation, has in fact continuedto work its way into conservation organiza-tions, particularly IUCN, whose Commissionon Environmental, Economic, and Social Pol-icy (CEESP) now includes, among the pri-orities for its 2005–2008 mandate, the “im-proved understanding of the synergy betweencultural diversity and biological diversity andon how this may be harnessed and appliedtowards shared values, tools, mechanisms andprocesses that enhance conservation and pro-

CEESP: IUCN’sCommission onEnvironmental,Economic, andSocial Policy

mote a more sustainable and equitable useof natural resources” (CEESP 2004). UN-ESCO’s recent Universal Declaration on Cul-tural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), althoughnot recognizing an explicit link between cul-tural and biological diversity, emphasizes cul-tural diversity as the “wellspring of creativity”(Article 7) and affirms that “cultural diversityis as necessary for humankind as biodiversityis for nature” (Article 1).

The topic of global biocultural correla-tions has continued to stimulate both fur-ther research and critiques in the academicenvironment as well, contributing to the de-velopment of theory, methodology, and datasets for this field of study and to the refine-ment of research hypotheses and parameters.Apparently unaware of some of the previ-ous research on the same topic (particularlyHarmon’s), Sutherland, an ecologist, com-pares both the global distribution and theextinction risk of languages and species(Sutherland 2003), reaching conclusions thatare largely in line with earlier findings andforecastings. In particular, by applying toboth species and languages the internation-ally agreed criteria for classifiying extinctionrisk in species, he finds that languages (as perthe Ethnologue catalog) are at far greater riskthan are species (specifically birds and mam-mals, which he chooses for comparison). Hisquantifications confirm the conjectures foundearly on in the current literature on languageendangerment (e.g., Krauss 1992). With somediscrepancies (perhaps due to different meth-ods of analysis), Sutherland also confirms anumber of biogeographic correlations in thedistribution of languages and species, high di-versity in both cases being positively associ-ated in his data with area, low latitude, forestcover, and altitude, but not with rainfall. In hiscalculations, he also finds period since settle-ment to have little effect on language diversity.

Because of the high visibility of its pub-lisher (the journal Nature), Sutherland (2003)triggered several media stories, including ascathing essay by Berreby in the New YorkTimes (Berreby 2003), in which the author


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


inveighed (mostly on ideological grounds)against the validity of species-languages com-parisons and of efforts to maintain or re-vitalize endangered languages. Several let-ters from the public later published bythe Times vigorously countered Berreby’sarguments.

Collard & Foley (2002) follow the lines ofearlier studies such as Mace & Pagel (1995)and Nettle (1998) in exploring biogeograph-ical correlates and possible determinants ofhuman cultural diversity. In this case, insteadof using languages as proxies for the world’scultures, they derive the distribution of cul-tural diversity from Atlas of World Cultures(Price 1990). The article contains a concisebut very useful discussion of some of the maincaveats in the use of such global comparativedatabases on cultures, as well as of the no-tion of culture itself as an analytical unit—caveats that mirror those about languagesnoted by other researchers (e.g., Harmon1996, 2002; Oviedo et al. 2000). The authorsalso point to historical factors (such as stateexpansion) that may have reduced cultural di-versity and masked the impact and visibility ofolder ecological factors. They stress, though,the importance of separating out the issue of“how easy it is to define any particular culturalunit from the issue of whether such units ex-ist” (Collard & Foley 2002, p. 374) and con-sider this unit as valid both temporally andspatially for their analytical purposes. On thisbasis, they map out the distribution of worldcultures according to latitude, which shows apattern fully consistent with that of the distri-bution of languages in earlier studies: Culturaldiversity is higher in tropical areas and lowerat higher latitudes, in both the northern andthe southern hemisphere, and in both evo-lutionarily “older” continents such as Africaand “newer” ones such as the Americas, withEurope showing the lowest diversity, a likelyreflection of empire formation there. The au-thors also find positive correlations of cul-tural diversity with temperature and rainfall.These findings suggest to them that the pat-tern of human cultural diversity is not simply

