UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , SANTA BARBARA BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ SANTA BARBARA , CALIFORNIA 9310 6 DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY This report was prepared by members of a team at UCSB investigating the allegations. The report reflects the findings of this team, however, and is not an official statement issued by the University of California or the Department of Anthropology. Preliminary report The major allegations against Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel presented in Darkness in El Dorado by Patrick Tierney appear to be deliberately fraudulent. The investigation is ongoing, and not all questions have been answered. However, this book appears to be deliberately fraudulent. On those points where we have reached firm conclusions, we find that Patrick Tierney has misconstrued or misrepresented his primary sources to a considerable degree in an effort to support his allegations. The report below is preliminary. As such it contains some tentative conclusions which require further investigation and checking by experts. The failure of this report to address many of the less significant allegations should NOT be construed as an implicit endorsement of those claims; we have focused only on the most serious charges in this preliminary report. Additional information is available at the following web sites: The National Academy of Sciences statement: http://national-academies.org/nas/eldorado The UCSB Anthropology team web site: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/chagnon.html The University of Michigan statement: http://www.umich.edu/~urel/darkness.html U. Michigan investigator: http://www.egroups.com/message/evolutionary-psychology/7934 Slate article by John Tooby: http://slate.msn.com/HeyWait/00-10-24/HeyWait.asp More from John Tooby: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/eldorado/witchcraft.html SLAA commentary on Neel: http://www.egroups.com/message/evolutionary-psychology/8370 Susan Lindee’s AAA talk: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/hss/faculty/neel.htm Int. Genetic Epidemiology Society: http://hydra.usc.edu/iges/Darkness/Darkness.html Comments or questions about this report can be sent to: [email protected] Edward H. Hagen Michael E. Price John Tooby Innovationskolleg Theoretische Biologie Department of Anthropology Department of Anthropology Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin University of California University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara October 11, 2001 Preliminary Report on the Neel/Chagnon allegations Table of contents DOCUMENT HISTORY........................................................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 DETAILED EVALUATION OF CHAPTER 4: ATOMIC INDIANS, & CHAPTER 5: OUTBREAK .............................. 13 VACCINE SAFETY ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Researchers’ conclusions on vaccine safety................................................................................................................... 16 Vaccine reactions in measles-inexperienced populations................................................................................................ 16 Can the vaccine virus be transmitted? ........................................................................................................................... 18 NEEL’S VIEWS AND IDEAS, PART I ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Analysis Of ‘On Being Headman’ ................................................................................................................................. 24 NEEL’S VIEWS AND IDEAS, PART II ....................................................................................................................................... 26 HOW DID MEASLES ARRIVE AT MISSION OCAMO, THE CENTER OF THE EPIDEMIC? ..................................................................... 31 Could the Brazilian boy actually have been the source of measles? ................................................................................ 34 THE EPIDEMIC.................................................................................................................................................................... 36 ‘First’ Yanomamö death may not have been a Yanomamö.............................................................................................. 36 Why did Neel et al. only vaccinate half of the village at Ocamo: was this an experiment? ............................................... 37 Did the Neel team fail to provide proper medical care? ................................................................................................. 38 CONCLUSIONS ON CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 .................................................................................................................................. 39 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................ 41 NAMING THE DEAD............................................................................................................................................................. 41 HAMILTON RICE ................................................................................................................................................................. 44 DETAILED EVALUATION OF CHAPTER 10: TO MURDER AND TO MULTIPLY.................................................... 47 BRIEF INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................................................................ 47 1. MISREPRESENTATION OF DATA ON JIVARO HEADHUNTING. ................................................................................................. 50 2. SELECTIVE OMISSION OF DATA WHICH SUPPORT CHAGNON’S FINDINGS................................................................................ 50 3. PORTRAYS CHAGNON’S INCLUSION OF DEAD AND DIVORCED WIVES AS DECEPTIVE. .............................................................. 51 4. INSINUATES THAT CHAGNON DISHONESTLY CONFOUNDED UNOKAIS AND HEADMEN.............................................................. 52 5. SUGGESTS THAT HE DISCOVERED THE IDENTITIES OF CHAGNON’S VILLAGES......................................................................... 52 6. MISREPRESENTS CHAGNON’S EXPLANATION FOR UNOKAI REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS. ............................................................. 54 7. MISREPRESENTS A STUDY THAT HE CLAIMS REFUTES CHAGNON. ......................................................................................... 55 WHY HAS TIERNEY BEEN SO DISHONEST? ................................................................................................................ 56 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX I: EMAIL FROM DR. SAMUEL KATZ, MEASLES EXPERT............................................................................................ 59 APPENDIX II: ‘RETRACTION’ BY TERENCE TURNER ............................................................................................................... 60 APPENDIX III: EMAIL FROM SUSAN LINDEE, HISTORIAN......................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX IV: SUSAN LINDEE’S EMAIL TO SLATE MAGAZINE.................................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX V: EMAIL FROM VEJA REPORTER ........................................................................................................................ 64 APPENDIX VI: COMMENTARY BY DR. KIM HILL ................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX VII: EMAIL FROM PETER BIELLA ON ‘STAGED’ FILMS ............................................................................................ 73 APPENDIX VIII: EMAIL FROM JAY RUBY ON ‘STAGED’ FILMS, ETC.......................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX VIX: LETTER FROM PROFESSOR JANE LANCASTER ................................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX X: LETTER TO THE NEW YORKER FROM BILL OLIVER, CHAIRMAN OF PEDIATRICS, U. MICHIGAN ............................. 81 APPENDIX XI: ORIGINAL EMAIL FROM DR. SAMUEL KATZ TO BILL OLIVER ............................................................................ 87 APPENDIX XII: STATEMENT READ BY PROFESSOR A. MAGDALENA HURTADO AT THE AAA MEETINGS ..................................... 89 APPENDIX XIII: EXCERPT FROM CHAGNON’S MONOGRAPH ON COLLECTING GENEALOGIES ....................................................... 93 APPENDIX XIV: CHAGNON’S RECENT STATEMENT ON HIS GENEALOGICAL METHODS.............................................................. 100 APPENDIX XV: