American Anthropologist 1980

Bateson, Mary Catherine. Continuities in Insight and Innovation: Toward a Margaret Mead Biography. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82 (4): 271-277.

In this coherent article, Margaret Mead’s daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson, explores the ways in which Mead has contributed not only to anthropology, but also enriched American culture through her personal insights and scientific objectivity. Writing shortly after Mead’s death, Bateson proposes that we should view and understand her mother’s work as uniquely self-aware. She suggests that one of Mead’s greatest abilities was to understand the subjectivity involved in viewing a culture and the importance of an awareness of this subjectivity.

Mead’s attentiveness to personality and the object of scientific research was one of her strongest points. When now evaluating her insight into anthropology, one must consider the relationship between the two as instrumental in developing a concise picture. Bateson considers Mead’s personal writing, via letter and journal, to be an important component for understanding the researcher. Mead was continually trying to understand her own culture’s impact on her perception of cultures. Bateson would like Mead to be seen as both an innovator and conserver of culture. Mead kept a close watch on the need to preserve the cultures she studied, while recognizing the potential for a cultural critique of her own. This article lends insight into Mead as a person and as an intellectual from the distinctive perspective of her daughter. It would be useful to anyone interested in examining the ways in which Mead has been portrayed since her death.

DANA YOUNKIN Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner).

Baumhoff, M. A. Robert Fleming Heizer (1915-1979). American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82 (4): 843-846.

In approximately 1200 words, M. A. Baumhoff chronicles the academic life and achievements of archeologist/anthropologist Robert Fleming Heizer, and concludes with a history of their relationship.

Baumhoff characterizes Heizer as one of the leading archeologists of western North America. He notes that Heizer produced extensive quantities of articles, books, reviews, and films. His only fieldwork that was not published documented his formal field training in 1934; a result of his energy commitment and single-mindedness. Baumhoff also points to Heizer’s interest not only in collecting artifacts, but also in the manufacture of them as well, thus explaining his work in ethnography as an archeologist.

The obituary loosely categorizes Heizer’s career in Three parts: The early years of breaking ground at the University of California at Berkeley, Heizer’s fieldwork excavations, and his work in ethnography. Baumhoff finds Heizer’s early digs with Berkeley significant because at that time archeology in western North America was not highly regarded, especially by A.L. Kroeber, who Baumhoff comments, “thought very little of prospect for local archeology because no significant change had occurred there” (Baumhoff 843). Baumhoff also applauds Heizer for his success in personally raising funds for his excavation in the Sacramento Valley under the cloud of the department’s scrutiny, and his achievement in essentially changing Kroeber’s 30 year-old attitude toward archeology after that dig.

The second part of Heizer’s career that Baumhoff notes is his excavations after establishing an archeological program at Berkeley. Baumhoff predicts that Heizer will be best known for his work in Californian and Nevadan archeology, but also notes his work outside of the country on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Baumhoff notes that Heizer was not a particularly strong theoretician, rather, his strengths were in methods and their application to the field.

The final aspect of Heizer’s life that the article presents focuses on his work in ethnography, or what he considered “ethnohistory.” Baumhoff explains that Heizer would examine an ethnographic topic by exploring “cultural spread, invention, function, or whatever else would seem feasible,” and although he did write traditional ethnographies, he was not well known for it. Baumhoff does note, however, that Heizer and Kroeber oversaw post mortem publication of C. Hart Merriam’s ethnographies of California Indians.

Baumhoff concludes the obituary by expressing his personal experiences with Heizer, noting that although he was not always easy to deal with, his energy and imagination were inspiring as he often went beyond what was required of him as a professor.

TODD PANG Wheaton College (Donna Kerner)

Baumhoff, M. A. Obituary: Robert Fleming Heizer (1915-1979). American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol.82(4):843-846.

Robert F. Heizer was a leading archaeologist of western North America (excluding the Southwest). A count (probably incomplete) of his publications numbered 374 articles and monographs, 21 books, 40 reviews, and 2 films, and he was known especially for having published in all the subfields of anthropology.

During his graduate studies at Berkeley, Heizer met with some challenges because his major professor, A. L. Kroeber, was not particularly interested in Heizer’s work in California-Nevada archaeology, directing him instead toward more ethnographic pursuits. However, Heizer persisted in his archaeological work, and even funded some of his earlier excavations with personally-raised money, rather than grants from the Berkeley department.

Heizer completed his Ph.D. in 1941 and taught at Oregon and UCLA, as well as worked in the Richmond shipyards during World War II, before returning to Berkeley in 1946, where he expected to start up an archaeology department. What he founded as the California Archaeological Survey in 1948 was reorganized as the University of California Archaeological Survey in 1949 and eventually became the Archaeological Research Facility, which had a worldwide rather than local focus. Under Heizer, the program had active excavations in both California and Nevada.

Heizer was known for his archaeological diligence, his methodological strength, (particularly his sensitivity to new technological innovations), and his work in ethnohistory and ethnology, including his publication of 1,000+ pages by anthropologist C. Hart Merriam that might not otherwise ever have been known to exist.

Although engaging with his students on an individual level, especially during summer field research, Heizer was not always easy to deal with personally. However, his students were captivated and motivated by his energy and imagination and his tireless interest in anthropology almost until the day he died.