the random effect of historical factors, but re-flects both the length of population history ina given location and the constraints and po-tential carrying capacity of the environment.In this context, while calling for more studiesof the behavioral and cultural factors leadingto boundary formation, they argue that “socialboundary formation, which in turn reflectssocial behavior and interaction between resi-dential units, is responsive to environmentaland resource factors” (Collard & Foley 2002,p. 379). Another significant point Collard &Foley make is that, although the distributionof cultural diversity shows clear global pat-terns, analysis at higher resolution and smallerscale also reveals significant differences fromregion to region. This discrepancy betweenglobal and sub-global patterns leads them tocall for smaller-scale analyses that will be moresensitive to the role of local, especially his-torical, factors in altering patterns of globaldiversity.

This point is widely shared among re-searchers on biocultural diversity. Stepp et al.(2004) explicitly stress the need for developingstudies on a regional scale that will allow in-vestigators to better identify the correlationsand mutual influences and perhaps even dis-cern causal factors in the development, main-tenance, and loss of biocultural diversity. Atthe same time, these authors make a majorcontribution to the refinement of global bio-cultural analyses by bringing greater sophisti-cation to the use of GIS in such studies. Theirwork, still at a preliminary stage, marks a shiftin the intended use of GIS: from employ-ing this technology mostly as a demonstra-tion tool to illustrate the patterns of biolog-ical and linguistic (and cultural) diversity, tousing it for the in-depth exploration of factorsthat may correlate with observed patterns andof explanatory hypotheses about these pat-terns. This research is also beginning to ex-pand the roster of data used to explore thelinks between biological and linguistic diver-sity (the latter again being taken as a proxy forcultural diversity, with data from Ethnologue).One significant advance is the adoption of a

608 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


GIS database of global biodiversity (specifi-cally, vascular plant diversity) organized notby countries or ecoregions as in previous stud-ies but by diversity zones (standardized unitsof area), which allows for comparable diver-sity categories on a global scale (database de-veloped by Wilhelm Barthlott and coworkersat the University of Bonn). A GIS mapping ofthe two data sets shows a high geographicalcorrelation between linguistic diversity andbiodiversity, particularly in Mesoamerica, theAndes, West Africa, the Himalayas, and SouthAsia/Pacific (Figure 2). As in previous re-search, the observed correlation is strongest inthe tropics. Another significant pattern notedby Stepp et al. is a correlation between lowpopulation density and high biocultural di-versity, perhaps due to an increase in bothlinguistic homogenization and impact on theenvironment at higher population densities.In the further development of their work, theauthors plan to elaborate regional mappingsthat will allow for better exploration of suchpatterns, with the inclusion of possible socialand historical factors.

A number of continental and regional stud-ies, some descriptive, some based on mappingsand quantitative data, are already available, in-cluding a map of indigenous peoples and envi-ronments in Central America (Chapin 1992);an overview of biodiversity and cultural diver-sity in Mexico (Toledo 1994); a study of cul-tural and biological diversity in Latin Ameri-can ecoregions (Wilcox & Duin 1995); an eco-logical approach to language diversity in WestAfrica (Nettle 1996); cross-mappings betweenthe locations of South American indigenouspeoples and habitat types as well as betweenSouth American indigenous reserves and bio-sphere reserves and national parks (Lizarralde2001); a study of the correlation of linguis-tic, cultural, and biological diversity in Amer-ica north of Mexico (Smith 2001); an analysisof the distribution of cultural and biologicaldiversity in Africa (Moore et al. 2002); andoverviews of the Colorado Plateau ecoregionin the southwestern United States as ahotspot of biocultural diversity (Nabhan et al.

