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

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

Luisa Maffi

Terralingua, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia V8K 2N6, Canada; email: maffi@.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. Key Words 2005. 29:599–617 linguistic diversity, , , biocultural First published online as a Review in Advance on diversity June 28, 2005 Abstract The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Over the past decade, the field of has arisen anthro.annualreviews.org as an area of transdisciplinary research concerned with investigat- doi: 10.1146/ ing the links between the world’s linguistic, cultural, and biologi- annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437 by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. cal diversity as manifestations of the diversity of life. The impetus Copyright c 2005 by for the emergence of this field came from the observation that all Annual Reviews. All rights three diversities are under threat by some of the same forces and reserved from the perception that loss of diversity at all levels spells dramatic 0084-6570/05/1021- consequences for humanity and the . Accordingly, the field of

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org 0599$20.00 biocultural diversity has developed with both a theoretical and a practical side, the latter focusing on on-the-ground work and policy, as well as with an ethics and component. This review provides 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 the links between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity; the mea- surement and assessment of biocultural diversity; and the protection and maintenance of biocultural diversity. The review concludes with some considerations about future prospects for this emerging field.

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

quences of loss of these interlinked diversities; Contents (c) approaches to the joint maintenance and revitalization of biocultural diversity; and (d) INTRODUCTION...... 600 development of the related aspects of human HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS . . 600 rights. DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT This review first outlines the history of the LINES OF RESEARCH ...... 601 field’s emergence and then appraises various PHILOSOPHICAL AND aspects of the relevant body of literature. ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS . 602 LINGUISTIC AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: GLOBAL AND HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS REGIONAL STUDIES ...... 604 Parallels and affinities between evolutionary MEASURING AND ASSESSING and historical and between BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY. . . 610 and species were already drawn by PROTECTING AND Charles Darwin (in both his Origin of Species MAINTAINING and The Descent of Man; Darwin 1859, 1871) BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY. . . 612 and commented on by linguist August Schle- FUTURE PROSPECTS ...... 612 icher in Darwinism Tested by the Science of Lan- guage (Schleicher 1863), although such re- marks soon led to a reaction in linguistics against what was interpreted as a likening INTRODUCTION of languages to natural organisms. Analogies If the 1980s might be remembered as the between languages and species became dis- decade of biodiversity—in which the term credited and were relegated to the shelves of biodiversity was coined to call attention to the misconceived ideas until recently. massive, human-made extinction crisis threat- As for the links between and the ening the diversity of life in nature—then the environment, interest in this topic has prece- 1990s might be dubbed the decade of biocul- dents in the history of anthropology. In the tural diversity—when the concept of an in- North American anthropological tradition, timate link between biological, cultural, and the study of Native American languages nat- linguistic diversity was put forth and its im- urally led to such interest, as linguistic an-

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. plications for life in both nature and thropologists such as Boas, Sapir, and Whorf began to be explored. By the mid-2000s, a were struck by the elaborate ways in which small but significant body of literature on bio- indigenous languages encoded and invento- cultural (or, in a less widespread version, bi- ried, among other things, the characteristics olinguistic) diversity has accumulated, and a of the local landscape and its flora and fauna. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org related field of both scholarly research and In particular, Sapir noted that language bears practical applications is emerging. “the stamp of the physical environment in The main foci of this emerging field are which the speakers are placed” while reflect- as follows: (a) the parallels and correlations ing “the interest of the people in such en- between biodiversity and linguistic diversity, vironmental features” (Sapir 1912, pp. 228, the overlaps in the global distribution of lan- 229). From Boas’s famous notes on Eskimo guages and biodiversity, and the relationships words for snow (Boas 1911; see Martin 1986, between language, traditional knowledge, and Pullum 1989 on the later vast misinterpreta- the environment; (b) studies and assessments tions and distortions, both scholarly and pop- of the common threats to biodiversity, cul- ular, of this topic) to Whorf’s related remarks tural diversity, and linguistic diversity and of in his popular 1940 article “Science and Lin- the sociocultural and environmental conse- guistics” (Whorf 1940), these early studies had

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

a foundational role in anthropology. How- full understanding of culture” (Kroeber 1963, ever, this was not specifically to the effect of p. 1)—a statement that might be taken as pro- giving rise to a distinct tradition of research on grammatic for the current lines of research, the relations between language (and/or cul- if with the addition that recognition of these ture) and the environment. By and large, these relationships is, conversely, also central to the early observations on the language of the en- full understanding of nature. vironment rather contributed to the devel- opment of concepts of linguistic and cultural relativity. DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT Another pioneer of North American an- LINES OF RESEARCH thropology, Alfred Kroeber, studied the re- Despite such significant antecedents, the de- lationships between Native American cul- velopment of an integrated field of research on ture areas and the natural areas (today, we cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity has would say or ecological niches) long been in the making. Recent interest in of the North American continent, finding the links between language and the environ- significant geographical correlations between ment has arisen in part from the work carried the two (Kroeber 1963). Whereas several of out over the past few decades by ethnobiolo- Kroeber’s students (including Julian Steward) gists and ethnoecologists studying indigenous later developed a focus on cultural , knowledge and use of local flora, fauna, and Kroeber’s specific approach in this classic ecosystems, as well as by researchers inter- work did not directly result in an established ested in indigenous place naming. In part, this research tradition on the links of interest also stems from research in linguistics (and/or languages) and biogeography. Rather, on the notion of “linguistic ,” seen as the idea of such correlations tended to be un- networks of human relationships that encom- popular among scholars, as it was also before pass not only the linguistic and social envi- Kroeber’s work, because it evoked romantic ronment, but also the physical environment, nationalist theories of geographic and biolog- as interrelated parts of a whole (Muhlh¨ ausler¨ ical determinism. 1996). Investigation of these topics has led to This unpopularity is somewhat of a para- increasing recognition of the value of the eco- dox in light of Kroeber’s conviction that this logical knowledge and practices of indigenous area of inquiry offered a special opportunity and other local peoples, and of the significant

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. for “a modern, nonsimplistic environmental extent to which such knowledge and prac- study which would almost certainly stimu- tices are developed, encoded, and transmitted late analogous research elsewhere” (Kroeber through language. 1928, quoted in Heizer 1963) and that his More specifically, a focus on the relation- work in no way represented “a relapse to- ships between linguistic, cultural, and biologi- Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org ward the old environmentalism which be- cal diversity, their global overlapping distribu- lieved it could find the causes of culture in tions, and the common threats they are facing environment” (Kroeber 1963, p. 1). Kroeber emerged in the mid-1990s in the wake of an made it clear that “[w]hile it is true that cul- alarming and thought-provoking observation: tures are rooted in nature, and can therefore that the ongoing worldwide loss of biodiver- never be completely understood except with sity is paralleled by and seems interrelated reference to that piece of nature in which to the “extinction crisis” affecting linguistic they occur,...[t]he immediate causes of cul- and cultural diversity (Krauss 1992; Harmon tural phenomena are other cultural phenom- 1996, 2002; Nabhan 1997; Posey 1999; Maffi ena. ...[T]his does not prevent the recogni- 2001c). tion of relations between nature and culture, In the early 1990s, linguists started call- nor the importance of these relations to the ing attention to a worrisome trend that was