KRISTINE HARRINGTON Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Blum, Michael, Elmer S. Miller, and Raymond T. Smith. Abdul Hamid el-Zein (1934-1979). American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82 (4): 847-848.

This article highlights the life and works of anthropologist Abdul Hamid el-Zein. He was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1934, and received his Bachelors Degree and first Masters Degree from local institutions. He died of a heart attack on August 13, 1979 at the age of forty-four. El-Zein held a B.A. in Philosophy and Social Science, M.A.s in Theoretical Anthropology and an unstated field, and a Doctorate in Anthropology.

El-Zein’s contributions to the field, though cut short, were noteworthy. He was known for his structural analysis of religion and symbols, his study of cultural ecology, and his “ethnographic descriptions of field settings in Egypt, Oman, and Kenya” (847). His first fieldwork involved the study of the cultural ecology in a Nubian village and how a newly constructed damn was affecting it. His masters thesis regarding this topic was an analysis of the Nubian waterwheel and how it affected its political economy. He also conducted fieldwork on the island of Lamu, in Kenya. He studied the religious symbols of the culture and was able to gain insight on Lamu social life. Unfortunately, since his life ended abruptly, many projects and papers were left unfinished.

Throughout his career el-Zein earned many distinctions, awards, and fellowships. They include awards from the Ford Foundation and Woodrow Wilson. His fellowships were from the University of Chicago, Temple University, and the United Nations. He became Associate Professor of Temple University after teaching four years and worked as a professor there until he died.

CARRIE L. PRIOR Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Blim, Michael, Elmer S. Miller, and Raymond T. Smith. Obituary: Abdul Hamid El-Zein (1934-1979). American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol.82 (4): 847-848.

Two professors from Temple University, Michael Blim and Elmer Miller, along with Raymond T. Smith of the University of Chicago collaborate on this memoriam to their colleague, Abdul Hamid El-Zein. They recite El-Zein’s academic accomplishments as an ecological functionalist and describe his talent for teaching and producing great ethnographic works.

El-Zein, who was born in Alexandria, Egypt, received his undergraduate education in philosophy and two masters degrees in theoretical anthropology from the University of Alexandria and American University of Cairo. El-Zein complete his second masters at the American University of Cairo, in which he described the “sociopolitical and functional utilization of land, water, and technology” of a Nubian village that would be later engulfed by the Aswan Dam project. El-Zein went to the University of Chicago to pursue a Ph.D. There, El-Zein circumvented a majority of his coursework and developed a dissertation involving the peoples of the island of Lamu in Kenya. His dissertation utilized a structural-functional approach to the analysis of religious symbols to make conclusions about the impact of the religion in a community and its relationship to that community’s social classes and everyday life. But the work also addressed issues of anthropological theory that could only be answered through a “deepened knowledge of the situation and a an extraordinary command of the details of social process.” After receiving his Ph.D. in 1970, El-Zein began work at Temple University. There, he quickly obtained the position of associate professor and gained acceptance among his colleagues and students as an outstanding academic and teacher. El-Zein received many fellowships for his work, and the breadth of his interests continued to grow.

Blim report that at the time of his death, El-Zein, had only completed one major work, a critique of Orientalist and anthropological studies of Islam. Many of his continuing projects remained uncompleted. They believe that El-Zein, had he the chance, would have been able to “illuminate our understanding of the rich, but often opaque, visions we have of human life.”

ELIZABETH SHAFER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Bohannan, Paul. You Can’t Do Nothing. American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol.82 (3): 508-524.

In this article Paul Bohannan asks the question, “what has happened to social and cultural anthropology and ethnography?” Bohannan discusses the anthropology of the future and suggests what trends may be evolving. Further, he states that our present inevitably becomes our past and how this will affect anthropologists in the future. Since Bohannan cannot predict the future, Bohannan mainly focuses on the past. He says, “The play of historical forces has diverted us [anthropologists] into new chreods” (512). He believes that if anthropologists continue to do the same thing, they will not be progressing with the world, but slowly losing touch with subjects that matter.

Anthropology, like any social science, is founded in deep traditional beliefs and questions. Bohannan discusses the four main traditional mega-aspects of cultural anthropology: family and kinship, economic and adaptation, power and politics and religion/ideology and worldview. He projects these questions into the future. The present situation for the anthropologist functions with these traditional topical focuses, but what will the future hold? Bohannan suggests what might occur if the situation were to remain the same or change. His jump to the future of anthropology is in a matter of decades that takes him to the year 2000, which seems quite adventurous to him.

He gives a historic background of the beginnings of anthropology and then analyzes every aspect that could seem to have impact on the future anthropologists. Bohannan swirls through our past touching on numerous anthropologists’ works from all over the world. Most of the discussion is actually held through the eyes of other great anthropologists of the periods he enters. Bohannan brings anthropology from its infancy up through its adolescence to make the point of it being quite young.

LINDSAY HUMPHRIES Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Bohannan, Paul. You Can’t Do Nothing: Presidential Address 1979. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol.82(3):508-524.

Bohannan’s American Anthropological Association presidential address focuses on the role of anthropologists in the modern world. Based on past and present worldwide changes, he offers projections as to what he believes anthropology will become in the year 2000. He concludes that you “can’t do nothing” and that anthropologists will play an important part in the future of the world.