Diversity zones:units of area (10,000sq. km.) thatcategorize theworld’s biodiversityon the basis of thenumber of vascularplant species per unit

2002a,b). All these data variously help focusattention on the theoretical and methodolog-ical requirements and on the kinds of data andintegration thereof needed for in-depth stud-ies at a subglobal level. Especially highlightedis the need for historical perspective bothon processes of environmental change andon human population movements and expan-sions and other social, economic, and politi-cal factors that may have affected the locationand numbers of human populations and theirrelationships with and effects on the environ-ment. The importance of a better understand-ing of how environmental factors may sim-ilarly or differentially affect cultural groupsand species, as well as issues of scale and de-gree of resolution of the analyses, is also in theforeground.

In this connection, Manne (2003) providesa critical appraisal of biodiversity—culturaldiversity links through a study focused onCentral and South America, using the distri-bution of languages as indicator of cultural di-versity and that of Passeriform birds for bio-diversity. Her main finding is that the scaleof resolution strongly affects the results. At acoarse scale, the respective distributions over-lap significantly in the region of study. At afiner scale, however, the correlation is con-siderably weakened, with no simple mono-tonic relationship between numbers of speciesand languages. Manne’s research also showsno common environmental variables (of thekinds instead found to be significant in otherstudies reviewed above) affecting the distribu-tion of languages and species. She also findsdifferences in geographical range sizes andoverlaps between species and languages; theranges of birds are larger and more overlap-ping than those of languages and the culturalgroups who speak them. [But note that thisfinding may be skewed by the lack of ade-quate data on and ways of representing the de-gree of “porousness” of cultural and linguisticborders. Both linguists and anthropologists,e.g., Muhlhausler (1996), Turner et al. (2003),have shown such borders to be the locus ofsignificant cross-linguistic and cross-cultural


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


IBCD: Index ofBiocultural Diversity

interaction and of higher levels of diversity oflinguistic and cultural traits.]

Manne also compares degrees of threat forspecies and languages, adapting to languages,as did Sutherland, the internationally recog-nized threat categories for species. Her find-ing here is that even at a coarse scale the dis-tributions of threatened languages and speciesdo not tend to coincide in Central and SouthAmerica. She points to some possible histor-ical as well as data availability factors thatmight account for this finding, but from boththis result and her data on distribution of lan-guage and species richness she concludes that“we should not generally expect spatial con-gruence in distribution of richness or of en-dangerment between biological and culturaldiversity” (Manne 2003, p. 526). Interestingly,a global map of threatened ecosystems andlanguages (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), al-though showing a similarly limited correla-tion in South America, presents a significantcorrelation in Mexico and Central America,as well as parts of North America, Equato-rial Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific. Thisfinding suggests that establishing the extentto which Manne’s statement may indeed begeneralizable to analyses at a subglobal leveldepends on the future availability of a greaternumber of such studies and on more standard-ized and therefore comparable methodologiesand data sets.

MEASURING AND ASSESSINGBIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY

The issue of standardization and compara-bility is also central to another aspect of thefield of biocultural diversity, that is, work con-cerned with the joint measurement and assess-ment of the global conditions and trends ofbiodiversity and cultural diversity. The ear-liest efforts in this connection go back toHarmon (1992) in the context of affirmingthe relevance of cultural diversity for pro-tected area conservation. Indicators of biodi-versity were by then commonly used to mon-

itor the state of the natural world. Harmonset out to identify indicators that might al-low for gauging the state of cultural diver-sity in relation to the state of biodiversity,and thus for determining whether cultural di-versity is indeed diminishing and whether itis diminishing in tandem with biodiversity.He proposed a number of potential indica-tors: from language, ethnicity, and religion todiet, crops, land management practices, med-ical practices, social organization, and formsof artistic expression.