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 601 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

becoming increasingly apparent: Many of the guages, Endangered Knowledge, Endangered world’s languages, especially those spoken by Environments,” held in Berkeley, California, small-scale indigenous and minority societies, in 1996. This conference brought together Biocultural diversity: diversity were seriously under threat of replacement by scholars and practitioners in the linguistic, so- of life in all its “larger,” majority languages, whether national cial, behavioral, and natural sciences, along manifestations— or transnational (Robins & Uhlenbeck 1991, with members of , to iden- biological, cultural, Hale et al. 1992). This loss of linguistic di- tify avenues for theoretical investigation of and linguistic— versity was estimated to endanger the survival and applied work on what was beginning to which are + interrelated within a of 50%–90% of the 6000 currently spoken be labeled as “biocultural diversity.” (For the complex languages by 2100 (Krauss 1992). In the effort outcome of the conference, see Maffi 2001c.) socio-ecological to rally linguists and others around this issue, The conference was organized by Terralingua adaptive system parallels were drawn with the better-known (http://www.terralingua.org), an interna- phenomenon of biodiversity loss and with the tional nonprofit organization also created in endeavors undertaken by biologists to stem 1996 with the specific purpose to promote this loss (Krauss 1992). knowledge and protection of biocultural di- This clarion call did not go unnoticed by versity through research, education, policy nonlinguists, soon reaching a small but active development, and on-the-ground action. contingent of social scientists and conserva- As a result of the confluence of these and tionists who had independently been point- other related endeavors, a multifaceted field ing to the links between and the common of inquiry on linguistic, cultural, and biolog- threats to cultural and biological diversity ical diversity, with both a theoretical and an (Dasmann 1991, Harmon 1992, Nietschmann applied side, has begun to develop—an inter- 1992, Clay 1993, Durning 1993; see also the esting case of a new domain of interlinked in- Declaration of Belem´ issued in 1988 by the vestigation and practice arising from a per- International Society of , which ceived urgent need in the real world, similar affirmed the existence of an “inextricable link” to the prior development of conservation bi- between cultural and biological diversity). It ology in response to the biodiversity extinc- was increasingly apparent that the variety of tion crisis. At this point, a picture of language- cultural knowledges, beliefs, and practices de- environment interrelations is taking shape at veloped by human societies, as well as the lan- various degrees of resolution, from a global guages that embody them, are being placed at to a local scale. The following sections re-

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. risk by the socioeconomic and political pro- view some of the key aspects of this emerging cesses threatening the integrity and the very picture through the recent literature. First, survival of indigenous and local cultures and though, it may be useful to touch on some of of the environments in which they live—and the philosophical and ethical underpinnings that this massive and rapid change has pro- of this new field, as they have been explored Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org found implications for the maintenance of life in some of this literature. on earth. It became clear that an interdisci- plinary effort was needed to bring together these different threads and begin to portray an PHILOSOPHICAL AND integrated picture of the state of the diversity ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS of life in all its forms—biological, cultural, and Harmon has offered the as yet most thorough linguistic—the pressures it is undergoing, and and thoughtful approach to the philosophi- the possible actions to ensure its perpetuation cal and ethical foundations for the field of (Harmon 1995, 1996; Krauss 1996). biocultural diversity. In his work, he has pro- Among the events that catalyzed such vided the first comprehensive review of the an interdisciplinary effort was the interna- state of linguistic diversity and the geographi- tional working conference “Endangered Lan- cal overlaps between linguistic and biological

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

diversity pointing to the “converging extinc- best gained through a diversity of languages.” tion crises” of these diversities (Harmon 1995, (And see Fishman 1982 for an early, mas- 1996; see next section for details). With ap- terful treatment of this topic from a Whor- Language richness: propriate caveats, he takes linguistic diver- fian perspective.) Along similar lines, Krauss the total number of sity to be a major indicator for cultural di- (1996) has proposed that global linguistic di- distinct languages versity and the loss of “language richness” as versity as such constitutes an intellectual web found in a given a proxy for the loss of “cultural richness.” On of life, or “logosphere,” that envelops the region or country or this basis, he addresses a fundamental question planet and is as essential to human survival worldwide, as a measure of linguistic (Harmon 2002): If the world’s diversity in na- as the biosphere—a concept of course remi- diversity ture and culture is indeed rapidly diminishing, niscent of Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere” Logosphere: the why should we care? and of the classical notion of the Logos. symbolic planetary His answer stems from an examination Further, from both a psychological and an web of the “logos,” of philosophical, biological, psychological, ethical perspective, Harmon (2001, 2002) pin- or spoken word, and linguistic literature from the Enlighten- points the enduring fallacy of equating unity represented by the ment to the present. Through this excursus, with uniformity (which underlies all efforts to global network of human languages he shows the interwoven (and possibly coe- promote homogenization, whether by nation- volved) diversity in nature and culture to be states or by the forces of economic globaliza- the “preeminent fact of existence,” the basic tion). Rather, he argues that the perception of condition of life on earth. The continued de- diversity is the basic condition for the func- crease of biocultural diversity, he concludes, tioning of human consciousness (through the would “staunch the historical flow of being it- distilling of sameness from difference) so that self, the evolutionary processes through which if consciousness is what defines us as humans, the vitality of all life has come down to us then diversity makes us human. From this, he through the ages” (Harmon 2002, p. xiii). derives a “moral imperative” to preserve di- Others have similarly stressed the evolu- versity and to strive not for uniformity but for tionary significance of diversity not only in unity in diversity. nature but also in culture and language as Wollock (2001) reaches analogous conclu- a way of “keeping options alive” for the fu- sions through a critique of Western linguistic ture of humanity and the earth (Maffi 1998, science. He suggests that, if this scholarly tra- 2001a). Bernard (1992, p. 82) has suggested dition has largely been silent about linguis- that “[l]inguistic diversity... is at least the tic diversity and has ignored or even denied

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. correlate of (though not the cause of) diver- any connection between language and the real sity of adaptational ideas” and that therefore world, it is because it was born of the nomi- “any reduction of language diversity dimin- nalist philosophical tradition that has taken ishes the adaptational strength of our species hold in the history of Western thought. Nom- because it lowers the pool of knowledge inalism treats all universal concepts (includ- Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org from which we can draw.” Muhlh¨ ausler¨ (1995, ing “nature” and “community”) as arbitrary p. 160) has argued that convergence toward social constructs with no connection to the majority cultural models increases the like- real world. Within this tradition, language lihood that more and more people will en- itself is seen as an arbitrary system of signs counter the same “cultural blind spots”— that bears little or no relation to the extralin- undetected instances in which the prevailing guistic world (on this point, see also Pawley cultural model fails to provide adequate so- 2001). Such a conception of language, Wol- lutions to societal problems. Instead, he pro- lock argues, is by definition incapable of ad- poses,”[i]t is by pooling the resources of many dressing the relationship between language understandings that more reliable knowledge and the environment or with the ways in can arise”; and “access to these perspectives is which language may orient the mind in

