the ethnography of south asian foragers

ANRV388-AN38-07 ARI 22 August 2009 10:26

The Ethnographyof South Asian ForagersJana FortierDepartment of Anthropology #0532, University of California San Diego, La Jolla,California 92093-0532; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009. 38:99–114

First published online as a Review in Advance onJune 23, 2009

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164345

Copyright c© 2009 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/09/1021-0099$20.00

Key Words

contemporary hunter-gatherers, egalitarian societies, subsistenceforaging, human ecology, cultural resilience, indigenous peoples

AbstractForty contemporary South Asian societies continue to carry out hunt-ing and gathering as their primary subsistence strategy, but who arethese societies? In which ways are they similar or dissimilar? Are theylike contemporary foragers in other world areas? This article reviewsethnographic research concerning contemporary South Asian foragerswith a focus on subsistence, cosmologies, and social organization. Majorconclusions are that evolutionary/devolutionary theories about foragersduring the documented ethnographic period lack reliable data and thattheories of trade between farmers and foragers ignore the paramountimportance of subsistence foraging practices. Currently, theories basedon interpretations of foragers’ own cultural categories and standpointsconstitute the most reliable ethnographic studies, and notable contri-butions are highlighted. Contemporary foragers themselves advocatethat their best chances for cultural survival depend on state govern-ments that maintain environmentally diverse, healthy forests, providecontemporary foraging communities access to their traditional naturalresources, and implement projects that foster cultural survival ratherthan assimilation.

99

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


SA: South Asian

Forager: Usedinterchangeably with“hunter-gatherer” inthis essay, one whocarries out foodcollecting; one whohunts, gathers, andfishes for resources

South Asiangeographic region:A geographical areabounded by the IndusRiver watershed;Brahmaputra Riverwatershed; AndamanSea; Sri Lanka; andMaldivian Islands

Contemporaryforagers: People whocarry out foodcollection activitiespresently or within thelast generation

Recent foragers:communities offoragers documentedin ethnographicstudies who now havefew or no families thatrely upon foodcollecting

INTRODUCTION

The ethnography of South Asian (SA) foragershas played an important part in the theory andhistorical imagination of contemporary anthro-pology, although specific contributions havenot always been apparent. Who exactly consti-tutes a forager in the South Asian geographic re-gion remains a product of particular intellectualhistories and colonial projects shaping culturalidentity. Foraging societies historically havebeen defined by subsistence practices, in themanner of Sandhwar (1978, p. 157), who dis-tinguished foraging Korwas, whose “economydepends on food collection,” from agriculturalKorwas, whose “economy depends on food pro-duction.” The distinction between contempo-rary foragers and agriculturalists neverthelessinvolves more than the exploitation of wild ver-sus domesticated resources. For this review, theforaging lifestyle is modeled as a particular set ofeconomic and social structures, which are but-tressed by a variable yet characteristic cosmo-logical worldview (Ingold 1999; Lee 1999, p. 4).It is the trio of work, sociality, and cosmologythat forms the fundamental criteria distinguish-ing foraging from other forms of social and eco-nomic life.

Current census data list 84.3 million ofIndia’s 1 billion people as “scheduled tribes”(Census of India 2001). Including Nepal and SriLanka, ∼1.5–2 million of South Asia’s sched-uled tribes rely upon hunting, gathering, andfishing and may be defined as contemporaryor recent foragers (Gautam & Thapa-Magar1994, Singh 1994). Reviewing ethnographiesand census data, an estimated 150,000 peoplefrom these societies continue to derive theirsubsistence from foraging. To put these figuresin perspective, the population of native peoplesin the United States and Canada is estimatedat three million, of which 150,000 people his-torically have been considered recent hunter-gatherers (Hitchcock & Biesele 2000, pp. 4–5);about 15,000 of them are part-time contempo-rary foragers who continue to garner much oftheir subsistence from hunting, gathering, andfishing. Thus, South Asia is home to severaltimes more full- and part-time contemporary

foragers than are other world areas. Excludingcultures described in the ethnographic litera-ture in which foraging is a minor activity andnot valorized, there are 40 contemporary so-cieties whose work, sociality, and cosmologicalworldviews meet the definition of foraging so-cieties. Their names are given below accordingto language family using the most common ex-onyms applied in scholarly literatures.

CONTEMPORARY SOUTH ASIANFORAGING PEOPLES

The foraging societies of the SA region speakone of six language families with Dravidian lan-guages being the most numerous and the isolatelanguage, Kusunda, being the most distinctivein grammatical form and vocabulary (Emeneau1989, Van Driem 2001, Watters 2006). In termsof population, Hill Kharias and Yanadis havethe largest contemporary foraging populationswith about 20,000 members of each ethnicgroup continuing subsistence foraging (Das1931, Dash 1998, Reddy & Reddy 1987, Rao2002, Thurston & Rangachari 1909, Vidyarthi& Upadhyay 1980). Several ethnic groups arehighly endangered with less than 350 memberswho continue subsistence foraging. Theseinclude the Aranadan, Jarawa, Jeru, Kusunda,Onge, Shompen, Vedda, and Yerukula. Addi-tionally, a number of ethnic groups that discon-tinued subsistence foraging in the 20th centuryare omitted from Table 1, below. The Nayadi,for example, are described as hunters whowere being assimilated into the Hindu castesystem as professional beggars at the time ofethnographic documentation (Aiyappan 1937).

Labeling foragers by ethnic names impliesa cohesive ethnic identity, but in reality, thererarely is a correspondence between a namedethnicity and a mode of subsistence; three sit-uations can arise. First, a one-to-one corre-spondence does exist in some situations. Whenvirtually all people of a named ethnic grouppractice foraging, and few or none do not,naming is unproblematic. All Onges of theLittle Andaman Islands, for example, prac-tice foraging (Basu 1990, Pandya 1991). The

100 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Table 1 List of contemporary South Asian foraging peoples

Language Family Contemporary South Asian Foraging PeoplesAndamanese Jeru, Jarawa (Eng), Onge, Puchikwar, SentineleseAustroasiatic Birhor, Hill Bondo (Remo), Hill Juang, Hill Kharia, Hill Korwa, ShompenDravidian Allar, Aranadan, Betta Kurumba, Chenchu, Chingathan, Cholanayakan, Jenu

Kurumba, Kadu Kurumba, Kadar, Kanikkar, Malapandaram, Malamalasar(Mahamalasar), Malavedan, Mavilan, Mudugar, Nattu Malayar, Nayaka,Paliyan, Paniyar, Sholigar, Ulladar, Urali, Yanadi, Yerukula (Kurru)

Indo-European (IE) VeddaIsolate KusundaTibeto-Burman Banraji, Raji, Raute, Chepang, Puroik (Sulung)

second situation arises when a named ethnicgroup has various subsistence pursuits and aminority of them practice subsistence forag-ing. For example, few Veddas pursue forag-ing for their livelihood, whereas others are re-cent foragers and the majority practice foodcultivation and fishing (Brow 1978, 1990;Dharmadasa & Samarasinghe 1990; Schalk2004; Seligman & Seligman 1911). Third, inother situations, dominant polities give sev-eral different foraging groups one ethnonym,such as “forest people” or “hill people.” Exam-ples include Banraja (“forest kings”), Kurumba(“shepherd, nomad, mountaineer, jungle peo-ple”), Allar (“forest people”), and Kattunaikenor Kattu Nayaka (“wild/forest leaders”). Thisethnonymic merging occurs when nonforagerslump together a number of seemingly similarethnic groups living in remote areas. For exam-ple, of the 180,000 people known as Kurumba,many of those considered foraging commu-nities are differentiated using modifiers suchas the Upland Kurumba, Elephant special-ist Kurumba, Neem tree–collecting Kurumba,Honey-collecting Kurumba, and Firebrandwielding Kurumba. Most of these groups to-day complement part-time foraging with foodcultivation. A few of these groups continue sub-sistence foraging such as the Jenu Kurumba,also known as Kattu Nayaka, who number∼35,000 people, with subgroups using the self-designation Nayaka (Bird-David 1994, 1999b,Demmer 1997, Zvelebil 1981, 1988). Thus,lumping foragers of different locations, dialects,and cultural practices obscures, yet reflects, theprocess and politics of ethnic naming.