Bohannan introduces his address by discussing past presidential addresses and the traditional themes and models that they articulated. Rather than follow in their footsteps, he decides to look to the future and presents several scenarios that could become reality, depending on changing social institutions.

Before delving into the future, Bohannan turns to the past and traces the history of anthropology as a discipline. He finds that the slavery issue and the presence of colonialism were the driving forces behind the emergence of anthropology in England and the United States. In addition, he identifies a tradition of liberalism that emphasizes the development of the individual. However, Bohannan argues that a revolution has occurred within social and cultural anthropology and that there is a new context for anthropologists’ professional activities. He likens the change to Waddington’s catastrophes in an epigenetic landscape, in which the flow of a familiar social action is blocked somehow, and change is forced. The complicating factor in the case of American anthropology is the subtlety of the change, and the failure of many to recognize that “we are in utterly new terrain.”

Bohannan then offers projections for the year 2000 based on the “four traditional megaquestions” (the “Big Four”) of cultural anthropology: family and kinship, ecology and economic adaptation, power and politics, and religion/ideology or world view. He argues that until anthropology recognizes the reality of ethnic pluralism, there will be a constant struggle for political hegemony of one group over another. Ecologically, he argues for the need of anthropology to recognize a world problematique that cannot be solved in simple pieces. Third, Bohannan urges further cross-cultural study of family and kinship relations and their influence on society at large. Finally, he argues that rather than focus on training their successors to be experts in the social sciences, anthropologists have a duty to educate within a more general liberal arts context, in order to make the field trusted and accepted as a method of explaining religions and world views.

Bohannan then offers several somewhat amusing, but quite pessimistic scenarios, based on the direction he thinks anthropology is currently headed, foreseeing the world as far as the middle of the twenty-first century. Based on these scenarios, he concludes that anthropologists have had a more powerful impact on twentieth century thinking than they have realized and that they must therefore take responsibility for the power they have in altering human interaction, rather than “complaining that nobody ever listened to them.”

Bohannan then argues that without realizing it or having any choice, anthropology has fallen into a “cranny” between sociobiology and the policy sciences. He identifies the idea of multiple membership as the most fundamental problem anthropologists must face, pointing to the growing number of specialized communities, what Virginia Hine has labeled as Segmented, Polycephalous, Idea-based Networks (or SPINs). These communities are held together by a single fundamental idea and dissolve as soon as their job is finished, and still allow some degree of autonomy, in that the individual may find security by learning to manipulate SPINs to work on one’s behalf.

Bohannon concludes that anthropology itself is a “SPIN made up of SPINs” held together by the idea that it can effect enormous changes in the world, more so than most anthropologists realize. As he points out consistently throughout his address: “We can’t do nothing.”

KRISTINE HARRINGTON Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Cassell, Joan. Ethical Principles for Conducting Fieldwork. American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol. 82 (1): 28-41.

In this article, Cassell examines federal regulations involving the study of human subjects. She notes that these regulations assume that all such studies occur in a biomedical context, when in actuality this is not the case. The relationships in research settings change with the style of research being conducted. She details the variations present in biomedical experimentation, psychological experimentation, survey research and participant-observation fieldwork and supplements this argument with a table. She notes that in fieldwork, “the paradigm is based upon human interaction, in all its richness, variety, and contradiction” (31); thus, power is shared by subjects and researchers.

Cassell describes the variations in risks and benefits present in the four types of research being considered and notes that fieldwork has a low level of harm. The area of greatest risk in fieldwork stems from potential privacy or confidentiality violations. She suggests that using a model that recognizes humans as ends in themselves, rather than means (as classified by Kant), might be more ethically appropriate.

Cassell details the four types of ethnography that exist: the verandah model, noblesse oblige, going native, and advocate ethnography an argument which she also supplements with a table. She then notes how ethical principles may be applied to each of these four models. Cassell concludes this article through a critique that notes what might be done to improve the practice of fieldwork, warning that “regulation will become an elaborate and expensive charade” (38), if the appropriate changes are not made.

AMANDA DALY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Cassell, Joan. Ethical Principles for Conducting Fieldwork. American Anthropologist March 1980 Vol.82(1):28-29.

Cassell writes this article in reaction to federal guidelines that had been recently established to regulate human subject research. She argues that because “the relations between those who study and those who are studied” vary according to the individual research context, the ethical principles that govern human subject research need also to differ depending on the type of research being conducted. She contends that an appropriate ethical guide is the Kantian categorical imperative, which calls for the researcher above all to respect the autonomy of the individuals studied.

Cassell opens with a discussion of the various forms that human subject research takes, noting four general categories: biomedical research, psychological research, survey research, and participant-observation research. Each of these categories has a different level of power over its human subjects, as well as differing levels of control over the research setting, context, and the direction(s) of interaction between researcher and subject. At one end of the spectrum is biomedical research, where the researcher has a high degree of power over the human subjects involved, the context of the research, and the setting. Under the biomedical paradigm, the interaction between investigators and human subjects tends to proceed in one direction, from investigator toward subject. At the other end of the spectrum is participant-observation, where the fieldworker is relatively powerless with respect to the subjects under study, as well as with regard to the research setting and the context. Communication tends to flow both ways under this paradigm.