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 603 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

certain directions—including directions that LINGUISTIC AND BIOLOGICAL may be either beneficial to or destructive DIVERSITY: GLOBAL AND of the environment. According to the au- REGIONAL STUDIES GIS: geographic thor, nominalist philosophy in fact lies behind information systems, The tasks of systematically testing the claim most of the discourse of “colonizing cultures” a technology for that biodiversity and linguistic and/or cul- representing and about both language and the environment, tural diversity are mutually related and of analyzing and behind the increasing tendency for this assessing the state of each of these diversi- georeferenced data discourse to treat diversity as an epiphe- ties in relation to the others depend largely nomenon at best and a nuisance and a threat on the availability of effective ways to rep- at worst. resent, locate, and measure these diversities. On the other hand, Wollock also con- The focus of much of the “first generation” tends that the response does not lie in the re- of biocultural diversity research, begin- cent postmodernist trend, which, in reaction ning with Harmon’s groundbreaking work to the centralizing and homogenizing ten- (Harmon 1995, 1996), has thus been on de- dencies of modernism, denies the existence veloping such tools. This effort has been facil- of any overarching system of meaning and itated by the progressive accumulation of data only admits of diversity, decrying unity as on biodiversity and linguistic diversity (and, to an illusion. Wollock observes that all great a lesser extent, other aspects of cultural diver- metaphysical traditions recognize endless di- sity), as well as by the recent development of versity as the reality of the planet, and in- electronic means for representing geospatial deed the universe, while perceiving a funda- data [that is, geographic information systems mental unity in it—the unity of the Logos, (GIS)]. whose likeness can be approximated only In approaching this challenge, Harmon through the maximum diversity. He argues (1996, 2002) first revisited the once-tabooed that only a shift from viewing language as issue of the comparison of species and lan- grammar to viewing it as action within the guages, dispelling the misperception that an social and natural world can make it possi- analogy between the two implies equating lan- ble to talk adequately about the relationship guages with natural organisms. He illustrated of linguistic diversity to biodiversity, of how how, although the concepts of species and lan- languages as repositories of cultural memory guages (and speciation and language gene- and guides to action can influence the land- sis) are unquestionably fuzzy categories with

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. scape and its biodiversity. In understanding porous boundaries and defy ironclad defini- and celebrating unity in diversity, he con- tion, they are not arbitrary and correspond to cludes, lies our best hope for a sustainable real entities (and processes) in the world. (For future. another recent view of languages as species, From yet another complementary angle,

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org see Mufwene 2001.) The factual observation Suckling (2000) suggests that the deep con- that the global distributions of species and lan- nections between language and ecology, and guages significantly overlap, Harmon pointed thus the mutual consequences of linguistic out, then begs for explanation as well as and biological diversity loss, are apparent es- heightened attention to the common threats pecially in the role of metaphor in human both species and languages are undergoing. communication and the extent to which bi- Drawing on global biodiversity data as well ologically based metaphors support our un- as catalogs of the world’s languages (Harmon derstanding of the world. As both biological 1995), Harmon showed notable correlations and linguistic diversity are eroded, he argues, between linguistic and biological diversity these fundamental metaphors are also being on a global scale (Harmon 1996). He found lost as tools for thought and for recognition that 10 out of the top 12 “megadiversity” of identity and otherness.

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

countries for biodiversity [as defined by guistic, and biological diversity, see also Hunn IUCN—The World Conservation Union; 2001, Maffi 2001b, Smith 2001.) McNeely et al. 1990] also figure among the In contrast, Muhlh¨ ausler¨ (1996) called at- IUCN: The World top 25 most linguistically diverse countries. tention to the fact that linguistic and cul- Conservation Union His global cross-mapping of languages and tural distinctiveness can develop also in the Sympatric higher vertebrate species (see Maffi 1998 absence of mutual isolation: for example, linguistic boundary for the earliest printed version of this map) among human groups belonging to the same formation: the (Figure 1) brought out a remarkable over- broadly defined cultural area, or whose lan- development of lap between linguistic and biological diver- guages are considered to be historically re- linguistic sity throughout the world, with the high- lated or to have undergone extensive mutual distinctiveness between human est concentration of bioculturally megadi- contact, and who occupy the same or contigu- communities in the verse countries in Central and South Amer- ous ecological niches. Such circumstances— absence of ica, central Africa, South and Southeast Asia, high concentrations of linguistically distinct geographic and the Pacific. Similar results emerged communities coexisting in the same areas and discontinuity from a global comparison of languages and communicating through complex networks Lineage density: flowering species. These correlations, of multilingualism—have occurred frequently the ratio of distinct Harmon argued, suggest that both biological throughout human history (Hill 1997) and linguistic lineages to areas within a and linguistic diversity in such countries are still do today in many parts of the world, continent or other especially vulnerable to the effects of adverse the Pacific being a prime example. This phe- well-defined region political, economic, and social processes and nomenon of “sympatric” linguistic boundary Spread zone: policies. formation points to the role of sociocultural geographic area Harmon (1996) also pointed to several factors, along with biogeographic factors, in characterized by large-scale biogeographic factors that could the development of linguistic diversity. rapid spread of account for these correlations because they Other research conducted by linguists and languages or language families might comparably affect the development of anthropologists during the 1990s also sought and presenting low both biological and linguistic diversity (such to correlate the global distribution of lin- genetic linguistic as extensive land masses with a variety of ter- guistic diversity with both environmental and diversity rains, climates, and ecosystems; island territo- social factors. Nichols (1990, 1992) devel- ries, especially with internal geophysical bar- oped a theory of linguistic diversity in space riers; or tropical climates, fostering higher and time in her work on linguistic typology. numbers and densities of species). In addition, She identifies biogeographic factors similar to