Subsistence foraging:Food collecting for asignificant or majorproportion of one’ssubsistence

Part-time foraging:food collecting for aminor proportion ofone’s diet andvalorizing the foraginglifestyle

From foraging peoples’ perspectives, identi-fying social difference is based on criteria suchas territory, sartorial choice, language varia-tion, or clan group. Our list of foraging so-cieties does not assume a one-to-one correla-tion between ethnic names and foraging groupsand may not represent foragers’ own ethnicdivisions. Furthermore, contemporary forageridentities are not diachronically accurate. Overtime, foraging groups may splinter and createnew identities through ethnogenesis (Fortier2009, p. 27; Schalk 2004), or they may be as-similated into surrounding dominant polities(Reddy & Reddy 1987, Zvelebil 1981).

“MOST PRIMITIVE TRIBES” INTHE BRITISH AND INDIANCOLONIAL IMAGINATION

While describing the people of Ceylon (SriLanka) in the seventeenth century, Directorvan Goens of the Dutch East India Companynoted, “The Veddas are the original inhabitantsof old. . .those people neither sow nor cultivate,but live off of hunting, honey, and a type ofearth-acorn [wild yam] which grows abundantlyin those forests” (Valentijn 2002, pp. 208–9).Thus began a series of descriptions by colonialscholars and administrators to catalog the for-aging peoples of South Asia who were givenepithets such as “aboriginal tribes,” “brokentribes,” or “primitive tribes” (Aiyappan 1948,Ananthakrishna Iyer 1909, Atkinson 1884,Dalton 1872, Forsyth 1889, Hamilton 1819,Knox 1681, Krishna Iyer 1941, Man 1885,Parker 1909, Radcliffe-Brown 1933, Thurston

www.annualreviews.org • The Ethnography of South Asian Foragers 101

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Food cultivators:People who plantcrops and/or keeplivestock. A continuumof productive formsranges from full-timeforaging to full-timecultivation

& Rangachari 1909). The anthropologists whofollowed the colonial scholars were fascinatednot only by exotic forest-dwelling peoples, butwith the idea of their primordialism. Evolu-tionists and diffusionists supposed that SA for-agers represented an original state of humanity(Das 1931, Ehrenfels 1952, Furer-Haimendorf1943, Roy 1925, Seligman & Seligman 1911).Yet other scholars viewed them as devolved for-mer members of agrarian society; Veddas wereassumed to be Sinhalese colonists who gave upagriculture to pursue forest foraging (Parker1909). The case for devolution to forest-basedcastes rested on circumstances that some tribalpeoples told folk stories of once being highcastes (S. Sinha 1962), whereas medieval Indicliteratures described ferocious forest-dwellingpeoples who paid tribute to the early states(Thapar 2001). Generally, premodern ethno-graphers combined descriptions of everydaypractices of foraging-based communities withlarge doses of preconceptions, yet their workscan be reread as texts containing new insightsinto historical interactions.

Devolutionary models have remaineddifficult to validate but have gained popularityin the ensuing years. Part of the popularitystems from political interests. Coveting theresources of forest-dwelling peoples, statesdenied foragers their rights to raw resources(Gadgil and Guha 1993, Sivaramakrishnan1995, Skaria 1999). Some scholars even triedto fit existing data into devolutionary theoriesserving nation-state interests by describingforagers as “criminal tribes” (Tolen 1991) whosteal forest resources from dominant state own-ership. From a colonial viewpoint, it was betterto treat foragers as people who needed to bereintroduced into modern society rather thanpeople who deserved respect and territories asdistinctly different forest-dwelling societies. Ifsome anthropologists furthered state policiesas the handmaidens of colonialism, otherswere the manservants of development. AfterIndian independence, numerous projectssprang up to solve the “problem of tribal iso-lation” (Mahendrakumar 2005), a euphenismreferring to ethnic groups that had not

assimilated into the Indian state and had notsuccumbed to ethnocide. Some anthropologistssuch as Majumdar (1929) argued for the preser-vation of technologically simple societies. Yetmany anthropologists advocated the intro-duction of schools, clinics, and farming tech-nologies to the “backward tribal communities”(Tiwari 1997:1) which are now officially catego-rized by the Government of India as “PrimitiveTribal Groups” (Bose 1963, Bhattacharjee1980, Misra 1977, Mohanty 2002, Sharma2006, Sinha 1968). As Shashi (1994, p. 64) notedwhen writing about the Yanadi, the fallout fromsuch policies resulted in ethnocide, and “thegovernment’s denial of Yanadis to their foragingareas caused the death-knell of Yanadi tradi-tional subsistence” (compare Raghaviah 1962).Likewise, other foragers succumbed to the lossof their resources; they became landless tenants,suffered declining birthrates, and were assim-ilated into complex societies (Gurung 1989,Keyes 2002, Patnaik 2006, Reinhard 1976a,Verma 1977, Vidyarthi & Upadhyay 1980,Watters 2006). Broadly speaking, SA foragingstudies concerning long-term histories andevolutionary change over time are not scien-tifically illegitimate pursuits; rather, they arefounded on colonial interests in the absorptionof small-scale societies together with thecapture of their forest resources. Ethnographicstudies grounded in primordialist or devo-lutionary positions are manifestations of thecolonial imagination in primitive peoples and,as such, represent untenable folk theories.

THE NATURE OF FORAGINGCULTURES

SA foraging-based societies display a rangeof kinship systems, ideologies, and subsistencestrategies, but all are marked by a set of ide-ologies, work, and sociality, which differ inrecognizable ways from those of food cultiva-tors. SA foragers share certain features withother foragers worldwide, such as diffusion ofauthority, mobile settlement patterns, sharingof resources and tools, immediate consump-tion of foods, limited control over others, a

102 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


valuing of individual autonomy, and a valuingof food collection rather than food cultivation.Like egalitarian foragers elsewhere, SA foragersreject the notion of being part of a society;they are free from a social framework structuredby political control over individuals (Ingold1986, 1999). Instead, they live in families,bands, and clans in which decisions are achievedconsensually within social systems that aremarked by diffused power. Some researchersdepict such micropolitical relations as anar-chies, citing notable lack of authority over la-bor and decision-making of other group mem-bers (Barnard & Woodburn 1988, Gardner1991, Morris 1982). Other researchers, work-ing with formative states and complex foragingsocieties, depict political decisions as forms ofheterarchy, in which social power is distributedalong a continuum of individuals, temporaryleaders, and regionally situated bands; the el-ements are unranked relative to one another(Crumley 1987, p. 158). SA foraging societiesgenerally do display political decision-makingthat can be defined as either heterarchical oranarchic because individual decisions cannot beenforced by elders, religious edicts, or writtenlegal systems. Instead, people learn to be goodorators, using the rhetorical power of persua-sion to influence other individuals. As such,various bands and individuals form their owndecisions about when to move camp and whatfoods to forage (Fortier 2009, p. 27). SA for-aging families share not only an emphasis onindividual and group autonomy, but also a dis-tinctive form of sociality, which stresses relat-edness to others rather than objectifications ofothers. As Bird-David (1999a) noted, SA for-agers ask not “What is it?” but “Who is it?”when dealing with other sentient beings (ani-mals, wind, weather, spirits) in their environ-ment. Another of the key features of foragersworldwide, and in the subcontinent, involvesthe sharing of food, materials, and skills withinforaging communities. The moral economy ofsharing has been explored among communitiesof Onge (Pandya 1991, 1993), Raute (Fortier2000, 2001), Nayaka (Bird-David 1990), andPaliyan (Gardner 1993). Although there are

contours of difference, all the region’s foragingcommunities demonstrate extensive sharing ofmaterials and resources.