In later work, Harmon’s choice of culturalindicators has focused on the first threeindicators listed above owing to the readyavailability of global data sets on languages(Grimes 2000) and ethnicity and religion(Barrett et al. 2001). In a collaborative effort,Harmon and Loh have developed a frame-work for an Index of Biocultural Diversity(IBCD) (Harmon & Loh 2004, Loh &Harmon 2005), which is meant to measurethe condition and trends in biocultural diver-sity on a country-to-country basis (the level atwhich the available data sets are organized) byaggregating data on the three cultural indi-cators with data on diversity of bird/mammalspecies and plant species as indicators forbiodiversity (also selected on the basis ofdata availability). The IBCD features threecomponents: a biocultural diversity richnesscomponent, which is the sheer aggregatedmeasure of a country’s richness in culturaland biological diversity; an areal component,which adjusts the indicators for a country’sland area and thus measures bioculturaldiversity relative to the country’s physicalextent; and a population component, whichadjusts the indicators for a country’s humanpopulation and thus measures bioculturaldiversity in relation to a country’s populationsize. For each country, the overall IBCDthen aggregates the figures for these threecomponents, yielding a global picture of thestate of biocultural diversity in which threeareas emerge as core regions of exceptionallyhigh biocultural diversity: the Amazon Basin,

610 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Central Africa, and Indomalaysia/Melanesia.This largely confirms the geographical corre-lations found in other work reviewed above,in which either languages or ethnicities wereused as proxies for cultural diversity.

Harmon and Loh point to a number of lim-itations of the IBCD and caveats concerningits use, making it clear that this index, likeany index, should be used only to measuregeneral conditions and trends and should notbe expected to provide an in-depth analysisof the phenomenon at hand, particularly asconcerns within-country variation in biocul-tural diversity. They also point out that, in itscurrent version, the IBCD only portrays thestate of biocultural diversity at the beginningof the twenty-first century, whereas data ontrends are as yet missing and are the objectof future research. They conclude that theselatter data, used in conjunction with carefulqualitative analyses, will ultimately provide amore adequate and accurate picture of theglobal state of biocultural diversity. They do,however, openly acknowledge that the mainvalue of such an index will be largely practicaland political, such as to raise awareness aboutbiocultural diversity among decision makers,opinion makers, and the general public andpromote needed action for its protection andrestoration.

It is in fact noteworthy that the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity—one of whosegoals, as previously mentioned, is the pro-tection and promotion of traditional knowl-edge, innovations, and practices relevant tothe conservation of biodiversity—is currentlyconsidering the state and trends of linguis-tic diversity as a possible indicator of thestate and trends of traditional knowledge. TheIBCD is a potential candidate to fulfill thisrole.

Also very relevant in this connection issome of the recent quantitative work carriedout by ethnobiologists to measure and assessthe persistence and loss of traditional eco-logical knowledge (TEK). Researchers suchas Zent (1999, 2001), Lizarralde (2001), Ross

TEK: traditionalecological knowledge

(2002), Zarger & Stepp (2004), Zent & Zent(2004), and others are contributing to the de-velopment of quantitative methods for the in-vestigation of the acquisition and transmis-sion of ethnobotanical and ethnoecologicalknowledge and for the identification of fac-tors (such as age, formal education, bilingualability, length of residency, change in subsis-tence practice, etc.) that may affect the main-tenance or loss of TEK. As more of thesestudies become available, they will likely con-stitute an increasingly significant source ofdata for the elaboration of more refined in-dicators of the conditions and trends of cul-tural diversity in support of a better under-standing of the state of biocultural diversityand of the development of appropriatepolicies.

Likewise, significant contributions to themeasurement and assessment of bioculturaldiversity should come from linguistics, interms of more elaborate criteria for evaluat-ing the state of the world’s languages. Even iftime-series data on the number of languagesshould become available in the near future,sheer trends in language richness are not afully adequate indicator of the state of lan-guages, as researchers in this field well rec-ognize. Better data on numbers of speakersover time and other sociolinguistic vital statis-tics, particularly on intergenerational lan-guage transmission, contexts of use, availabil-ity of mother tongue education, etc., will beneeded for this purpose. An expert group onlanguage endangerment and language main-tenance recently gathered by UNESCO hasput forth a set of recommendations for theassessment of linguistic vitality (UNESCO2003), which should provide useful guidancealso for the development of linguistic diver-sity indicators. [Specifically on the role ofeducation through a mother-tongue mediumand on educational policies in the mainte-nance of linguistic diversity, see Skutnabb-Kangas (2000). On structural and functionalindicators of language obsolescence, see Hill(2001).]


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


PROTECTING ANDMAINTAINING BIOCULTURALDIVERSITY

Of course, no matter how sophisticated ourunderstanding of biocultural diversity andability to represent, measure, and assess it maybe, without appropriate action we would still,most likely, be presiding over the demise ofour bioculturally rich world, given the forcescausing its erosion. This is why the relevanceof affecting policy and public opinion is highon the minds of researchers in this field, giv-ing it its characteristic mixture of theory andpractice, research and advocacy, and knowl-edge building and knowledge dissemination.

As indicated at various points above,several international organizations, both inthe biodiversity conservation area (WWF,UNEP, IUCN) and in that of linguistic andcultural diversity (UNESCO), have noted thesignificance of the biocultural perspective andincorporated it to a greater or lesser extent intheir own approaches and activities.

Developments in the field of human rights,such as the United Nations’ Draft Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and otheradvances in the definition of indigenous peo-ples’ and minorities’ land rights, traditionalresource rights, property rights, and culturaland linguistic rights, are also relevant to theprotection and promotion of biocultural di-versity. All these are contributing to the es-tablishment of a link between biodiversity andcultural and linguistic diversity in the arenaof human rights, as well as to the promotionof a new vision in which the protection ofhuman rights (both individual and collective)is intimately connected to the affirmation ofhuman responsibilities toward and steward-ship over humanity’s heritage in nature andculture. (For reviews, see Maffi 2001a, Posey2001, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000.)

The dissemination of research activities,along with advocacy, has thus had some ini-tial success in producing general awareness ofthese issues. It has even resulted in a certainamount of change in national and interna-

tional policies, as well as an increase in theavailability of financial and other resourcesin support of efforts to promote the protec-tion and maintenance of biocultural diversityat various levels. Yet, much more is needed,especially in terms of change in general atti-tudes and behaviors. The recent proliferationof news stories as well as of popular bookson the loss of linguistic diversity (e.g., Crystal2000, Dalby 2003, Nettle & Romaine 2000)—which generally point to a link between lan-guage loss and culture and knowledge loss,and in some cases also biodiversity loss—mayhelp increase general awareness of bioculturaldiversity and its predicament, which should bea key to political action.

Ultimately, the most fundamental impetusfor the protection and maintenance of biocul-tural diversity can come, not from top-downefforts, but only from the ground-up actionof indigenous and other societies worldwidewhose languages, cultural identities, and landsare being threatened by global forces. A per-ceived link between language, cultural iden-tity, and land (rather than an abstract notionsuch as nature) is common among many in-digenous societies (see, e.g., Blythe & Brown2003). It is no surprise, then, that many of themost explicit efforts to maintain and revital-ize linguistic, cultural, and biological diversityjointly are grassroots efforts, whether entirelyendogenous or promoted and assisted by na-tional and international organizations. Learn-ing about and from these efforts and mak-ing the lessons as widely available as possibleis the goal of some of the ongoing work inbiocultural diversity (L. Maffi & E. Woodley,Global Source Book on Biocultural Diversity, inpreparation).

FUTURE PROSPECTS

Over the course of about 10 years, the fieldof biocultural diversity has emerged as an ex-ample of an integrated, transdisciplinary field(Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning thenatural and social sciences, as well as linkingtheory with practice and science with policy,

612 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ethics, and human rights. No doubt, at thepresent stage this field needs an opportu-nity to better define its theoretical and philo-sophical assumptions, its research questions,its methodologies, and its overall goals. Theincreasing focus on the topic of bioculturaldiversity in academic settings promises tobring to this field the benefit of scientific rigorand critical analysis. We can also hope that theadoption of biocultural diversity as a domainfor academic inquiry will foster a transdisci-plinary turn in academe, leading to greatercommunication and exchanges among disci-plines, as well as more work by interdisci-

plinary teams, and thus to the elaboration of anew synthesis about the connections betweenlinguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Atransdisciplinary approach should also makeresearch more sensitive to real world needsand research findings more relevant for policyand other applications. Above all, a transdis-ciplinary study of biocultural diversity shouldcontribute to our understanding that, asHarmon (2002) puts it, diversity in nature andculture makes us human. In this resides thehope that greater respect for and stewardshipover our shared natural and cultural heritagecan be achieved—before it is too late.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research relevant to the preparation of this article was conducted with support from two grantsawarded by The Christensen Fund to Terralingua (2003–2004, 2005). This support is gratefullyacknowledged. I am also grateful to Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Dave Harmon for their carefulreading of and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

LITERATURE CITED

Barrett DB, Kurian GT, Johnson TN. 2001. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Surveyof Churches and Religions in the Modern World. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.

Bernard R. 1992. Preserving language diversity. Hum. Organ. 51:82–89Berreby D. 2003. Fading species and dying tongues: when the two part ways. New York Times,

May 27, p. F-3Blythe J, McKenna Brown R, eds. 2003. Maintaining the Links. Language, Identity and the

Land. Proc. Conf. Found. Endanger. Lang., 7th, Broome, Aust. Bath, UK: Found. Endanger.Lang.

Boas F. 1911. The Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 1. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 40, Part1. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.

Borrini Feyerabend G, MacDonald K, Maffi L, eds. 2004. History, Culture and Conservation.Policy Matters 13:1–308 (Spec. issue)

CBD 1992. Approved by the contracting parties at the United Nations Conf. Environ. Dev. Rio deJaneiro, 5 June. Available at http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp

CEESP. 2004. Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Mandate 2005–2008. Gland, Switz.: IUCN—The World Conservation Union

Chapin M. 1992. The co-existence of indigenous peoples and environments in Central America.Res. Explor. 8(2):map

Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Nov./Dec.:17–31Clay JW. 1993. Looking back to go forward: predicting and preventing human rights violations.

In State of the Peoples: A Global Human Rights Report on Societies in Danger, ed. MS Miller,pp. 64–71. Boston: Beacon

Collard IF, Foley RA. 2002. Latitudinal patterns and environmental determinants of recenthuman cultural diversity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:371–83


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Crystal D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressDalby A. 2003. Language in Danger: The Loss of Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to Our Future.

New York: Columbia Univ. PressDarwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: MurrayDarwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. London: MurrayDasmann RF. 1991. The importance of cultural and biological diversity. In Biodiversity: Culture,

Conservation, and Ecodevelopment, ed. ML Oldfield, JB Alcorn, pp. 7–15. Boulder: WestviewDurning AT. 1993. Supporting indigenous peoples. In State of the World 1993: A Worldwatch

Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society, pp. 80–100. New York: NortonFishman JA. 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide

societal asset. Lang. Soc. 11:1–14Grimes BF. 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL Int. 14th ed.Hale K, Krauss M, Watahomigie L, Yamamoto A, Craig C, et al. 1992. Endangered languages.

Language 68:1–42Harmon D. 1992. Indicators of the world’s cultural diversity. Presented at World Congr. Natl.

Parks and Protected Areas, 4th, Caracas, VenezuelaHarmon D. 1995. The status of the world’s languages as reported in Ethnologue. Southwest J.

Ling. 14:1–33Harmon D. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and lin-

guistic diversity. Southwest J. Ling. 15:89–108Harmon D. 2001. On the meaning and moral imperative of diversity. See Maffi 2001c, pp.

53–70Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us

Human. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. PressHarmon D, Loh J. 2004. The IBCD: a measure of the world’s biocultural diversity. See Borrini-

Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 271–80Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract.

3(1):26–27Heizer RF. 1963. Foreword. See Kroeber 1963, pp. v–ixHill JH. 1996. Languages of the land: toward an anthropological dialectology. Presented at

David Skomp Disting. Lect. Ser. Anthropol., Indiana Univ., Dept. Anthropol., 21 MarchHill JH. 1997. The meaning of linguistic diversity: knowable or unknowable? Anthropol. Newsl.