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. he hypothesized a process of coevolution of Harmon’s, which affect the worldwide distri- small human groups with their local ecosys- bution of lineage density. She lists features tems, through which, over time, humans in- such as low latitude, coastlines, high rain- teracted closely with the environment, mod- fall, and mountains among the factors posi- ifying it as they adapted to it and developing tively correlated with high lineage diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org specialized knowledge of it, as well as special- To these, she adds historical and economic ized ways of talking about it. Thus the local factors such as scale of economy—large-scale languages, through which this knowledge was economies historically bring about both eco- encoded and transmitted, would in turn have nomic and linguistic spread and thus lower di- become molded by and specifically adapted versity. This, she shows, has been the case es- to their socioecological environments. Along pecially in the Old World (Africa and Eurasia), the same lines, Muhlh¨ ausler¨ (1995, p. 155) whereas early human colonization of the New notes, “Life in a particular human environ- World and the Pacific brought about very ment is dependent on people’s ability to talk high lineage density. On this basis, she distin- about it.” (On the evolutionary dimensions of guishes spread zones, characterized by rapid human-environment relationships and the is- spread of languages or language families and sue of the possible coevolution of cultural, lin- with low genetic linguistic diversity, from

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 605 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

residual zones with high genetic diversity and generalizability of his otherwise significant no appreciable spread of languages or lan- findings.] guage families. Early work on the links between bio- Residual zone: geographic area In a study on density of human languages diversity and linguistic and cultural diver- characterized by in North America, Mace & Pagel (1995) hy- sity soon attracted the attention of conser- high genetic pothesized that group boundary formation in vation organizations and other international linguistic diversity human societies may be an active process cor- agencies concerned with implementing the and presenting no related with competition over resources and mandate of sustainable development issued appreciable spread of languages or that this process in turn may lead to language by the Rio Summit of 1992, and particu- language families diversification. On a smaller scale, Hill (1996) larly with the call for protection and pro- Ecological risk: the reported comparable findings in a study of motion of the “innovations and practices of level of risk that dialectal variation in Tohono O’odham (a indigenous and local communities embody- ecological factors Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Arizona, in ing traditional lifestyles relevant for the con- such as climate and the United States), where the differential servation and sustainable use of biological rainfall pose for a sociolinguistic characteristics of two dialect diversity” (Convention on Biological Diver- population’s subsistence communities of Tohono O’odham (a localist sity, Article 8j; CBD 1992). The United Na- versus a distributed stance) correlate with the tions Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Or- UNESCO: United Nations Educational, extent to which each community can make se- ganization (UNESCO), the United Nations Scientific, and cure claims over vital resources such as water. Environment Program (UNEP), the World Cultural On similar grounds, Nettle (1998, 1999) Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Society Organization aimed to develop a theory of linguistic diver- for Conservation Biology, and IUCN all com- UNEP: United sity and its global distribution by correlating missioned and published articles and studies Nations this distribution with ecological and socioe- on biocultural diversity (Borrini-Feyerabend Environment conomic factors. He identified seasonal ver- et al. 2004, Harmon & Maffi 2002, Maffi Program sus nonseasonal climates, with the attendant 1998, Maffi et al. 1999, Oviedo et al. 2000, WWF: World Wide patterns of rainfall, as the key factors affecting Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), propelling this Fund for Nature the distribution of linguistic diversity world- work into the domain of policy. Ecoregion: wide. He subsumes these factors under the In particular, Oviedo et al. (2000) under- relatively large land or water unit concept of ecological risk. His data show that took the further development of Harmon’s containing a set of areas with lower rainfall and shorter growing initial work on the global overlaps between natural communities seasons, where people are at higher subsis- biological and cultural diversity through the that share most of by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. tence risk, tend to correlate with geograph- use of GIS. Again with due caveats, the distri- their species, ically more extended ethnolinguistic groups bution of the world’s languages (based on the dynamics, and environmental and fewer different languages, whereas areas GIS database elaborated by SIL International, conditions with higher rainfall and longer or constant the makers of Ethnologue, the as yet most com- growing seasons (such as in tropical and equa- plete catalog of the world’s languages; Grimes Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org torial regions) correlate with higher num- 2000) was taken as a convenient proxy for cul- bers of smaller-scale ethnolinguistic groups tural diversity at large and plotted against the and thus higher linguistic diversity. He at- distribution of the world’secoregions (as iden- tributes this difference to the fact that in the tified by WWF), with special reference to the former case people need to establish larger ∼200 ecoregions chosen by WWF as priori- networks of exchange to mitigate their eco- ties for conservation, to determine the extent logical risk, whereas in the latter case peo- to which cultural diversity abounds in those ple can be more self-sufficient in their local- biodiversity-rich and threatened ecoregions. ized ecological niches. [See Harmon (2002) A map of the global overlapping distributions and Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon (2002) for of ecoregions and languages was produced for some of the theoretical and methodological inclusion in the publication. An initial analy- shortcomings of Nettle’s work that limit the sis of the results of this mapping showed that

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

the highest concentration of ethnolinguistic mote a more sustainable and equitable use groups occurs in tropical forest ecosystems, of natural resources” (CEESP 2004). UN- whereas lower densities are found in arctic and ESCO’srecent Universal Declaration on Cul- CEESP: IUCN’s desert environments (a finding that coincides tural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), although Commission on with Nettle’s, reviewed above, and for which not recognizing an explicit link between cul- Environmental, Oviedo et al. similarly provide an explanation tural and biological diversity, emphasizes cul- Economic, and in terms of subsistence strategies). tural diversity as the “wellspring of creativity” Social Policy The applied goal of this project was to pro- (Article 7) and affirms that “cultural diversity mote an integrated biocultural approach to is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity the conservation of WWF’s priority ecore- is for nature” (Article 1). gions and of biodiversity at large, through The topic of global biocultural correla- mutually beneficial partnerships with indige- tions has continued to stimulate both fur- nous and traditional peoples living in those ther research and critiques in the academic regions and the promotion of their land and environment as well, contributing to the de- traditional resource rights and linguistic and velopment of theory, methodology, and data cultural rights. At this level, the project drew sets for this field of study and to the refine- some criticism from observers (e.g., McIntosh ment of research hypotheses and parameters. 2001) concerned that WWF’s shift from a lo- Apparently unaware of some of the previ- cal to an ecoregional (thus often transnational) ous research on the same topic (particularly scale in their conservation efforts may actu- Harmon’s), Sutherland, an ecologist, com- ally purport a move away from the greater pares both the global distribution and the accountability involved in community-based extinction risk of languages and species conservation, particularly in regards to in- (Sutherland 2003), reaching conclusions that digenous counterparts. (Concerns of this na- are largely in line with earlier findings and ture are part of a larger ongoing debate about forecastings. In particular, by applying to the goals and modus operandi of conservation both species and languages the internation- organizations and the successes and failures ally agreed criteria for classifiying extinction of the sustainable development paradigm; see risk in species, he finds that languages (as per Chapin 2004, Maffi 2004 for reviews.) the Ethnologue catalog) are at far greater risk At the same time, these critics saluted than are species (specifically birds and mam- the key finding that emerged from this map- mals, which he chooses for comparison). His