One means of exploring the range of SAforaging sociality involves study of the rela-tionship of subsistence strategies to settlementpractices. South Indian foragers often adoptbroad-spectrum foraging patterns. Nayaka andPaliyan, for example, opportunistically hunta broad range of mostly smaller species andincorporate flexible settlement patterns, whichenable them to adopt nomadism or sedentismunder different conditions (Bird-David 1992,Gardner 1985). Northern foraging groupsliving in steeper montane environments,such as Rautes, Puroik, and Birhor, favormore focused foraging of medium-sized prey(langur, macaque, porcupine). Such huntingnecessitates nomadic, flexible settlementsnear ever-changing hunting patches (Fortier2003, Kumar 2004, Roy 1925, Stoner 1952,Williams 1968). Yet others such as Hill Kharia,Raji, and Chepang favor a mixture of broad-spectrum foraging of bats, porcupines, anddeer combined with semisedentary settlements(Das 1931; Fortier 2009, p. 36; Gurung 1989;Reinhard 1976b; Roy & Roy 1937). A keyfeature of all SA foraging societies is thatthey tend to carry their technology “in themind” (Ridington 1988, p. 107); techniques andknowledge are critical to understanding foragersociality. Spear hunting, for example, involvesthe hunter’s knowledge of animals, their loca-tion, their habits, and also hunting techniques.For example, Chenchus use a long-tip malearrow for hunting smaller game (hare, monitorlizard, jungle cat, barking deer, giant squirrel,mongoose, jungle fowl, pea fowl) but use a tri-angular, barbed female point for hunting largergame (nilgai, wild boar, porcupine, mouse deer,langur). Chenchu hunters also use kattamaram(catamarans) to hunt sambar deer wading inrivers (Furer-Haimendorf 1943, Shashi 1994).

Other studies explore how political contin-gencies shape foraging strategies. For exam-ple, there have been few prohibitions againstTibetic peoples hunting langur and macaque.Whereas Rautes in Nepal rely on monkey


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


hunting, the Banrajis in India ceased huntingmonkey a century ago because of Hindu pro-hibitions (Atkinson 1884, p. 367). Banrajis nowhunt porcupine as their favorite prey species,one more acceptable to Hindus and forestry of-ficials (Fortier 2009, p. 173; Negi et al. 1982).In Indian forests, officials have taxed forest re-sources, making traditional hunting difficult.Yet Indian foragers continue to hunt the dozenprimate species of the subcontinent, often sur-reptitiously to avoid condemnation of their ac-tivities (Adhikary 1984b, Bhanu 1989, Morris1982). Broadly, SA foragers adapt their preychoices and techniques to protect themselvesfrom laws and competition from agrarian set-tlements. Kadars discontinued archery to avoidthreats from forestry officials (Ehrenfels 1952,pp. 27, 56), Paliyans and Nayakas discontin-ued using hunting dogs (Gardner 2000, p. 243;Naveh 2007, p. 198), and Rautes claimed thatthey throw deer out of their hunting nets be-cause this prey is reserved for farmers (Fortier2009, p. 80).

Researchers have highlighted several com-monalities and differences in the hunting andgathering repertoires of SA foragers. For ex-ample, Shompen, Banraji, Raute, Onge, Jarawa,and Chepang all use wooden-tipped spearswhile hunting (Caughley 2000, Fortier 2009,Pandya 2000, Patnaik 2006), yet particularspear uses are distinctive. Banrajis, for example,whittle mountain ebony (Bauhenia variegata)into spears shortly before dispatching prey, butthey may also flip one to wield as a club, mounton the shoulder as a carrying pole, establish itin a hut as a shelter pole, reconfigure it intoa digging stick, or utilize it as a walking stick.The wooden-tipped spear becomes an efficientmultipurpose tool and Banrajis use few otherweapons. Note, however, that Banrajis give dif-ferent names for these items: spear (lo’he), dig-ging stick (dzaa’to), and mainstay pole (khaabung). Thus these spears become eminently dis-tinct cultural items rather than undifferenti-ated multipurpose tools. Other foragers, suchas Kusundas, have also relied on spears but in-corporate them into larger hunting repertoires

to complement the use of bow/arrows, poison,axes, nets, and traps (Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1959;Reinhard 1968, 1976a; Watters 2006). Investi-gators have found a few uncommon technolo-gies, as well. Chepangs and Jenu Kurumba (andrecent foragers, the Chidimar) attach birdlime,a gummy resin, onto bamboo poles, whichthey telescope into trees to stick birds, caus-ing them to fall to the forest floor (Caughley2000, Gautam & Thapa-Magar 1994, Kayal2009). Although SA blow-guns are infrequentlyused among SA foragers (Hutton 1924), HillKharias employ unique bamboo blowguns fit-ted with darts that have an array of two or moresharp tips (Peterson 2006, p. 279). Bow-and-arrow hunting is still a common activity amongHill Bondos (Anderson & Harrison 2008,Elwin 1950).

Hunting techniques also influence settle-ment sizes (Kelly 1995; Roscoe 1990, 2002);larger groups of Chepang, Raute, Raji, andSoligar use communal hunting techniques. Var-ious people carry nets, act as beaters, and dis-patch multiple animals caught in nets. AmongChepangs, spread nets are flung over large figtrees where sleeping bats are then entangledand dispatched (Caughley 1976, Gurung 1995).Among Birhors and Rautes, spread nets aretied to trees, and hunters persuade monkeysto run into the nets (Fortier 2009, Roy 1925,Singh 1997). To have enough hunters, nomadicRautes maintain a fluctuating group of 8–30hunters within a total settlement population of85–150 people (Fortier 2000, Reinhard 1974).Living in smaller settlements, foragers such asChenchu, Hill Kharia, and Shompen use spears,traps, and bow and arrow to capture single prey.Hill Pandaram have been theorized as hav-ing smaller, more autonomous groups becauseof commercial trade (Morris 1982). Paliyanshunt individually or in small groups usingspears, billhooks, and deadfall traps (Gardner1991, 1993). Hill Korwa and Puroik have bothcommunal and individualistic hunting tech-niques (Majumdar 1929, Stoner 1952). Al-though investigators have researched huntingand settlement patterns in other world areas,

104 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


additional research is needed in South Asia tounderstand the relationship of settlement pat-terns and hunting techniques.

With the devastation of the subcontinent’sfaunal resources, many South Indian foragersare better known for their foraging and knowl-edge of plant resources, especially those livingin monsoon climates with variations rangingfrom warm, temperate mediterranean climatesto temperate or cool subtropical climates (Peelet al. 2007). They rely on key wild resourcessuch as yams (Dioscorea spp.), palms (Borassusspp.), and taro (Colocasia spp.) in addition to100+ locally available plants. In addition to ed-ibles, SA foragers use many similar construc-tion materials, including Bauhenia, Boehmeria,Dendrocalamus, Urtica, and Giardinia for thatch,rope, woven baskets, nets, and traps. Harvest-ing honey and beeswax has been a key featureof many SA foraging societies. The region ishome to native stinging (Apis spp.) and stin-gless bees (Melipona spp.), giving SA foragersan added dimension to their subsistence com-pared with other foragers worldwide (Crane1999, p. 11). Veddas have kept nests of stin-gless bees in their rock shelters (Seligman &Seligman 1911), Malapandarams collect honeyfrom five bee species (Morris 1982, pp. 84–87), Paliyans and Rajis climb cliffs to reachcombs of aggressive Apis dorsata bees (Gardner1993, pp. 126–27; Valli 1998), and Birhors col-lect honey from the milder Apis species living intree trunks (Dash 1998, p. 216). Other studieshave analyzed honey-collecting rituals, fictiverelationships between hunters and bees, andemotive ties of collectors and bees (Demmer1997, 2004; Ehrenfels 1952; Furer-Haimendorf1943; Gardner 1993; Rai 1985). Although thereappears to be a trend toward increased commer-cial trade of honey and other forest products,many SA foragers incorporate honey into theirsubsistence diets.

FORAGER SOCIALITY

Foragers’ sociality must be appreciated notonly through their subsistence strategies, but

also through their social and kinship orga-nizations. Most SA foraging societies featurebilateral descent reckoning, bilateral cross-cousin marriage preferences, bilocal residencepatterns, and Dravidian or Hawaiian kinshipnomenclature. When clans exist, they aremostly patriclans, in which children name theirfather’s family as the consanguinal kin. Many ofthe foraging societies valorize marriage with ei-ther parent’s cross-sex sibling’s child, enablinga social balance between consanguines andaffines. Such double-helix marriage preferencesextend upward in generation, enabling ego tomarry a variety of kin and meshing the bound-aries of consanguinal and affinal kin (Furer-Haimendorf 1943, Morab 1977, Rao 2002).

Concerning band organization, most soci-eties are composed of clan-based groups. Clan-based kin systems indicate flexible changesin clan identities over generations; some for-aging groups even adopt the clan names ofneighboring food cultivators. For example,Caughley (2000, p. 332) records Chepang-speaking groups as maintaining their traditionalRed-Earth and Black-Earth clans, whereas Rai(1985) records other Chepang groups recentlyadopting Hindu lineage names. As part oftheir impression management strategies withoutsiders, Rautes have recently adopted Indicclan names (Raskoti, Kalyal); whereas Banrajisalso have Indic clan names (Pateto, Patchpaya,Galdiyar, Barpelo) (Fortier 2009). Broadly, SAforagers’ clan identities may be of apparentlylong duration in some cases or, in contrast, havebeen recently adopted in other cases. In casesof societies with clan systems, these identitieshave been based on totemism (i.e., Chenchu,Puroik), territorial affiliations (Raute, Korwa),or features such as hunting specialities (HillKorwa, Mannan, Kurumba, Yanadi). In casesof societies without clan systems (e.g., Paliyan,Kusunda, Mahamalasar, and Malapandaram),social relations are based on classificatory kin-ship, causing consanguineal versus affinal affil-iation largely to order social relations. Morecomplex descent groups also occur, such as moi-ety systems (e.g., Hill Bondo) and phratries


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


(Kanikkar and Kadar). Matrilineal societiesreportedly include the Kanikkar, Ulladar,Mahamalasar, Malavedan, and Urali (KrishnaIyer 1941).

In the subcontinent, all the foraging so-cieties use Dravidian forms of kinship, in-dicating that marriage is preferred with across-cousin but that parallel cousin marriageis considered incestuous. The only excep-tion involves societies of Andaman Islanderswho reportedly use Hawaiian kinship systems,which merge all cousins and siblings, mak-ing cousin-marriage untenable (Basu 1990,pp. 54–65; Radcliffe-Brown 1933, pp. 53–70).Although most of the societies under discus-sion valorize bilateral cross-cousin marriage,the Malavedam, Kanikkar, Kharia, Kusunda,Ulladan, and Yerukula reportedly prefer matri-lateral cross-cousin marriage only. This prac-tice may be native to these groups or otherwiseindicate adoption of the marriage preferences ofthe surrounding dominant agrarian societies.

The foragers of the subcontinent are egal-itarian, yet forms of shifting authority are in-vested within the kinship system. Broadly, for-aging groups recognize married elder menand women as having more authority: Kinshipforms denote primogeniture, persuasive eldersact as temporary leaders (Sanskrit: nayaka), andopinions of rhetorically gifted elders hold morepolitical weight. Among patrilineal Kusundas,for example, political power varies by the rela-tionship of ego to others in their kinship net-work. Ego’s paternal uncle carries more author-ity than do other relatives, and ego addresseshim by one of six names according to his maritalstatus and relative age (Watters 2006). In deal-ing with outsiders, many foraging societies havedesignated particular male elders to speak ontheir behalf. For example, among Chenchus, a“big man” ( peddamanchi ) speaks with outsidersconcerning administrative issues with govern-ment officials (Turin 1999, p. 254).

Just as kinship systems regulate forager so-ciality, so do foragers’ religious and cosmo-logical beliefs. Foragers manifest their be-liefs using portable materials and techniques,

with strong emotive ties to ancestral spiritualessences rather than to memorialized individualancestors (Adhikary 1984b; Bird-David 1999a;Gardner 1991; Morris 1982; Pandya 1993).Foragers such as the Birhor, Chepang, Raute,and Vedda believe that community membersbecome benign human spirits (Adhikary 1984b,Caughley 2000, Fortier 2009, Meegaskumbura1990, Seligman & Seligman 1911). Onges pro-pitiate benign and malevolent ancestral spir-its (Pandya 1993, 2000); Jenu Kurumbas arguewith lonely, potentially angry beings in need ofreconciliation with the living (Demmer 2001).

When conducting healing ceremoniesor communicating with deceased relatives,SA foraging communities conduct shamanicrituals (Bird-David 1996, Gardner 1991,Morris 1981, Reinhard 1976b). Foragers’handling of illness and injury has been exam-ined in terms of etiological beliefs, diagnosticpractices, ritual symbolism, and dialogic dis-course (Bird-David 2004; Demmer 2001, 2004,2006; Gardner 1995). Shamanic ceremoniesinvolve cacophonous music, possession andaltered states of consciousness, confrontationswith deities or spirits, and night-long events(Rahman 1959, Riboli 2000, Watters 1975),and philosophically complex belief systemshave been recorded among Onges (Pandya1993). Disease etiologies of SA foragers can berelated to supernatural conflicts or attributedto natural causes and treated with herbalremedies. Studies of ethnopharmacology andethnomedical systems suggest that foragers’naturalistic medical knowledge particularlyconcerns both indigenous theories of diseasecausation (Gardner 1995) and practical knowl-edge concerning fractures, bruises, stomachaches, sore muscles, and bites, among othersthat are common to nomadic foraging lifestyles(Manandhar 1998).

Foragers’ rituals and cosmologies includenot only human relatives, but nonhuman rel-atives and other-than-human persons. Ethno-graphers have recorded SA foragers as recog-nizing rock ancestors, grandparent deities, yambeings, bee mothers and comb lords, monkey

106 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


brothers, and bear kings as relatives. For ex-ample, Chenchu youths compliment a girlby comparing her to a monkey (Thurston &Rangachari 1909, pp. II, 35), and Rautes callmonkeys their “little brothers” (Fortier 2000).Broadly, SA foragers create a distinctive egali-tarian, relational bond with other sentient be-ings whom they honor as integral to their socialrelations. This view asserts that animism is un-derstood as a subjective relationship with othersentient beings and has been reformulatedas a relational ontology (Bird-David 1999a,Bird-David & Naveh 2008). SA foragers alsohonor supernatural relatives and beings. For ex-ample, the solar deity among SA foragers incentral and northern areas is known by theroot cognate Gwah among Kusunda, Raute,and neighboring foraging horticulturalists; an-other name uses the root form Dar. A detached,distant persona, the solar deity is figured asa creator-parent figure. The Birhor describedthemselves as the “children of the Sun (Darha)”(Adhikary 1984b, Roy 1925), Banrajis say theSun (Diho) created yams and water before cre-ating themselves so that they would have some-thing to eat, and Rautes say “Damu created us”(Fortier 2009, p. 147). A male deity, known asBer, regulates hunting among Korwa, Kharia,Juang, Birhor, and Raute, and a female deityknown as Kayu acts similarly for Banraji andKusunda. Chenchus propitiate Gare(la), giv-ing flowers and asking this female deity of theforests to keep them safe during hunts, to avoidpredators, to find food, etc. Veddas propiti-ate a male hunting deity, Kande, with elaboratedances, and Paliyans ask male and female deitiesfor aid during hunts. A class of impersonal su-pernatural forces, representing mostly thun-der, earthquakes, and other weather storms, isprevalent among some of the foraging commu-nities. The Banraji of Kumaun, for example,fear Bayna Ha’wa, a “great [wind] force” thatcauses people to die immediately (Fortier 2009,p. 156), whereas Andaman Islanders determinecamp moves according to supernatural windforces (Pandya 1993). SA foragers acknowledgemany borrowed Hindu deities, yet these play a

minor role; occasionally foragers conduct ritu-als for Hindu villagers (Gardner 1988), attendmajor yearly Hindu celebrations, or incorpo-rate local Hindu deities into healing rituals.

The ritual life of SA foragers involvesexpressive and material culture; SA foragerslearn about rituals through observing, imitat-ing, experimenting, and mimicking their adepts(Bird-David 2005, Gardner 2000, Naveh 2007,Pandya 2005). They also incorporate expres-sive cultures of play and painting (Gardner2000, Pandya 2009), wood carving (Ehrenfels1952, Fortier 2009), and verbal and perfor-mance arts (Demmer 2006, Elwin 1950, Fortier2002). Expressive cultures vary, but empha-size using portable materials, verbal arts, sim-ple/repetitious design elements, empty/opendesign spaces, symmetry, few boundaries, andpractical arts combining form and function.