Given these differences, she notes that the ethical principles that regulate research need to fit each paradigm’s particular circumstances. While a utilitarian analysis makes sense for biomedical research, where possible harms and benefits are indeed significant, Cassell feels that the Kantian categorical imperative is much better suited to participant-observation. As she writes, “weighing potential harms against benefits before [field] research is carried out becomes an exercise in creativity, with little relevance to the ethical dilemmas and problems that may emerge during the research.” Putting an ultimate value on each human subject’s autonomy is the preferred alternative.

Because fieldwork is not homogeneous, the Kantian categorical imperative has distinct implications for different fieldwork models. Two approaches that the categorical imperative calls into question are the “verandah” model, wherein human subjects are summoned by researchers and interrogated for the purposes of the researcher’s professional goals, and the “undercover agent” model, which uses deceptive practices in order to conduct research. Both models—and especially the latter—involve techniques that could violate the principles of the Kantian categorical imperative. Thus, they deserve extra scrutiny during the pre-research approval process. In the cases of the “noblesse-oblige” model, however, where fieldworkers are treated as patrons of the communities in which they work, and in the “going native” model, where the fieldworker attempts to assume a “native’s” role within a culture, Cassell argues that incidents and relationships have to be weighed on individual bases. Finally, she notes that the “advocacy reseach” approach might be the most ethical and ideal version of participant-observation research in terms of following the Kantian categorical imperative, especially when the field investigators have the goal of increasing the subject population’s autonomy.

In closing, Cassell makes two recommendations for successfully applying the Kantian categorial imperative to fieldwork situations. First, she writes that if techniques that violate the imperative’s principles are to be used in a participant-observation context, the fieldworker must supply sufficient reason(s) for doing so. Second, she contends that fieldworkers should go through a mandatory debriefing process with a review committee after they finish their research so that they can reflect upon the project’s ethical implications. This committee would have the power to sanction fieldworkers who abused their privileges as researchers.

ADAM BROWN Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Chapple, Eliot D. The Unbounded Reaches of Anthropology as a Research Science, and Some Working Hypotheses. American Anthropologist December,1980 Vol. 82 (4): 741-757.

Chapple’s article explains the process of thinking about Anthropology as a research science. He believes that in order for anthropology to be established as a research science, there must be a pattern of uniformity among a wide range of data to explain certain events. In his words, “Such uniformity makes it possible to describe relationships as elements of a system” (742). Chapple’s reasoning for establishing this pattern in anthropology is to reestablish the central mode of inquiry within the study of anthropology.

Chapple then goes on to explain a series of complex properties that make up the “integral system” (743) within a human being. He describes a series of biological rhythmic patterns that are found in humans. These patterns, he believes, are the patterns of uniformity he was looking to establish to promote anthropology as a research science, as he states, “the patterns of interaction of each of us organize and synthesize all the rhythmic processes going on in the body; they are the carrier pulses on which verbal and nonverbal actions are embroidered” (748).

Chapple explains that although many other disciplines have attempted to explain patterns of the human condition, he is offering his own hypothesis on patterns found in humans, as related to anthropology. He ends the article with: “…the framework of these complex systems of biological rhythms we can indeed maximize the natural and experiential endowments each of us possesses, even though the resultants of the process we are beginning to understand are, in the final analysis, a surprising consequence of serendipity” (756).

TANYA SZAFRANSKI Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Chapple, Eliot D. The Unbounded Reaches of Anthropology as a Research Science, and Some Working Hypotheses: Distinguished Lecture for 1979. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82(4):741-758.

In this lecture, Eliot D. Chapple outlines his vision of anthropology as an unbounded research science. In doing so, he formulates a general theory of anthropology based upon several testable hypotheses designed to elucidate human uniformities. His basic contention is that much of human experience can be reduced to the synchronized and non-synchronized biological rhythms found at both the individual and group levels. In Chapple’s view, anthropologists should use their resources to further explore the functioning of these bio-rhythms, as well as other areas that indicate possible human uniformities.

Chapple opens his lecture with an invocation for all anthropologists to ground their understanding of their discipline in the “biological basis of mankind.” Specifically, he requests that his colleagues “take a look at the extraordinary ways in which their biological properties shape and influence the whole range of what we customarily call cultural phenomena.” In Chapple’s view, anthropologists have much to gain by utilizing the insights of fields such as neuroendocrinology and physiological genetics. While he doesn’t discount the idea that one’s environment can have great effects upon an individual, neither does he accept environmentally-deterministic explanations of human experience. Simply put, Chapple claims that one’s genetic structure and bio-rhythms are consequential; a denial of this assertion shows a certain foolhardiness on the part of the disbeliever.

Bio-rhythms are found at both the micro- and macro-levels, working separately and together to help individuals experience their lives. Indeed, they are the central feature of Chapple’s general theory of anthropology, as well as the basis for majority of the testable hypotheses that he proposes. Among the most notable of Chapple’s eleven hypotheses is the contention that the biorhythms present in an individual can synchronize with the biorhythms of others in a way that makes the combined effect greater than any of the individual effects. With a theoretical posturing reminiscent of Durkheim, Chapple claims that these combined, or parallel, “interactional” rhythms can explain phenomena such as mob behavior. Usually, there is a “polarizing” force—i.e., a leader—to whom people’s bio-rhythms adapt. When people’s bio-rhythms are unable to synchronize, on the other hand, stress and conflict can result.

Chapple closes his lecture by articulating the major implications that his general theory of anthropology has for future scholarship. Most importantly, he notes that “recognition that the primary language of the CNS [central nervous system] enables us to build a science on the hierarchical systems of rhythms of interaction…also means that our inquiries over time and space are unbounded.” Further: “[Within] the framework of these complex systems of biological rhythms we can indeed maximize the natural and experiential endowments each of us possesses.” In this light, anthropology, when approached as a research science, returns to the possibility of having a teleological, progress-oriented orientation, at least on the individual level.

ADAM BROWN Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Dillon, Wilton S. Margaret Mead and Government. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol.82 (2): 319-339.

In this article, Dillon describes the “citizen-scholar” (331) role that Margaret Mead played in American government. Dillon describes her correspondence with President and First Lady Rosalynn Carter. Mead gave President Carter advice on matters concerning foreign affairs and legislation such as the Child Nutrition Act of 1978. Mead felt that Carter could use his personal virtues of humility and self-confidence to help serve the people. Dillon remarks, “Mead knew that holding public office is essentially an exchange relationship and that leadership consists of asking citizens to contribute their gifts to the public good” (321). Noting her support of the two-party model of government, Dillon chronicles Mead’s interactions with presidential candidate Elliot Richardson.

Dillon states that Mead’s first major interactions with Washington, D.C. came at the start of World War II and lasted until her death in November 1980. He tells of Mead’s interest in “government as [a] social organization and as [an] opportunity for social invention” (326), with issues ranging from NASA, housing, and urban development. Mead testified to congressional committees numerous times in her life on issues such as the preservation of Samoan culture and child care and nurturance. Mead also vouched for a national film center to chronicle various vanishing cultures.

Dillon describes Mead as a “multinational enterprise” (330), and cleverly alludes to her fieldwork in American Samoa by describing her complex and hierarchical associates as her kula ring. The article concludes by recounting the evolution of Mead’s particular style of leadership.

AMANDA DALY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)


Dillon demonstrates Margaret Mead’s interest and influence within the political realm of the U.S. government, analyzing Mead’s historical interactions with the government with regards to her roles as public citizen, teacher, and anthropologist. Dillon discusses her relationship with the Carter first family, Elliot Richardson, the federal bureaucracy, the U.S. Congress, the bowhead whale, and the fourth estate. He also discusses the evolution of her style of leadership.

Margaret Mead had a personal relationship with President and Mrs. Jimmy Carter. As Dillon notes, they had met, and Mead often offered her advice and council, often in the form of telegrams as well as telephone calls. She took an active role as a citizen, voicing her opinions to the president on numerous wide-ranging issues. Dillon includes several of the telegrams in his article to demonstrate her style and the personal manner in which she talked to the President. Dillon also points out Mead’s personal dealings with other prominent public figures such as Elliot Richardson, whom Mead advised on several occasions. Rather than involve herself in one particular section of the federal bureaucracy, Mead took a position on the edge so that she could be involved in many different settings. Her involvement in the federal bureaucracy led to her counsel being sought after as well as generously volunteered on many varying issues. Likewise, Mead readily involved herself in the matters of the U.S. Congress, and Dillon notes that, “Perhaps no other citizen in modern times has testified on so many different topics before more different congressional committees as Mead” (327).

One specific issue with which she became involved was the hunting of the bowhead whale by Eskimos using explosives. She was strongly influenced by the politicians with who she aligned herself, some of whom were environmentalists. Environmentalism played a large role in her opinions and advice on issues similar to the bowhead-whale case. Mead as a teacher-scholar-citizen capitalized on the media, what Dillon calls here the “fourth estate,” in order to attempt to encourage others including the media to take her lead and become more active citizens. Dillon concludes his article with a description of the evolution of Mead’s leadership. Important to note is that although she always conducted herself as a participant observer, influencing politics only through advice and suggestion, she was able to “command the attention of bishops, revolutionaries, bankers, legislators, monarchs, housewives, husbands, and children” (335). Margaret Mead was truly an amazing woman, and moreover an amazing citizen of the United States of America.

SEAN GANTT Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Elsasser, Albert B. Obituary: Thedora Kroeber-Quinn (1897-1979). American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol. 82 (1): 114-155.

This article is a tribute to Thedora Kroeber-Quinn who contributed to the field of anthropology. She is known for writing several books about Californian Indians and writes with an “artistic sense, serenity, and elegant simplicity,” adjectives that can also be used to describe her personality. Thedora was married to Alfred Kroeber, and each influenced the other throughout their careers. She often accompanied her husband in the field and assisted with the interviews, although she did not deal with the field reports and the analyses. She was a supportive and devoted wife who raised four children, and doing so was both exhilarating and important to Kroeber. Despite her marriage to Alfred Kroeber, she was not just his wife, but able to stand in the academic field by her own merits. Her life was one of steady spiritual growth and stimulation, and after the death of her third husband, John Quinn, she continued to write and publish books and papers. Her first published piece was under the name of her first husband, Clifton Brown. Thedora Kroeber also held a university position as Regent of the University of California, where she received a degree in clinical psychology in 1920. In her later life, she continued to speak out against nuclear weapons research.