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. ping exercise, that is, the strong correlations quantifications confirm the conjectures found between biodiversity and cultural diversity, early on in the current literature on language pointing out that this finding stresses the cen- endangerment (e.g., Krauss 1992). With some tral role of indigenous peoples in the global discrepancies (perhaps due to different meth- conservation initiative. The significance of ods of analysis), Sutherland also confirms a Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org this issue, and more generally of the role of number of biogeographic correlations in the culture in conservation, has in fact continued distribution of languages and species, high di- to work its way into conservation organiza- versity in both cases being positively associ- tions, particularly IUCN, whose Commission ated in his data with area, low latitude, forest on Environmental, Economic, and Social Pol- cover, and altitude, but not with rainfall. In his icy (CEESP) now includes, among the pri- calculations, he also finds period since settle- orities for its 2005–2008 mandate, the “im- ment to have little effect on language diversity. proved understanding of the synergy between Because of the high visibility of its pub- cultural diversity and biological diversity and lisher (the journal Nature), Sutherland (2003) on how this may be harnessed and applied triggered several media stories, including a towards shared values, tools, mechanisms and scathing essay by Berreby in the New York processes that enhance conservation and pro- Times (Berreby 2003), in which the author

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 607 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

inveighed (mostly on ideological grounds) the random effect of historical factors, but re- against the validity of species-languages com- flects both the length of population history in parisons and of efforts to maintain or re- a given location and the constraints and po- vitalize endangered languages. Several let- tential carrying capacity of the environment. ters from the public later published by In this context, while calling for more studies the Times vigorously countered Berreby’s of the behavioral and cultural factors leading arguments. to boundary formation, they argue that “social Collard & Foley (2002) follow the lines of boundary formation, which in turn reflects earlier studies such as Mace & Pagel (1995) social behavior and interaction between resi- and Nettle (1998) in exploring biogeograph- dential units, is responsive to environmental ical correlates and possible determinants of and resource factors” (Collard & Foley 2002, human cultural diversity. In this case, instead p. 379). Another significant point Collard & of using languages as proxies for the world’s Foley make is that, although the distribution cultures, they derive the distribution of cul- of cultural diversity shows clear global pat- tural diversity from Atlas of World Cultures terns, analysis at higher resolution and smaller (Price 1990). The article contains a concise scale also reveals significant differences from but very useful discussion of some of the main region to region. This discrepancy between caveats in the use of such global comparative global and sub-global patterns leads them to databases on cultures, as well as of the no- call for smaller-scale analyses that will be more tion of culture itself as an analytical unit— sensitive to the role of local, especially his- caveats that mirror those about languages torical, factors in altering patterns of global noted by other researchers (e.g., Harmon diversity. 1996, 2002; Oviedo et al. 2000). The authors This point is widely shared among re- also point to historical factors (such as state searchers on biocultural diversity. Stepp et al. expansion) that may have reduced cultural di- (2004) explicitly stress the need for developing versity and masked the impact and visibility of studies on a regional scale that will allow in- older ecological factors. They stress, though, vestigators to better identify the correlations the importance of separating out the issue of and mutual influences and perhaps even dis- “how easy it is to define any particular cultural cern causal factors in the development, main- unit from the issue of whether such units ex- tenance, and loss of biocultural diversity. At ist” (Collard & Foley 2002, p. 374) and con- the same time, these authors make a major

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. sider this unit as valid both temporally and contribution to the refinement of global bio- spatially for their analytical purposes. On this cultural analyses by bringing greater sophisti- basis, they map out the distribution of world cation to the use of GIS in such studies. Their cultures according to latitude, which shows a work, still at a preliminary stage, marks a shift pattern fully consistent with that of the distri- in the intended use of GIS: from employ- Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org bution of languages in earlier studies: Cultural ing this technology mostly as a demonstra- diversity is higher in tropical areas and lower tion tool to illustrate the patterns of biolog- at higher latitudes, in both the northern and ical and linguistic (and cultural) diversity, to the southern hemisphere, and in both evo- using it for the in-depth exploration of factors lutionarily “older” continents such as Africa that may correlate with observed patterns and and “newer” ones such as the Americas, with of explanatory hypotheses about these pat- Europe showing the lowest diversity, a likely terns. This research is also beginning to ex- reflection of empire formation there. The au- pand the roster of data used to explore the thors also find positive correlations of cul- links between biological and linguistic diver- tural diversity with temperature and rainfall. sity (the latter again being taken as a proxy for These findings suggest to them that the pat- cultural diversity, with data from Ethnologue). tern of human cultural diversity is not simply One significant advance is the adoption of a

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

GIS database of global biodiversity (specifi- 2002a,b). All these data variously help focus cally, vascular plant diversity) organized not attention on the theoretical and methodolog- by countries or ecoregions as in previous stud- ical requirements and on the kinds of data and Diversity zones: ies but by diversity zones (standardized units integration thereof needed for in-depth stud- units of area (10,000 of area), which allows for comparable diver- ies at a subglobal level. Especially highlighted sq. km.) that sity categories on a global scale (database de- is the need for historical perspective both categorize the veloped by Wilhelm Barthlott and coworkers on processes of environmental change and world’s biodiversity at the University of Bonn). A GIS mapping of on human population movements and expan- on the basis of the number of vascular the two data sets shows a high geographical sions and other social, economic, and politi- plant species per unit correlation between linguistic diversity and cal factors that may have affected the location biodiversity, particularly in Mesoamerica, the and numbers of human populations and their Andes, West Africa, the Himalayas, and South relationships with and effects on the environ- Asia/Pacific (Figure 2). As in previous re- ment. The importance of a better understand- search, the observed correlation is strongest in ing of how environmental factors may sim- the tropics. Another significant pattern noted ilarly or differentially affect cultural groups by Stepp et al. is a correlation between low and species, as well as issues of scale and de- population density and high biocultural di- gree of resolution of the analyses, is also in the versity, perhaps due to an increase in both foreground. linguistic homogenization and impact on the In this connection, Manne (2003) provides environment at higher population densities. a critical appraisal of biodiversity—cultural In the further development of their work, the diversity links through a study focused on authors plan to elaborate regional mappings Central and South America, using the distri- that will allow for better exploration of such bution of languages as indicator of cultural di- patterns, with the inclusion of possible social versity and that of Passeriform birds for bio- and historical factors. diversity. Her main finding is that the scale A number of continental and regional stud- of resolution strongly affects the results. At a ies, some descriptive, some based on mappings coarse scale, the respective distributions over- and quantitative data, are already available, in- lap significantly in the region of study. At a cluding a map of indigenous peoples and envi- finer scale, however, the correlation is con- ronments in Central America (Chapin 1992); siderably weakened, with no simple mono- an overview of biodiversity and cultural diver- tonic relationship between numbers of species