TRADE, POLITICS, ANDINTERCULTURAL RELATIONS

All contemporary foragers worldwide are tiedto external economies and political institutions,becoming encapsulated within neighboringdominant systems (Lee 2006, Woodburn 1982).SA foragers, too, have interacted with largerpolities, and a number of writings addresscross-cultural politics and social relations (i.e.,Morris 1982; Obeyesekere 2009; Tharakan2003, 2007). Unlike Native Americans, orAustralian Aborigenes, SA foraging societieshave experienced no great transformationduring which spreading farm-based societiessuddenly impinged on foragers, at least in theethnographic record. Instead, foragers of theOld World, including Africa, have managedcontact and trade relations with complexagrarian societies for millenia and continued tomaintain their distinctive foraging mode of pro-duction (Allchin 1958, Denbow 1984, Lukacs1990, Morrison & Junker 2002, Robbins et al.2000, Stiles 1993). Contemporary SA foragingsocieties represent those who, despite havinglost many of their natural resources to defor-estation and spreading farming populations,


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


have been unwilling to cross over to foodcultivation and its distinct cultural differences.

Contemporary SA foragers reflect a con-tinuum of adaptive responses to encapsula-tion, encroachment, and increasingly intensivetrade. Their strategies involve activities suchas protecting their beliefs and practices, ac-cepting government land allotments and devel-opment grants, and collecting forest productsfor trade. For example, of the 66,000 Korwaof northern India, ∼3164 depend on a foodcollection–based economy (Majumdar 1929,Sandhwar 1978, Singh 1994). With shrinkingforest resources, these remaining foragers con-tinue broad-spectrum hunting, using bow andarrow, axes, traps, and a few old guns to huntpig, blackbuck, deer, feral cow, sambar, rabbits,and birds. But while hunting, they have inten-sified their bamboo collections, chopping reedsto weave baskets that are sold in nearby vil-lages. Whereas bamboo used to be valued forsubsistence, it has increasingly become valuedfor exchange, causing increased social interac-tion between foragers and farmers. Malapan-darams too now gather forest produce in ex-change for rice, cloth, and iron (Morris 1982);Birhors weave and sell Bauhenia rope (Roy1925); and many SA foragers trade honey tononforagers.

Most researchers who refer to SA foragersas “professional primitives” (Bose 1956, Fox1969, Seligman & Seligman 1911) have failedto appreciate the degree to which foragingeconomies have depended on forest resourcesfor their own subsistence. While SA foragersengage in trade with others, it hinders un-derstanding of forager economics and social-ity to label them “professional primitives,” aspeople who subsist by selling forest productsin markets. Indeed, such interpretations pre-vented foragers from claiming cultural rightsover traditional hunting and gathering territo-ries, causing undue hardship when they weredenied access to forests by state governments.In the last generation, however, foraging stud-ies researchers appreciate better the relation-ship of foragers to their environments and theirresources, focusing less on trade itself and more

on the role of trade within foraging economies(Bird-David 1990, 1992; Fortier 2001; Gardner1985; Tharakan 2003). Although there exist pri-mary ethnographies on forager resource uses,contemporary researchers need to spend muchmore time documenting the ethnobiology offoragers’ subsistence practices and beliefs (com-pare Dash 1998, Singh 1997).

SA foragers have conducted not only tradewith others, but a variety of economic ex-changes, including patron-clientage, wage la-bor, bonded labor, and payment of in-kind taxesof forest produce. In their dealings with agrar-ian societies, foragers have used a variety of in-tercultural exchange strategies. Gardner (1985,2000) describes “bicultural oscillation” and “bi-cultural versatility” as the flexible movement toand from underclass worker to forest forager incultural frontier settings. This notion has en-abled some scholars to account for transitionsin forager lifestyles and identities (e.g., Stiles2001). Fortier (2002) sees impression manage-ment as an interactional strategy allowing for-agers to engage safely in trade with outsiders.The Seligmans (1911) described Veddas per-forming dances for outsiders rather than deliv-ering forest produce. Various researchers havedescribed silent trade techniques that foragersemploy. For example, Banrajis wordlessly leavewooden bowls in villagers’ courtyards, expect-ing them to fill the bowls with grain and keepthe bowls (Atkinson 1884). Kusundas leave deerin villager courtyards hoping for an exchangefor villager goods (Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1959).Puroiks provide forest produce to their agrar-ian neighbors on occasion (Furer-Haimendorf1955, p. 157; Stoner 1952). One area of notabledifference among SA foragers involves theirperceptions of outsiders and their reactionsto outsiders during trade and communication.Whereas some societies, such as Paliyans, arenotably peaceful (Gardner 2004), even beingcharacterized as “original peaceful societies” inpopular literatures, others such as Sentinelese,Ongees and Jarawa are known in the literaturefor violent reactions to encroachment and out-siders’ trade initiatives (Pandit 1990, Pandya2000, Radcliffe-Brown 1933).

108 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Thus, SA foragers have engaged in intercul-tural trade and communication through a va-riety of strategies. Reviewing the literature, itis notable that foragers who traded in nonre-newable resources, particularly bushmeat, oftenfell into patronage or peonage and/or assimi-lated into farming communities. Foragers whotraded in quickly renewable resources (jute,rope, carved wood, bamboo, honey) apparentlyhave experienced more cultural resilience. Sucheconomic relations may have been based onbarter in the past, but with agrarian encroach-ment, some foragers engage in other types ofeconomic exchange such as wage labor and mar-keting. It may not matter whether SA foragersdeveloped economies of exchange with othersfor them to be considered foragers; such rela-tions affected but did not alter the fundamentalrealities of SA foraging as founded on huntingand gathering, kinship-based social organiza-tions, and spirit-based religions.

EMERGING TRENDSAND CONCLUSIONS

Foraging groups throughout the subcontinentcontinue to share a constellation of featuresdistinguishing them from neighboring agrarianpopulations. In addition to avoidance of foodcultivation, contemporary SA foraging societiesuse simple tools, share tools and resources, relyon short-term food storage systems, consumefood resources directly, avoid manipulation ofuncultivated resources, live in biologically richand diverse environments, avoid sociopoliticalcontrol over others, use kinship-based socialsystems, worship relatively complex groups ofspirits and deities, and use animate relationalontologies to organize their cultural worlds.Compared with agrarian populations, SAhunter-gatherers are more mobile and flexiblein their land use, influence others throughpersuasion rather than physical force, placesanctions on accumulation of property, andemploy political practices to ensure that elders’authority is limited. All the contemporary for-aging societies of southern Asia in this review

are egalitarian rather than nonegalitarianforagers (Kelly 1995, p. 31; Woodburn 1982).

As Hymes (1973) advocated years ago, thebest theory making is done among a field of the-ories rather than among dominant paradigmsthat are constantly challenged, torn down, andreconstituted. The study of SA foragers ulti-mately benefits from the creative theory makingof many rather than the top-down theory mak-ing of a few. However, considering there are 40distinct foraging populations in South Asia, theproduction of notable anthropological disser-tations and monographs in the past decade hasbeen relatively minimal (Demmer 2006, Fortier2009, Gardner 2000, Kumar 2004, Naveh 2007,Norstrom 2003, Pandya 2009, Rao 2002, Riboli2000, Samal 2000, Venkateswar 2004, Watters2006). Offsetting this trend, however, studiesof SA foraging societies are broadening and be-ing undertaken in development studies, sociol-ogy, cultural geography, linguistics, and botany,among other disciplines (i.e., Singh 1997,Manandhar 1998).