MAURA MAE DEEDY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Elsasser, Albert B. Obituary: Theodora Kroeber-Quinn (1897- 1979). American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol.82(1):114-115.

Albert Elsasser, a colleague of Theodora Kroeber-Quinn, describes Kroeber-Quinn’s life, academic works, and relationship to her husband and prominent anthropologist Alfred Kroeber as a memoriam. He describes the many accomplishments and tragedies of Kroeber-Quinn’s long life, recounting the tragedy of losing her first husband and the happiness she found in establishing a family with Alfred Kroeber. While her marriage to Kroeber awards her the most notoriety, Elsasser emphasizes her own personal and academic accomplishments. He illuminates much her independent work in Polynesia and among the Californian Indians. Kroeber-Quinn is credited with contributing to the development of the methods of statistically analyzing culture with her first work, but he claims that the dry prose associated with this method was “not her métier.” He complements her on her “refined artistic sense, serenity, and elegant simplicity” that was obvious in both her personality and her writings. In addition to being a wife, mother, and respected academic, Kroeber-Quinn held a position as a Regent of the University of California for a year. After Alfred Kroeber’s death, she married for a third time to John Quinn. Shortly before her death Kroeber-Quinn published her own obituary, in which she expressed no bitterness toward the difficulties of her life and a conviction that she was always sure of herself and her life path.

ELIZABETH SHAFER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Falk, Dean. Language, Handedness, and Primate Brains: Did Australopithecines Sign? American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol. 82 (1): 72-78.

This brief article attempts to understand the origins of speech and handedness, and tries to determine which came first. Dean Falk explores many physical anthropological findings based on studies of primate and human brains. Falk presents studies that look specifically at the homologous traits of the brains of humans and of old world monkeys. The author suggests that language, or some level of vocal communication, came before gestural communication because of how the hands are used as tools for gathering and creating materials. As bipedalism evolved, the forelimbs would be utilized more. However language does not rely on being bipedal. During the transformation from an arboreal lifestyle to a more terrestrial one, Falk suggests that vocal communication arose. Falk negates a popular hypothesis of Hewes, which suggests that gestural language and handedness preceded language. Her evidence for the negation of this is based upon detailed studies about length and size of certain parts of primate brains that are considered homologous to humans, in that they have a common origin. Falk suggests that with the shift to bipedalism, tool use was more developed and the forelimbs could become involved in language behaviors. There is also brief discussion about right-handedness, but nothing on left-handedness, which assumes that right-handedness is universal among humans and our primate relatives. An understanding of the evolution of primates and the functions of the brain would be useful in understanding this article, as it uses physiological terminology regarding the processes of the brain.

MAURA MAE DEEDY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Falk, Dean. Language, Handedness, and Primate Brains: Did the Australopithecines Sign? American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol. 82(1):72-78.

Dean Falk addresses the developmental order of language and handedness (as well as bipedalism) in Old World monkeys, proposing it is parallel to the same development in early hominids. She has a response based in physical anthropology; this is a study of comparative primate neuroanatomy. Falk proposes that languages were used before signing or songs, based on a study of homologous areas of the cerebral cortex in hominids and Old World monkeys.

Gordon Hewes believes cerebral lateralization, right-handedness, and gestural language precede true speech. Falk disagrees and argues that the anatomical asymmetry of the left hemisphere of the brain indicates the development of speech before signing, singing, or handedness. The cerebral cortex, the parietal cortex’s expansion, is responsible for the use of the left hemisphere of macaque brains (Old World monkeys). This section can be compared to the posterior parietal of man. This section is considered important for the development of language. Falk, therefore, hypothesizes that there are anatomical similarities between monkeys and humans; it follows that this could indicate that the functions of a certain part of the brain in humans parallel the purpose and functions of corresponding parts in Old World monkeys. According to Falk, homologous behaviors must be related to homologous structures.

Falk notes that Old World monkeys seem to exhibit call systems that pattern similarly to human speech. Early hominids and Old World Monkeys exhibit homologous structures that affect behaviors, such as speech, and can be traced through evolution. It is generally accepted that if two or more homologous structures are found in two such groups, they descend from a common ancestor.

Falk briefly explains the selective pressures that contributed to the physical components of a call system or human speech. Selective pressures are on behaviors, writes Falk, rather than brains. In an arboreal habitat, such as one occupied by Old World monkeys and early hominid forms, one of the first behaviors selected for is the vocal communication system. As the group shifts from arboreal to terrestrial habitats, the communications become increasingly extended. The development of a system of speech and calls was accompanied by bipedalism in the terrestrial habitat and use of the forearms, which eventually evolved into handedness, marked by the prevalence of right-handedness. This is sequence is based on the archaeological record of tools which would require communication, grammar, and productivity. Selective pressures that gave hominids and primates vocal communications led to the development of bipedalism and handedness.

Falk closes with a call for further research on handedness in humans, as well as Old World monkeys. She writes that her model focuses on the continuity between the vocalization systems of human ancestors and the development of language. Before forearms, hands and feet were “free,” voices were able to carry and communicate. Falk expresses her belief that the pressures that led to bipedalism and handedness selected for language first.

MEGHAN FERRITER Davidson College (Grant Jones)

Handler, Jerome S. and Thomas G. Harding. Richard Frucht (1936-1979). American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol. 82 (3): 552-554.

Richard Frucht was born in New York City in 1936 and obtained all his education in America. He later moved to Canada and became a citizen in 1966. His B.A., M.A., and Doctorate were all in Anthropology. His most recent positions before he died were Professor at the University of Alberta and Vice-President of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association.

Although Frucht originally specialized in Latin America, he soon became absorbed with the Caribbean and its culture. He extensively researched the islands of St. Kitts and Nevis. Specifically, he focused on socioeconomic history, the impact of a colonial slave past, the nature of plantations, and the proletariat-like production of rural people. Though the obituary does not blatantly state that Frucht was a Marxist, it is hinted at throughout the article. This influence can be seen in his work on socioeconomic history and the historical influences of colonialism and capitalism.

Frucht was an acclaimed and well-loved professor and colleague. He captivated his students with his lectures and had a great impact on the Anthropology department at Alberta University. There, he implemented a variety of new courses such as the Anthropology of Development, and also focused on peasant society, culture, sex, and indigenous cultural minorities. He was highly interested in the special educational needs of Native American and third world students at Alberta and other Canadian universities. Frucht died on March 26, 1979 in Alberta, Canada of a heart attack.

CARRIE L. PRIOR Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Handler, Jerome S. and Thomas G. Harding. Obituary: Richard Frucht (1936-1979). American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol.82(3):552-554.

Richard Frucht died of a heart attack on March 26, 1979 in Edmonton, Alberta. He received a B.A. in Anthropology in 1958 from Brooklyn College and Ph.D. in 1966 from Brandeis University. At the time of his death, he was a professor at the University of Alberta, and had previously taught at Northeastern, Brooklyn College, Washington State, Temple, McGill, and UC-Santa Barbara.

Frucht’s most enduring interest was fieldwork in the Caribbean, especially on the neighboring islands of St. Kitts and Nevis. He conducted several studies on the socioeconomic history of St. Kitts and its rural working class, as well as socioeconomic conditions in other rural Caribbean islands. He also discouraged other anthropologists from using such general typologies as “peasant” and “proletarian” uncritically, which “concealed the socioeconomic realities they purportedly revealed.”.

Frucht was also a dedicated professor who demanded commitment and high performance from his students, but who was dedicated to their general welfare and tried to remain accessible to them when they had problems. In addition, he was dedicated to the welfare and development of Caribbean societies, and the time he spent doing fieldwork led him to form many friendships with Caribbean peoples. He even went so far as to talk of retiring in Nevis.

Frucht expressed his political views within the context of his professional career and became involved with several Marxist caucuses and scholarly journals. He was dedicated to tolerance and acceptance and believed that social scientists had a responsibility to help solve pressing social issues around the world.

KRISTINE HARRINGTON Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Hsu, Francis L. K. Margaret Mead and Psychological Anthropology. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol. 82 (2): 349-353.

This article is only partially about Margaret Mead and Psychological Anthropology, the other half consists of the author’s theories and opinions about Mead and anthropology as a discipline. This article will be most useful to those who wish to know about both Margaret Mead and the author Francis L. K. Hsu. The author often adds in his own opinions about the insights and flaws of anthropology and Mead’s research. However, he does do a good job of summarizing Mead’s work and her contributions to both Anthropology and Psychological Anthropology.

The author cites the many publications that Mead wrote, such as Coming of Age in Samoa, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, and Growing Up in New Guinea, and gives relatively good descriptions of the content. He also mentions her various jobs and occupations in both the academic and public arenas. Hsu examines how Mead was very popular with the public, but less so with colleagues and peers. Finally, Hsu explores what role sexism might have played in that distinction.

As for her contributions to psychological anthropology, one will have to read carefully to extract the relevant information. Mead was the first to administer psychological tests, such as inkblot tests and Chinese glass chimes. She also focused much of her psychological studies on children and topics with a sexual theme. Since Mead was not a psychologist by profession, she maintained contact with a variety of doctors and psychologists. Aside from listing Mead’s contributions, Hsu also touches upon the critics of Mead’s work as well. Overall this is an insightful article about Mead’s contributions to anthropology and those who critique her work.

CARRIE L. PRIOR Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)


In this issue devoted to Margaret Mead, psychological anthropologist Francis Hsu reflects upon Margaret Mead’s contribution to this area of study. Hsu illuminates the many contributions that Mead made to the field, but he also points to sections of Mead’s work that need to be reexamined. Hsu focuses on three of Mead’s works in the South Seas for his analysis: Coming of Age in Samoa, Growing up in New Guinea, and Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.

Hsu asserts that Mead’s works in the South Seas “ushered in and firmly established the configuration and the national-character approaches in psychological anthropology.” He describes Mead as a harbinger of many techniques and concepts used in ethnography and psychological anthropology. Illuminating Mead’s departure from the Freudian notion that the “native” psyche is equivalent to the psyche of psychopaths or children, Hsu states that Mead instead cooperated with psychologists and clinicians in an attempt to characterize and differentiate the stages of childhood cross culturally, as well as problems associated with societal change. Hsu also credits Mead with the development of psychological tests and photography in ethnography.