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. sity in Mexico (Toledo 1994); a study of cul- and languages. Manne’s research also shows tural and biological diversity in Latin Ameri- no common environmental variables (of the can ecoregions (Wilcox & Duin 1995); an eco- kinds instead found to be significant in other logical approach to language diversity in West studies reviewed above) affecting the distribu- Africa (Nettle 1996); cross-mappings between tion of languages and species. She also finds Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org the locations of South American indigenous differences in geographical range sizes and peoples and habitat types as well as between overlaps between species and languages; the South American indigenous reserves and bio- ranges of birds are larger and more overlap- sphere reserves and national parks (Lizarralde ping than those of languages and the cultural 2001); a study of the correlation of linguis- groups who speak them. [But note that this tic, cultural, and biological diversity in Amer- finding may be skewed by the lack of ade- ica north of Mexico (Smith 2001); an analysis quate data on and ways of representing the de- of the distribution of cultural and biological gree of “porousness” of cultural and linguistic diversity in Africa (Moore et al. 2002); and borders. Both linguists and anthropologists, overviews of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion e.g., Muhlh¨ ausler¨ (1996), Turneret al. (2003), in the southwestern United States as a have shown such borders to be the locus of hotspot of biocultural diversity (Nabhan et al. significant cross-linguistic and cross-cultural

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 609 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

interaction and of higher levels of diversity of itor the state of the natural world. Harmon linguistic and cultural traits.] set out to identify indicators that might al- Manne also compares degrees of threat for low for gauging the state of cultural diver- IBCD: Index of Biocultural Diversity species and languages, adapting to languages, sity in relation to the state of biodiversity, as did Sutherland, the internationally recog- and thus for determining whether cultural di- nized threat categories for species. Her find- versity is indeed diminishing and whether it ing here is that even at a coarse scale the dis- is diminishing in tandem with biodiversity. tributions of threatened languages and species He proposed a number of potential indica- do not tend to coincide in Central and South tors: from language, ethnicity, and religion to America. She points to some possible histor- diet, crops, land management practices, med- ical as well as data availability factors that ical practices, social organization, and forms might account for this finding, but from both of artistic expression. this result and her data on distribution of lan- In later work, Harmon’s choice of cultural guage and species richness she concludes that indicators has focused on the first three “we should not generally expect spatial con- indicators listed above owing to the ready gruence in distribution of richness or of en- availability of global data sets on languages dangerment between biological and cultural (Grimes 2000) and ethnicity and religion diversity” (Manne 2003, p. 526). Interestingly, (Barrett et al. 2001). In a collaborative effort, a global map of threatened ecosystems and Harmon and Loh have developed a frame- languages (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), al- work for an Index of Biocultural Diversity though showing a similarly limited correla- (IBCD) (Harmon & Loh 2004, Loh & tion in South America, presents a significant Harmon 2005), which is meant to measure correlation in Mexico and Central America, the condition and trends in biocultural diver- as well as parts of North America, Equato- sity on a country-to-country basis (the level at rial Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific. This which the available data sets are organized) by finding suggests that establishing the extent aggregating data on the three cultural indi- to which Manne’s statement may indeed be cators with data on diversity of bird/ generalizable to analyses at a subglobal level species and plant species as indicators for depends on the future availability of a greater biodiversity (also selected on the basis of number of such studies and on more standard- data availability). The IBCD features three ized and therefore comparable methodologies components: a biocultural diversity richness

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. and data sets. component, which is the sheer aggregated measure of a country’s richness in cultural and biological diversity; an areal component, MEASURING AND ASSESSING which adjusts the indicators for a country’s BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY land area and thus measures biocultural Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org The issue of standardization and compara- diversity relative to the country’s physical bility is also central to another aspect of the extent; and a population component, which field of biocultural diversity, that is, work con- adjusts the indicators for a country’s human cerned with the joint measurement and assess- population and thus measures biocultural ment of the global conditions and trends of diversity in relation to a country’s population biodiversity and cultural diversity. The ear- size. For each country, the overall IBCD liest efforts in this connection go back to then aggregates the figures for these three Harmon (1992) in the context of affirming components, yielding a global picture of the the relevance of cultural diversity for pro- state of biocultural diversity in which three tected area conservation. Indicators of biodi- areas emerge as core regions of exceptionally versity were by then commonly used to mon- high biocultural diversity: the Amazon Basin,

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

Central Africa, and Indomalaysia/Melanesia. (2002), Zarger & Stepp (2004), Zent & Zent This largely confirms the geographical corre- (2004), and others are contributing to the de- lations found in other work reviewed above, velopment of quantitative methods for the in- TEK: traditional in which either languages or ethnicities were vestigation of the acquisition and transmis- ecological knowledge used as proxies for cultural diversity. sion of ethnobotanical and ethnoecological Harmon and Loh point to a number of lim- knowledge and for the identification of fac- itations of the IBCD and caveats concerning tors (such as age, formal education, bilingual its use, making it clear that this index, like ability, length of residency, change in subsis- any index, should be used only to measure tence practice, etc.) that may affect the main- general conditions and trends and should not tenance or loss of TEK. As more of these be expected to provide an in-depth analysis studies become available, they will likely con- of the phenomenon at hand, particularly as stitute an increasingly significant source of concerns within-country variation in biocul- data for the elaboration of more refined in- tural diversity. They also point out that, in its dicators of the conditions and trends of cul- current version, the IBCD only portrays the tural diversity in support of a better under- state of biocultural diversity at the beginning standing of the state of biocultural diversity of the twenty-first century, whereas data on and of the development of appropriate trends are as yet missing and are the object policies. of future research. They conclude that these Likewise, significant contributions to the latter data, used in conjunction with careful measurement and assessment of biocultural qualitative analyses, will ultimately provide a diversity should come from linguistics, in more adequate and accurate picture of the terms of more elaborate criteria for evaluat- global state of biocultural diversity. They do, ing the state of the world’s languages. Even if however, openly acknowledge that the main time-series data on the number of languages value of such an index will be largely practical should become available in the near future, and political, such as to raise awareness about sheer trends in language richness are not a biocultural diversity among decision makers, fully adequate indicator of the state of lan- opinion makers, and the general public and guages, as researchers in this field well rec- promote needed action for its protection and ognize. Better data on numbers of speakers restoration. over time and other sociolinguistic vital statis- It is in fact noteworthy that the Conven- tics, particularly on intergenerational lan-

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. tion on Biological Diversity—one of whose guage transmission, contexts of use, availabil- goals, as previously mentioned, is the pro- ity of mother tongue education, etc., will be tection and promotion of traditional knowl- needed for this purpose. An expert group on edge, innovations, and practices relevant to language endangerment and language main- the conservation of biodiversity—is currently tenance recently gathered by UNESCO has Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org considering the state and trends of linguis- put forth a set of recommendations for the tic diversity as a possible indicator of the assessment of linguistic vitality (UNESCO state and trends of traditional knowledge. The 2003), which should provide useful guidance IBCD is a potential candidate to fulfill this also for the development of linguistic diver- role. sity indicators. [Specifically on the role of Also very relevant in this connection is education through a mother-tongue medium some of the recent quantitative work carried and on educational policies in the mainte- out by ethnobiologists to measure and assess nance of linguistic diversity, see Skutnabb- the persistence and loss of traditional eco- Kangas (2000). On structural and functional logical knowledge (TEK). Researchers such indicators of language obsolescence, see Hill as Zent (1999, 2001), Lizarralde (2001), Ross (2001).]

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 611 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

PROTECTING AND tional policies, as well as an increase in the MAINTAINING BIOCULTURAL availability of financial and other resources DIVERSITY in support of efforts to promote the protec- tion and maintenance of biocultural diversity Of course, no matter how sophisticated our at various levels. Yet, much more is needed, understanding of biocultural diversity and especially in terms of change in general atti- ability to represent, measure, and assess it may tudes and behaviors. The recent proliferation be, without appropriate action we would still, of news stories as well as of popular books most likely, be presiding over the demise of on the loss of linguistic diversity (e.g., Crystal our bioculturally rich world, given the forces 2000, Dalby 2003, Nettle & Romaine 2000)— causing its erosion. This is why the relevance which generally point to a link between lan- of affecting policy and public opinion is high guage loss and culture and knowledge loss, on the minds of researchers in this field, giv- and in some cases also biodiversity loss—may ing it its characteristic mixture of theory and help increase general awareness of biocultural practice, research and advocacy, and knowl- diversity and its predicament, which should be edge building and knowledge dissemination. a key to political action. As indicated at various points above, Ultimately, the most fundamental impetus several international organizations, both in for the protection and maintenance of biocul- the biodiversity conservation area (WWF, tural diversity can come, not from top-down UNEP, IUCN) and in that of linguistic and efforts, but only from the ground-up action cultural diversity (UNESCO), have noted the of indigenous and other societies worldwide significance of the biocultural perspective and whose languages, cultural identities, and lands incorporated it to a greater or lesser extent in are being threatened by global forces. A per- their own approaches and activities. ceived link between language, cultural iden- Developments in the field of human rights, tity, and land (rather than an abstract notion such as the United Nations’ Draft Declaration such as nature) is common among many in- on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other digenous societies (see, e.g., Blythe & Brown advances in the definition of indigenous peo- 2003). It is no surprise, then, that many of the ples’ and minorities’ land rights, traditional most explicit efforts to maintain and revital- resource rights, property rights, and cultural ize linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity and linguistic rights, are also relevant to the jointly are grassroots efforts, whether entirely protection and promotion of biocultural di-

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. endogenous or promoted and assisted by na- versity. All these are contributing to the es- tional and international organizations. Learn- tablishment of a link between biodiversity and ing about and from these efforts and mak- cultural and linguistic diversity in the arena ing the lessons as widely available as possible of human rights, as well as to the promotion is the goal of some of the ongoing work in

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org of a new vision in which the protection of biocultural diversity (L. Maffi & E. Woodley, human rights (both individual and collective) Global Source Book on Biocultural Diversity,in is intimately connected to the affirmation of preparation). human responsibilities toward and steward- ship over humanity’s heritage in nature and culture. (For reviews, see Maffi 2001a, Posey FUTURE PROSPECTS 2001, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000.) Over the course of about 10 years, the field The dissemination of research activities, of biocultural diversity has emerged as an ex- along with advocacy, has thus had some ini- ample of an integrated, transdisciplinary field tial success in producing general awareness of (Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning the these issues. It has even resulted in a certain natural and social sciences, as well as linking amount of change in national and interna- theory with practice and science with policy,

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

ethics, and human rights. No doubt, at the plinary teams, and thus to the elaboration of a present stage this field needs an opportu- new synthesis about the connections between nity to better define its theoretical and philo- linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. A sophical assumptions, its research questions, transdisciplinary approach should also make its methodologies, and its overall goals. The research more sensitive to real world needs increasing focus on the topic of biocultural and research findings more relevant for policy diversity in academic settings promises to and other applications. Above all, a transdis- bring to this field the benefit of scientific rigor ciplinary study of biocultural diversity should and critical analysis. We can also hope that the contribute to our understanding that, as adoption of biocultural diversity as a domain Harmon (2002) puts it, diversity in nature and for academic inquiry will foster a transdisci- culture makes us human. In this resides the plinary turn in academe, leading to greater hope that greater respect for and stewardship communication and exchanges among disci- over our shared natural and cultural heritage plines, as well as more work by interdisci- can be achieved—before it is too late.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research relevant to the preparation of this article was conducted with support from two grants awarded by The Christensen Fund to Terralingua(2003–2004, 2005). This support is gratefully acknowledged. I am also grateful to ToveSkutnabb-Kangas and Dave Harmon for their careful reading 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 Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World.2vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed. Bernard R. 1992. Preserving language diversity. Hum. Organ. 51:82–89 Berreby D. 2003. Fading species and dying tongues: when the two part ways. New York Times, May 27, p. F-3 Blythe 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. by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Boas F. 1911. The Handbook of North American Indians,Vol. 1. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 40, Part 1. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Borrini Feyerabend G, MacDonald K, Maffi L, eds. 2004. History, Culture and Conservation. Policy Matters 13:1–308 (Spec. issue)

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org CBD 1992. Approved by the contracting parties at the United Nations Conf. Environ. Dev. Rio de Janeiro,5June. 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.:17–31 Clay 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 recent human cultural diversity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:371– 83

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 613 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

Crystal D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Dalby A. 2003. Language in Danger: The Loss of Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to Our Future. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Murray Darwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.2vols. London: Murray Dasmann RF. 1991. The importance of cultural and biological diversity. In Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation, and Ecodevelopment, ed. ML Oldfield, JB Alcorn, pp. 7–15. Boulder: Westview Durning 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: Norton Fishman JA. 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset. Lang. Soc. 11:1–14 Grimes 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 68:1–42 Harmon D. 1992. Indicators of the world’s cultural diversity. Presented at World Congr. Natl. Parks and Protected Areas, 4th, Caracas, Venezuela Harmon D. 1995. The status of the world’s languages as reported in Ethnologue. Southwest J. Ling. 14:1–33 Harmon D. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and lin- guistic diversity. Southwest J. Ling. 15:89–108 Harmon D. 2001. On the meaning and moral imperative of diversity. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 53–70 Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human.Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Harmon D, Loh J. 2004. The IBCD: a measure of the world’s biocultural diversity. See Borrini- Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 271–80 Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract. 3(1):26–27 Heizer RF. 1963. Foreword. See Kroeber 1963, pp. v–ix Hill JH. 1996. Languages of the land: toward an anthropological dialectology. Presented at David Skomp Disting. Lect. Ser. Anthropol., Indiana Univ., Dept. Anthropol., 21 March