38(1):9–10Hill JH. 2001. Dimensions of attrition in language death. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 175–89Hunn ES. 2001. Prospects for the persistence of “endemic” cultural systems of traditional

environmental knowledge: a Zapotec example. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 118–32Krauss M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68:4–10Kroeber AL. 1928. Native culture of the Southwest. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol.

23:375–98Kroeber AL. 1963 [1939]. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. Press (originally published in Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. Vol. 38)Lizarralde M. 2001. Biodiversity and loss of indigenous languages and knowledge in South

America. See Maffi 2001a, pp. 265–81Loh J, Harmon D. 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5(3):231–41Mace R, Pagel M. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in North

America. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:117–21Maffi L. 1998. Language: a resource for nature. Nature Resour. UNESCO J. Environ. Nat. Resour.

Res. 34(4):12–21

614 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Maffi L. 2001a. Language, knowledge, and indigenous heritage rights. See Maffi 2001c, pp.412–32

Maffi L. 2001b. Linking language and environment: a co-evolutionary perspective. In New Di-rections in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, ed. CL Crumley, pp. 24–48. WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira

Maffi L, ed. 2001c. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment.Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press

Maffi L. 2004. Conservation and the “two cultures”: bridging the gap. See Borrini-Feyerabendet al. 2004, pp. 256–66

Maffi L, Skutnabb-Kangas T, Andrianarivo J. 1999. Linguistic diversity. See Posey 1999, pp.21–57

Manne LL. 2003. Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and threatened levels of biologicaldiversity. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:517–27

Martin L. 1986. “Eskimo words for snow”: a case study in the genesis and decay of an anthro-pological example. Am. Anthropol. 88:418–23

McIntosh IS. 2001. Plan A and plan B partnerships for cultural survival. Cult. Surv. Q. 1(2):4–6McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeyer RA, Werner TB. 1990. Conserving the World’s

Biological Diversity. Gland, Switz./Washington, DC: IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, TheWorld Bank

Moore JL, Manne L, Brooks T, Burgess ND, Davies R, et al. 2002. The distribution of culturaland biological diversity in Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1645–53

Mufwene SS. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressMuhlhausler P. 1995. The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. In The Politics

of Multiculturalism in the Asia/Pacific, ed. D Myers, pp. 154–61. Darwin, Aust.: North.Territory Univ. Press

Muhlhausler P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the PacificRim. London: Routledge

Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Habitat. Washington, DC: CounterpointNabhan GP, Joe T, Maffi L, Pynes P, Seibert D, et al. 2002a. Safeguarding the Uniqueness of

the Colorado Plateau: An Ecoregional Assessment of Biocultural Diversity. Flagstaff, AZ: Cent.Sustainable Environ., Terralingua, Grand Canyon Wildlands Counc.

Nabhan GP, Pynes P, Joe T. 2002b. Safeguarding species, languages, and cultures in the timeof diversity loss: from the Colorado Plateau to global hotspots. Ann. Mo. Bot. Garden89:164–75

Nettle D. 1996. Language diversity in West Africa: an ecological approach. J. Anthropol. Ar-chaeol. 15:403–38

Nettle D. 1998. Explaining global patterns of linguistic diversity. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 17:354–74

Nettle D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Nettle D, Romaine S. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford:

Oxford Univ. PressNichols J. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language

66:475–521Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago PressNietschmann BQ. 1992. The interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. Occas. Pap.

21, Cent. World Indig. Stud., Olympia, WAOviedo G, Maffi L, Larsen PB. 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecore-

gion Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and CulturalDiversity. Gland, Switz.: WWF-Int., Terralingua


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Pawley A. 2001. Some problems of describing linguistic and ecological knowledge. See Maffi2001c, pp. 228–47

Posey DA, ed. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London/Nairobi: Intermed.Technol. Publ., UNEP

Posey DA. 2001. Biological and cultural diversity: the inextricable, linked by language andpolitics. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 379–96

Price D. 1990. Atlas of World Cultures. London: SagePullum GK. 1989. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Nat. Lang. Ling. Theory 7:275–81Robins RH, Uhlenbeck EM, eds. 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford: BergRoss N. 2002. Cognitive aspects of intergenerational change: mental models, cultural change,

and environmental behavior among the Lacandon Maya of southern Mexico. Hum. Organ.61:125–38

Sapir E. 1912. Language and environment. Am. Anthropol. 14:226–42Schleicher A. 1863. Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Boehlau H.Skutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education—Or Worldwide Diversity and Human

Rights? Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumSkutnabb-Kangas T, Harmon D. 2002. Review of Daniel Nettle, “Linguistic Diversity.” Lang.