In the near future, one should expect tosee anthropological research concerning pol-itics, identity, ethnobiology, cultural ecology,sociolinguistics, cognitive studies, native episte-mologies, and human rights. For example, for-aging communities soon may be able to demon-strate rights to their aboriginal territories andresources. SA area scholars will conceivably fa-cilitate contemporary foraging peoples’ effortsto gain their land and civil rights. Most groupsemphasize that they need access to rich forestresources to continue their foraging lifestyles,yet many have been evicted from their tradi-tional habitats (Gardner 2004, Reddy & Reddy1987, Stegeborn 1999). Giving oral testimonyto their hardships, researchers increasingly fa-cilitate their endeavors to obtain rights to tradi-tional resources (Norstrom 2003, Singh 1997,Venkateswar 2004). Overall, although SA for-aging communities have had many differenthistorical experiences, they all continue to de-pend on foraged foods and anchor their iden-tities as people living in biologically rich anddiverse environments.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that mightbe perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research relevant to the preparation of this article is gratefully acknowledged from the FulbrightFoundation in 2004–2005 and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research in1997 and 2001. Special thanks go to Peter Gardner for helpful comments on the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Adhikary AK. 1984a. Hunters and gatherers in India: a preliminary appraisal of their structure and transfor-mation. J. Indian Anthropol. Soc. 19:8–16

Adhikary AK. 1984b. Society and world view of the Birhor: a nomadic, hunting, and gathering community of Orissa.Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India

Aiyappan A. 1937. Social and physical anthropology of the Nayadis of Malabar. Bulletin of the Madras Govern-ment Museum, New Series, II(4):1–23. Madras: Government Press

Aiyappan A. 1948. Report on the Socio-Economic Conditions of the Aboriginal Tribes of the Province of Madras.Madras: Gov. Press

Allchin B. 1958. The late stone age of Ceylon. J. R. Anthropol. Soc. of Great Britain and Ireland 88:179–201Ananthakrishna Iyer LK. 1909. The Cochin Tribes and Castes. Madras: HigginbothamAnderson G, Harrison KD. 2008. Remo (Bondo). In The Munda Languages, ed. G Anderson, pp. 557–632.

London: RoutledgeAtkinson ET. 1884. The Himalayan District of the North-Western Provinces of India, Vol. 2. Allahabad: North-

Western Prov. Oudh Gov. PressBarnard A, Woodburn J. 1988. Property, power, and ideology in hunting and gathering societies: an intro-

duction. In Hunters and Gatherers: Property, Power, and Ideology, ed. T Ingold, D Riches, J Woodburn,pp. 4–32. New York: Berg

Basu BK. 1990. The Onge: Negrito Hunter-Gatherers of Little Andaman. Calcutta: Seagull BooksBhanu BA. 1989. The Cholanaikan of Kerala. Calcutta: Anthropol. Survey IndiaBhattacharjee B. 1980. Cultural Oscillation: A Study on Patua [ Juang] Culture. Calcutta: Naya Prokash. Erratum.

1980. Calcutta: Naya PrakashBird-David N. 1990. The giving environment: another perspective on the economic system of gatherer-

hunters. Curr. Anthropol. 31:183–96Bird-David N. 1992. Beyond “the hunting and gathering mode of subsistence”: culture-sensitive observations

on the Nayaka and other modern hunter-gatherers. Man 27:19–44Bird-David N. 1994. The Nilgiri tribal systems: a view from below. Modern Asian Studies 28:339–55Bird-David N. 1996. Puja or sharing with the gods? On ritualized possession among Nayaka of South India.

Eastern Anthrop. 49:259–76Bird-David N. 1999a. “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Curr.

Anthropol. 40(Suppl.):S67–91Bird-David N. 1999b. Nayaka. See Lee & Daly 1999, pp. 57–60Bird-David N. 2004. Illness images and joined beings. A critical/Nayaka perspective on incorporeality. Social

Anthropol. 12:325–39Bird-David N. 2005. Studying children in “hunter-gatherer” societies: reflections from a Nayaka perspective.

In Hunter-gatherer childhoods: evolutionary, developmental & cultural perspectives, ed. BS Hewlett, ME Lamb,pp. 92–104. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction

Bird-David N, Naveh D. 2008. Relational epistemology, immediacy, and conservation: Or, what do the Nayakatry to conserve? J. Stud. Relig. Nat. Cult. 2:55–73

Bose NK. 1956. Some observations on nomadic castes of India. Man India 36:1–6

110 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Bose NK. 1963. Fifty Years of Science in India: Anthropology and Archaeology. Calcutta: Indian Sci. Congr. Assoc.Brow J. 1978. Vedda Villages of Anuradhapura: The Historical Anthropology of a Community in Sri Lanka. Seattle:

Univ. Wash. PressBrow J. 1990. The incorporation of a marginal community within the Sinhalese nation [Anuradhapura Veddas].

Anthropol. Q. 63:7–17Caughley R. 1976. Chepang whistled talk. In Speech Surrogates: Drum and Whistle Systems, ed. T Sebeok,

D Umiker, pp. 966–92. New York: MoutonCaughley RC. 2000. Dictionary of Chepang: A Tibeto-Burman Language of Nepal. Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ.Census of India. 2001. Total population, population of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and their proportions to the

total population. http://www.censusindia.netCrane E. 1999. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting. London: RoutledgeCrumley CL. 1987. A dialectical critique of hierarchy. In Power Relations and State Formation, ed. TC Patterson,

CW Gailey, pp. 155–68. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Occas. Publ.Dalton ET. 1872. Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal. Calcutta: Off. Supt. Gov. Print.Das T. 1931. The Wild Kharias of Dhalbhum. Calcutta: Univ. CalcuttaDash J. 1998. Human Ecology of Foragers: A Study of the Kharia (Savara), Ujia (Savara), and Birhor in Similipal

Hills. New Delhi: CommonwealthDemmer U. 1997. Voices in the forest. The field of gathering among the Jenu Kurumba. In Blue Mountains

Revisited: Cultural Studies on the Nilgiri Hills, ed. P Hockings, pp. 164–91. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressDemmer U. 2001. Always an argument: persuasive tools in the death rituals of the Jenu Kurumba. Anthropos

96:475–90Demmer U. 2004. Visible knowledge: a test case from South India. Vis. Anthropol. 17:107–16Demmer U. 2006. Rhetorik, Poetik, Performanz: Das Ritual und Seine Dynamic bei den Jenu Kurumba (Sudindien).

Berlin: MunsterDenbow J. 1984. Prehistoric herders and foragers of the Kalahari: the evidence for 1500 years of interaction.

In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, ed. Carmel Schrire, pp. 175–93. Orlando: Academic PressDharmadasa KNO, SWR de A Samarsinghe, eds. 1990. The Vanishing Aborigines: Sri Lanka’s Veddas in Transition.

New Delhi: VikasEhrenfels UR. 1952. Kadar of Cochin. Madras: Univ. MadrasElwin V. 1950. Bondo Highlander. Bombay: Oxford Univ. PressEmeneau MB. 1989. The Languages of the Nilgiris. Blue Moutains: The ethnography and biogeography of a south

Indian region. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressForsyth J. 1889. The Highlands of Central India: Notes on Their Forests and Wild Tribes, Natural History and Sports.

London: Chapman and HallFortier J. 2000. Monkey’s thigh is the shaman’s meat: ideologies of sharing among the Raute of western Nepal.

Senri Ethnol. Ser. 53:113–47Fortier J. 2001. Sharing, hoarding, and theft: exchange and resistance in forager-farmer relations. Ethnology

40:193–211Fortier J. 2002. The arts of deception: verbal performances by the Raute of Nepal. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.

8(2):233–57Fortier J. 2003. Reflections on Raute identity. Stud. Nep. Hist. Soc. 8:317–48Fortier J. 2009. Kings of the Forest: The Cultural Resilience of Himalayan Hunter Gatherers. Honolulu: Univ.

Hawai’i PressFox R. 1969. Professional primitives: hunters and gatherers of nuclear South Asia. Man India 49:139–60Furer-Haimendorf Cv. 1943. The Chenchus: Jungle Folk of the Deccan. London: MacmillanFurer-Haimendorf Cv. 1955. Himalayan Barbary. London: J MurrayGadgil M, Guha R. 1993. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressGardner PM. 1985. Bicultural oscillation as a long-term adaptation to cultural frontiers: cases and questions.