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Hill JH. 1997. The meaning of linguistic diversity: knowable or unknowable? Anthropol. Newsl. 38(1):9–10 Hill JH. 2001. Dimensions of attrition in language death. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 175–89 Hunn ES. 2001. Prospects for the persistence of “endemic” cultural systems of traditional environmental knowledge: a Zapotec example. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 118–32 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Krauss M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68:4–10 Kroeber AL. 1928. Native culture of the Southwest. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. 23:375–98 Kroeber 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. 265–81 Loh J, Harmon D. 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5(3):231–41 Mace R, Pagel M. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in North America. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:117–21 Maffi L. 1998. Language: a resource for nature. Nature Resour. UNESCO J. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 34(4):12–21

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

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. Walnut Creek, 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-Feyerabend et 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 biological diversity. 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):4–6 McNeely 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, The World Bank Moore JL, Manne L, Brooks T, Burgess ND, Davies R, et al. 2002. The distribution of cultural and biological diversity in Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1645–53 Mufwene SS. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Muhlh¨ ausler¨ P. 1995. The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. In The of Multiculturalism in the Asia/Pacific, ed. D Myers, pp. 154–61. Darwin, Aust.: North. Territory Univ. Press Muhlh¨ ausler¨ P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Rim. London: Routledge Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Habitat.Washington, DC: Counterpoint Nabhan 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 time by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. of diversity loss: from the Colorado Plateau to global hotspots. Ann. Mo. Bot. Garden 89:164–75 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– Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org 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. Press Nichols J. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66:475–521 Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press Nietschmann BQ. 1992. The interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. Occas. Pap. 21, Cent. World Indig. Stud., Olympia, WA Oviedo 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 Cultural Diversity. Gland, Switz.: WWF-Int., Terralingua

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 615 AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35

Pawley A. 2001. Some problems of describing linguistic and ecological knowledge. See Maffi 2001c, 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 and politics. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 379–96 Price D. 1990. Atlas of World Cultures. London: Sage Pullum GK. 1989. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Nat. Lang. Ling. Theory 7:275–81 Robins RH, Uhlenbeck EM, eds. 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford: Berg Ross 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. 14:226–42 Schleicher 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: Erlbaum Skutnabb-Kangas T, Harmon D. 2002. Review of Daniel Nettle, “Linguistic Diversity.” Lang. Policy 1:175–82 Skutnabb-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 Biocultural Diversity: People, Languages, and Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO Smith EA. 2001. On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. See Maffi 2001c, 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 GIS for 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):16–19

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Turner NJ, Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty N. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-. Hum. Ecol. 31:439–61 UNESCO. 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 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org UNESCO. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Int. Expert Meet. UNESCO Intan- gible Cult. Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert Group Endanger. Lang. Paris-Fontenoy,10–12 March. Document approved by the participants on 31 March 2003, available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file download.php/1a41d53cf46e10710298d31 4450b97dfLanguage+Vitality.doc Whorf BL. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technol. Rev. (MIT) 42:229–31, 247–48 Wilcox BA, Duin KN. 1995. Indigenous cultural and biological diversity: overlapping values of Latin American ecoregions. Cult. Surv. Q. 18(4):49–53 Wollock J. 2001. Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: some implications for the language sciences. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 248–62 Zarger RK, Stepp JR. 2004. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Curr. Anthropol. 45(3):413–18

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

Zent S. 1999. The quandary of conserving ethnoecological knowledge: a Piaroa example. In Ethnoecology: 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 Maffi 2001c, pp. 190–211 Zent S, Lopez-Zent E. 2004. Ethnobotanical convergence, divergence, and change among the Hoti 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 by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 617 HI-RES-AN34-29-Maffi.qxd 9/8/05 5:31 PM Page C-1 rst by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org rld map showing overlap of endemism in languages and higher vertebrates. Original work by D. Harmon, based on Harmon 1996. Fi Figure 1 Wo published in Maffi 1998. Reproduced with permission.

www.annualreviews.org • Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity C-1 HI-RES-AN34-29-Maffi.qxd 9/8/05 5:31 PM Page C-2 by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Figure 2 Plant diversity and language distribution. From Stepp et al. 2004. Used with permission.

C-2 Maffi Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 34, 2005 Contents

Frontispiece Sally Falk Moore pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and Impossible Sally Falk Moore ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation Frances M. Hayashida pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp43 Archaeology of the Body Rosemary A. Joyce ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp139 Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response Neil Brodie and Colin Renfrew ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp343

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology Joe Watkins pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp429 The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz ppppppppppppppppppppppp575 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern Humans Erik Trinkaus pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp207 Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen pppppppppppppppppppppppppp451 The Ecologies of Human Immune Function Thomas W. McDade ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp495

vii Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole Studies Marlyse Baptista ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp33 Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language William F. Hanks ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp67 Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia N.J. Enfield pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp181 Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease Charles L. Briggs pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp269 Will Indigenous Languages Survive? Michael Walsh ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp293 Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity Luisa Maffi pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over System Dipankar Gupta ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp409 Indigenous Movements in Australia Francesca Merlan pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp473 Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies, Ironies, New Directions Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp549

Sociocultural Anthropology

by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. The Cultural Politics of Body Size Helen Gremillion pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp13 To o Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Anthony Stocks ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp85 Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological Engagements Dominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp105 The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garc´ıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard, and Vincent Vadez pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp121

viii Contents Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual Technologies Deborah Poole pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp159 Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain Health Disparities William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee pppppppppppppppppppppppp231 Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous Peoples Pauline Turner Strong pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp253 The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life Sharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp317 Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration, and Immigration in the New Europe Paul A. Silverstein pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp363 Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp385 Caste and Politics: Identity Over System Dipankar Gupta ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp409 The Evolution of Human Physical Attractiveness Steven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp523 Mapping Indigenous Lands Mac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp619 Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among South American Indigenous Groups A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill, ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca 639 Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology Leith Mullings ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp667 Enhancement Technologies and the Body Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Linda F. Hogle ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp695 Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives from Latin America Guillermo de la Pe˜na pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp717 Surfacing the Body Interior Janelle S. Taylor ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp741

Contents ix Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain Health Disparities William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee pppppppppppppppppppppppp231 Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease Charles L. Briggs pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp269 Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration, and Immigration in the New Europe Paul A. Silverstein pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp363 The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz ppppppppppppppppppppppp575 Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology Leith Mullings ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garc´ıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard, and Vincent Vadez pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp121 Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous Peoples Pauline Turner Strong pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp253 Will Indigenous Languages Survive? Michael Walsh ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp293 Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp385 Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology Joe Watkins pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp429 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen pppppppppppppppppppppppppp451 Indigenous Movements in Australia Francesca Merlan pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp473 Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies, Ironies, New Directions Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp549

x Contents Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity Luisa Maffi pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp599 Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among South American Indigenous Groups A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill, Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp639 Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives from Latin America Guillermo de la Pe˜na pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp717

Indexes

Subject Index ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp757 Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp771 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chapters may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Contents xi