Policy 1:175–82Skutnabb-Kangas T, Maffi L, Harmon D. 2003. Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity and companion map The World’s BioculturalDiversity: People, Languages, and Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO

Smith EA. 2001. On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. See Maffi2001c, pp. 95–117

Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. 2000. Transdisciplinarity: ReCreating Integrated Knowledge. Oxford:EOLLS

Stepp JR, Cervone S, Castaneda H, Lasseter A, Stocks G, et al. 2004. Development of a GISfor global biocultural diversity. See Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 267–70

Suckling K. 2000. A house on fire: linking the biological and linguistic diversity crises. Anim.Law 6:193–202

Sutherland WJ. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species.Nature 423:276–79

Toledo VM. 1994. Biodiversity and cultural diversity in Mexico. Differ. Drummer 1(3):16–19Turner NJ, Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty N. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural

edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Hum. Ecol. 31:439–61UNESCO. 2001. Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Approved by UNESCO’s Gen.

Conf., 31st Session, Paris. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf

UNESCO. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Int. Expert Meet. UNESCO Intan-gible Cult. Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert Group Endanger. Lang. Paris-Fontenoy,10–12March. Document approved by the participants on 31 March 2003, available athttp://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file download.php/1a41d53cf46e10710298d314450b97dfLanguage+Vitality.doc

Whorf BL. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technol. Rev. (MIT) 42:229–31, 247–48Wilcox BA, Duin KN. 1995. Indigenous cultural and biological diversity: overlapping values

of Latin American ecoregions. Cult. Surv. Q. 18(4):49–53Wollock J. 2001. Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: some implications for the language

sciences. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 248–62Zarger RK, Stepp JR. 2004. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children.

Curr. Anthropol. 45(3):413–18

616 Maffi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Zent S. 1999. The quandary of conserving ethnoecological knowledge: a Piaroa example. InEthnoecology: Knowledge, Resources, and Rights, ed. TL Gragson, BG Blount, pp. 90–124.Athens: Univ. Georgia Press

Zent S. 2001. Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela:demonstration of a quantitative method for the empirical study of TEK change. See Maffi2001c, pp. 190–211

Zent S, Lopez-Zent E. 2004. Ethnobotanical convergence, divergence, and change among theHoti of the Venezuelan Guayana. In Ethnobotany and Conservation of Biocultural Diversity,ed. TJS Carlson, L Maffi, pp. 37–78. Adv. Econ. Bot. Ser. Vol. 15. Bronx: New York Bot.Garden Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity C-1

Figu

re 1

Wor

ld m

ap s

how

ing

over

lap

of e

ndem

ism

in la

ngua

ges

and

high

er v

erte

brat

es. O

rigi

nal w

ork

by D

. Har

mon

, bas

ed o

n H

arm

on 1

996.

Fir

stpu

blis

hed

in M

affi

1998

. Rep

rodu

ced

with

per

mis

sion

.

HI-RES-AN34-29-Maffi.qxd 9/8/05 5:31 PM Page C-1

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

C-2 Maffi

Figu

re 2

Pla

nt d

iver

sity

and

lang

uage

dis

trib

utio

n. F

rom

Ste

pp e

t al.

2004

. Use

d w

ith p

erm

issi

on.

HI-RES-AN34-29-Maffi.qxd 9/8/05 5:31 PM Page C-2

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Indexes

Subject Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:599

-617

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

142

.173

.101

.138

on

10/0

9/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity · linguistic diversity, cultural diversity,...

Documents