Hum. Ecol. 13:411–32Gardner PM. 1988. Pressures for Tamil propriety in Paliyan social organization. In Hunters and Gatherers 1:

History, Evolution, and Social Change, ed. T Ingold, D Riches, J Woodburn, pp. 91–106. Oxford: BergGardner PM. 1991. Foragers’ pursuit of individual autonomy. Curr. Anthropol. 32:543–72


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Gardner PM. 1993. Dimensions of subsistence foraging in South India. Ethnology 32:109–44Gardner P. 1995. Illness and response among South Indian foragers. Medical Anthropol. 16:119–35Gardner PM. 2000. Bicultural Versatility as a Frontier Adaptation among Paliyan Foragers of South India. Lewiston,

NY: Edwin MellenGardner PM. 2004. Respect for all: the Paliyans of South India. In Keeping the Peace: Conflict Resolution and

Peaceful Societies around the World, ed. G Kemp, DP Fry, pp. 53–71. New York: RoutledgeGautam R, Thapa-Magar AK. 1994. Tribal Ethnography of Nepal. Delhi: Book Faith IndiaGurung GM. 1989. The Chepangs: A Study in Continuity and Change. Lalitpur: SB ShahGurung GM. 1995. Report from a Chepang Village. Kathmandu: S GurungHamilton FB. 1819. An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal and of the Territories Annexed to this Dominion by the

House of Gurkha. Edinburgh: Archibald ConstableHitchcock RK, Biesele B. 2000. Introduction. In Hunters and Gatherers in the Modern World, ed. PP Schweitzer,

RK Hitchcock, M Biesele, pp. 1–28. New York: BerghahanHutton JH. 1924. The occurence of the blow-gun in Assam. Man 24:104–6Hymes D. 1973. Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. Daedalus

102(3):59–86Ingold T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Manchester, UK:

Manchester Univ. PressIngold T. 1999. On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band. See Lee & Daly 1999, pp. 399–410Kayal R. 2009. Somanna on Indigenous Knowledge of Jenu Kurubar, Part 2. 5 min., 36 sec. Windows Media Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DizTiIjnmTMKelly R. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. PressKeyes C. 2002. Peoples of Asia—science and politics in the classification of ethnic groups in Thailand, China,

and Vietnam. J. of Asian Studies 61(4):1163–1203Knox R. 1681. An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon, in the East-Indies. London: Richard ChiswellKrishna Iyer LA. 1941. The Travancore Tribes and Castes. Vol. 3. Trivandrum: Gov. PressKumar S. 2004. The Birhors of Chotanagpur region: A Study in Tribal Geography. New Delhi: RajeshLee RB, Daly R, eds. 1999. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. PressLee RB. 2006. Twenty-first century indigenism. Anthropol. Theory 6:455–79Lukacs J. 1990. On hunter-gatherers and their neighbors in prehistoric India: contact and pathology. Curr.

Anthropol. 31:183–6Majumdar DN. 1929. The Korwas of the United Provinces. Man India 1:237–50Man EH. 1885. On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands. London: R. Anthropol. Inst.Manandhar NP. 1998. Native phytotherapy among the Raute tribes of Dadeldhura district, Nepal. J. Ethnophar-

macol. 60:199–206Meegaskumbura PB. 1990. Religious beliefs of the Veddas in relation to their world-view. See Dharmadasa &

Samarasinghe 1990, pp. 99–140Misra PK. 1977. The Jenu Kurubas. In The Primitive Tribes: The First Steps, ed. S Sinha, BD Sharma,

pp. 103–31. New Delhi: Gov. IndiaMohanty SC. 2002. Development of Primitive Tribal Groups in India. Delhi: Gyan BooksMorab SG. 1977. The Soliga of Biligiri, Rangana Hills. Calcutta: Anthropol. Survey IndiaMorris B. 1981. Hill gods and ecstatic cults: notes on the religion of a hunting and gathering people. Man in

India 61:203–36Morris B. 1982. Forest Traders. London: AlthoneMorrison KD, Junker L. 2002. Forager-Traders in South and Southeast Asia: Long-Term Histories. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. PressNaveh D. 2007. Continuity and change in Nayaka epistemology and subsistence economy: a hunter-gatherer case from

South India. PhD thesis. Univ. Haifa, IsraelNebesky-Wojkowitz R. 1959. Kusunda and Chepang: notes on two little-known tribes of Nepal. Bull. Int.

Com. Urgent Anthropol. Ethnol. Res. 2:77–84Negi RS, Raha MK, Das JC. 1982. The Raji and their economy. In Economies of the Tribes and their Transfor-

mation, ed. KS Singh, pp. 153–58. New Delhi: Concept

112 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Norstrom C. 2003. ‘They call for us’: Strategies for securing autonomy among the Paliyans, hunter-gatherers of thePalni Hills, South India. Stockholm: Stockholm Univ.

Obeyesekere G. 2009. Colonial histories and Vaada primitivism: an unorthodox reading of Kandy Period texts.http://vedda.org/obeyesekere1.htm

Pandit TN. 1990. The Sentinelese. Kolkata: Seagull BooksPandya V. 1991. Tribal cosmology: displacing and replacing processes in Andamanese places. In Tribal Thought

and Culture: Essays in Honor of Surajit Chandra Sinha, ed. B Saraswati, pp. 81–103. New Delhi: ConceptPandya V. 1993. Above the Forest: A Study of Andamanese Ethnoanemology, Cosmology, and the Power of Ritual.

Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressPandya V. 2000. Making of the other: vignettes of violence in Andamanese culture. Crit. Anthropol. 20:359–91Pandya V. 2005. Deforesting among Andamanese children: political economy and history of schooling. In

Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, ed. BS Hewlett, MELamb, pp. 385–406. New Brunswick, NJ/London: Aldine Trans.

Pandya V. 2009. In the Forest: Visual and Material Worlds of Andamanese History (1858–2006). New York: Univ.Press Am.

Parker H. 1909. Ancient Ceylon: An Account of the Aborigines and a Part of the Early Civilisation. London: LuzacPatnaik R. 2006. The last foragers: ecology of Forest Shompen. In Anthropology of Primitive Tribes, ed. PD

Sharma, pp. 116–29. New Delhi: Ser. Publ.Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. 2007. Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 4:439–73Peterson J. 2006. Kharia-English Lexicon. Osnabruck: Univ. OsnabruckRadcliffe-Brown AR. 1933 (1922). The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressRaghaviah V. 1962. The Yanadis. New Delhi: Bharatiya Adimjati Sevak SanghRahman R. 1959. Shamanistic and related phenomena in northern and middle India. Anthropos LIV:681–760Rai N. 1985. People of the Stones: The Chepangs of Central Nepal. Kathmandu: Cent. Nepal. Asian Stud.Rao NS. 2002. Ethnography of a Nomadic Tribe: A Study of Yanadi. New Delhi: ConceptReddy PS, Reddy AM. 1987. The displaced Yanadis of Sriharikota Island: a study of changing interactions

between environment and culture. Mankind Q. 27:435–45Reinhard J. 1968. The Kusunda: ethnographic notes on a hunting tribe of Nepal. Bull. Int. Com. Urgent

Anthropol. Ethnol. Res. 10:95–110Reinhard J. 1974. The Raute: notes on a nomadic hunting and gathering tribe of Nepal. Kailash 2:233–71Reinhard J. 1976a. The Bana Rajas—a vanishing Himalayan tribe. Contrib. Nepal. Stud. 4:1–22Reinhard J. 1976b. Shamanism among the Raji of Southwest Nepal. In Spirit Possession in the Nepal Himalayas,

ed. J Hitchcock, R Jones, pp. 263–92. Warminster: Aris and PhillipsRiboli D. 2000. Tunsuriban, Shamanism in the Chepang of Southern and Central Nepal. Kathmandu: Mandala

Book PointRidington R. 1988. Knowledge, power, and the individual in subarctic hunting societies. Am. Anthropol. 90:98–

110Roscoe P. 1990. The bow and spreadnet: ecological origins of hunting technology. Am. Anthropol. 92:691–701Roscoe P. 2002. The hunters and gatherers of New Guinea. Curr. Anthropol. 43:153–62Roy SC. 1925. The Birhors, A Little-Known Jungle Tribe of Chota Nagpur. Ranchi: Man in India Off.Roy SC, Roy RC. 1937. The Kharias. Ranchi: Man in India Off.Samal P. 2000. Van Rawats: A Tribe in Peril. Nainatal: Gyanodaya PrakashanSandhwar AN. 1978. The Korwa of Palamau: A Study of Their Society and Economy. Wien, Fohrenau: Elisabeth

StiglmayrSchalk P. 2004. Vadi into Vanniyalatto: Transformation of Images of the Lankan Vaddo. Uppsala: Uppsala Univ.Seligman CG, Seligman B. 1911. The Veddas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressSharma PD (editor). 2006. The Anthropology of Primitive Tribes in India. New Delhi: Serials Publications.Shashi SS. 1994. Encyclopedia of Indian tribes. New Delhi: AnmolSingh KS. 1994. The Scheduled Tribes. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressSingh NB. 1997. The Endangered Raute Tribe: Ethnobiology and Biodiversity. Kathmandu: GLORECASinha DP. 1968. Culture Change in an Intertribal Market. New York: Asia Publ. House


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Sinha S. 1962. State formation and Rajput myth in tribal Central India. Man India XLII:35–80Sivaramakrishnan K. 1995. Colonialism and forestry in India: imagining the past in present politics. Comp.

Stud. Soc. Hist. 37:3–40Skaria A. 1999. Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers and Wildness in Western India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressStegeborn W. 1999. The Wanniyala-aetto (Veddahs) of Sri Lanka. See Lee & Daly 1999, pp. 269–73Stiles D. 2001. Hunter-gatherer studies: the importance of context. African study monographs suppliment 26:41–

65Stiles D. 1993. Hunter-gatherer trade in wild forest products in the early centuries A.D. with the Port of

Broach, India. Asian Perspect. 32:153–67Stoner CR. 1952. The Sulung tribe of the Assam Himalayas. Anthropos 47:947–62Thapar R. 2001. Perceiving the forest: early India. Stud. Hist. 2:1–16Tharakan CG. 2003. The mixed economy of the South Indian Kurumbas. Ethnology 42:323–34Tharakan CG. 2007. The Mudugua and Kurumba of Kerala, south India and the social organization of hunting

and gathering. J. Ecol. Anthropol. 11:5–24Thurston E, Rangachari K. 1909. Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Madras: Gov. PressTolen RJ. 1991. Colonizing and transforming the criminal tribesman: the Salvation Army in British India. Am.

Ethnol. 18(1):106–25Turin M. 1999. Chenchu. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers, ed. RB Lee, R Daly, pp. 252–56.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressValentijn F. 2002 (1724). Oud en nieuw Oost-Indien. Franeker: Van WijnenValli E. 1998. Hunting for Honey: Adventures with the Rajis of Nepal. London: Thames & HudsonVan Driem G. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas. Leiden: BrillVenkateswar S. 2004. Development and ethnocide: colonial practices in the Andaman Islands. Somerset, N.J.: Trans-

action PublishersVerma KK. 1977. Culture, Ecology, and Population: An Anthropo-Demographic Study. New Delhi: Natl. Pub.

HouseVidyarthi LP, Upadhyay VS. 1980. The Kharia, Then and Now: A Comparative Study of Hill, Dhelki, and Dudh

Kharia of the Central-Eastern Region of India. New Delhi: ConceptWatters DE. 1975. Siberian shamanistic traditions among the Kham-Magars of Nepal. Contrib. Nepalese Stud.

2:123–68Watters DE. 2006. Notes on Kusunda grammar: a language isolate of Nepal. Himal. Ling. Arch. 3:1–182Williams B. 1968. The Birhor of India and some comments on band organization. In Man the Hunter, ed. RB

Lee, I DeVore, pp. 126–31. Chicago: AldineWoodburn J. 1982. Egalitarian societies. Man 17:431–51Zvelebil K. 1981. Problems of identification and classification of some Nilagiri tribes. Anthropos 76:467–528Zvelebil K. 1988. Jenu Kurumba: brief report on a “tribal” language of the Nilgiri area. J. Am. Orient. Soc.

2:297–301

RELATED RESOURCES

Nepalnews.com. 2009. Rautes seek guarantee of their right to live in forest. 3 min., 17 sec.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7YdRfDGNZ4

Puttagunta SM. 2008. Chenchus: Children of the forest. Srujana Movies. 22 min., 11 sec. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6IZzWSMJTU

Zahieruddin Z. 2009. Sri Lanka (ceylon)—Vedda ceremonial song. 2 min. 29 sec. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XDwIubm4UI

114 Fortier

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR388-FM ARI 22 August 2009 10:52

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 38, 2009Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Archaeology and Anthropology: A Personal Overview of the PastHalf-CenturyPatty Jo Watson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in ArchaeologyPamela L. Geller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �65

State Emergence in Early ChinaLi Liu � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 217

Amazonian ArchaeologyMichael Heckenberger and Eduardo Goes Neves � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 251

The Oldowan: The Tool Making of Early Homininsand Chimpanzees ComparedNicholas Toth and Kathy Schick � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 289

Biological Anthropology

The Early Development of Gender DifferencesMatthew H. McIntyre and Carolyn Pope Edwards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �83

The Biology of Paternal Care in Human and Nonhuman PrimatesEduardo Fernandez-Duque, Claudia R. Valeggia, and Sally P. Mendoza � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 115

Developmental Origins of Adult Function and Health: EvolutionaryHypothesesChristopher W. Kuzawa and Elizabeth A. Quinn � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 131

Interdisciplinary Translational Research in Anthropology, Nutrition,and Public HealthStephen T. McGarvey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 233

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Paths in the Linguistic Anthropology of OceaniaMatt Tomlinson and Miki Makihara � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �17

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR388-FM ARI 22 August 2009 10:52

Social Reproduction in Classrooms and SchoolsJames Collins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Medical DiscourseJames M. Wilce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

The Ethnography of South Asian ForagersJana Fortier � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �99

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Commodification of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex,and Reproductive LaborNicole Constable � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Adoption of the Unrelated Child: Some Challenges to theAnthropological Study of KinshipSigne Howell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 149

Anthropology and Global HealthCraig R. Janes and Kitty K. Corbett � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

Transitions: Pastoralists Living with ChangeKathleen A. Galvin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 185

Symptom: Subjectivities, Social Ills, TechnologiesJoao Biehl and Amy Moran-Thomas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 267

Theme 1: Current Research on Gender

The Commodification of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex,and Reproductive LaborNicole Constable � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in ArchaeologyPamela L. Geller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �65

The Early Development of Gender DifferencesMatthew H. McIntyre and Carolyn Pope Edwards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �83

The Biology of Paternal Care in Human and Nonhuman PrimatesEduardo Fernandez-Duque, Claudia R. Valeggia, and Sally P. Mendoza � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 115

Theme 2: Anthropology and Human Health

Developmental Origins of Adult Function and Health: EvolutionaryHypothesesChristopher W. Kuzawa and Elizabeth A. Quinn � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 131

Anthropology and Global HealthCraig R. Janes and Kitty K. Corbett � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR388-FM ARI 22 August 2009 10:52

Medical DiscourseJames M. Wilce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199

Interdisciplinary Translational Research in Anthropology, Nutrition,and Public HealthStephen T. McGarvey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 233

Symptom: Subjectivities, Social Ills, TechnologiesJoao Biehl and Amy Moran-Thomas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 267

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 29–38 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 307

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 29–38 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 310

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found athttp://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AnnuAl Reviewsit’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.

AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our expertsTel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAssociate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto

Stephen M. Stigler, University of ChicagoThe Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015. table of contents:•What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg•A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence

from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan

•The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk

•Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman•Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp•Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,

Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein•Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,

Matthias Katzfuss•Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert•Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,

Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal•Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent

Variable Models, David M. Blei•Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:

Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright

•High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier

•Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel

•Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca

•Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding•StatisticalEvaluationofForensicDNAProfileEvidence,

Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding•Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:

Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein•Statistical Ecology, Ruth King•Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity

Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh•Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,

Susan A. Murphy•Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,

Hong Qian, S.C. Kou•Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking

and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

9.38

:99-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to o

n 07

/09/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

the ethnography of south asian foragers

Documents