After outlining Mead’s contributions, Hsu suggests areas of Mead’s works that need to be re-examined, based on their potential for providing new paradigms to expand present knowledge or on their obsolescence in light of more recent work. Hsu makes reference to his role as an Asian American, a minority anthropologist, and to his own work in his examination of Mead’s publications.

Hsu finds fault in Margaret Mead’s support of Geoffrey Gorer’s swaddling hypothesis and her failure to expand on her ideas about differences between feeling and thinking. Hsu addresses the fallacy in the hypothesis that swaddling practices creates the Russian character by noting that swaddling was also practice in China, where “character” differs markedly from that of the Russians. Hsu expresses disappointment in Mead’s scant examination of the difference between feeling and thinking of thinking and feeling. Hsu believes that if Mead had examined the difference more carefully then she would have stopped associating Christianity and Western culture with rational thought and accordingly quit describing the people of the South Seas as “savages” and primitives.

Finally, Hsu deconstructs Mead’s work Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. He acknowledges the reservations that anthropologists have surrounding the “perfect fit” of the three societies Mead describes to her conclusions in this work, but he is more concerned with what the work reveals about Mead’s own feelings about her place as a woman anthropologist in a male dominated field. Hsu reveals that Mead was always an adjunct professor and not a full curator until near retirement. Hsu speculates based on his own background as a minority that Mead may not have been offered more permanent positions and resented it. Hsu closes with a call for new associations for anthropologists who are women, gay, or minorities.

ELIZABETH SHAFER Davidson College (Grant Jones)

Lasker, Gabriel W. Surnames in the Study of Human Biology. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82 (3): 525-537.

Lasker’s article attempts to demonstrate the possibility of surname analysis in its capacity to make “statistical inferences about human populations” (525). He focuses on marital migrations within geographical and historical conditions. This article also provides a more substantial analysis than simply looking at pedigrees due the availability of information over a longer span of time. Lasker uses data from a number of population analyses, including three of his own projects: Peru, Italian Alps, and England.

Looking at the frequency of surnames compared to the total number of surnames, he is able to establish the amount of inbreeding in any given culture. For example, in Peru he collected data about surnames from interviews, gravestones, and birth and death registries. This showed that “the fewer the surnames, the more inbred and isolated the community” (528). In other examples he attributes ecological factors of geography and culture to explain particular trends. To illustrate the biological connection between countries, Lasker examines trends in migration with regard to the presence of surnames within populations. Overall the article is well written, but it relies heavily on a mathematical understanding of population growth and distribution.

DANA YOUNKIN Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner).

Lasker, Gabriel. Surnames in the Study of Biology. American Anthropologist September 1980 Vol. 82(3):525-538.

Gabriel Lasker demonstrates the importance of surnames in revealing information on ancestry and pedigrees. In some cultures surnames are inherited like genes, passed down from generation to generation over an extended period of time. In cultures such as these, and where there has been isolation and a minimum of migration, usually the more genetically closely related genetically is the group. Compared to genes, whose contribution to traits can only be traced over short periods of time, surnames lend information into trends over a span of centuries.

In earlier studies, the prevalence of inbreeding in certain populations, especially in areas of Europe was elucidated. It has been shown that “if the two persons with the same surnames regularly derive it from a common progenitor and if marriages with related persons on the father’s side are as frequent as those on the mother’s, then the contribution to the inbreeding coefficient of the population is one-fourth of the frequency of marriages between persons of the same surname, which is called marital isonomy.”

Lasker puts forth the work performed by Crow and Mange, who devised an equation for calculating inbreeding in a population, which placed total inbreeding equal to –1/4I, I being equal to the rate of marital isonomy. The sample populations in the study used for comparisons were in Peru, the Italian Alps, and England. Lasker’s study showed that in the Peruvian population surnames were polyphyletic (having many origins). This being the case among the Indian population, who were named independently after saints, the data collected from surnames in this study was not as accurate as far as determining inbreeding.

Lasker found that in some Italian Alpine populations, having the same surnames was very common, and as expected, due to the geographic characteristics, steep mountains, and isolated valleys. The coefficient of relationships was the highest of the populations studied. In England, Lasker found that there were positive and negative correlations between isonomy and distance between parishes, respectively. As for the locality of surnames, Lasker found that people with rare surnames who were married could be traced to certain localities or parishes. Lasker found that in certain instances, especially surnames that have been derived from location names, there is sometimes “a persistence of descendants, in which cases the distant ancestors resided in the locality when the name was formed.”

As people migrate to different parts of the world, new surnames are added through intermarriages to new localities. The spread of genes and surnames has tended to “homogenize the human species.” The calculated coefficient of relationship sheds much light into the movement of genes into and out of communities, and this coefficient is directly related to variables such as migration patterns and community isolation, among others.

KUTINA WILLIAMS Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

McDowell, Nancy. The Oceanic Ethnography of Margaret Mead. American Anthropologist June, 1980 vol. 82 (2) : 278-303.

According to Nancy McDowell, Margaret Mead was one of the best ethnographers in American cultural anthropology (278). She was enthralled with cultural diversity, human life cycle, and material culture. These became the focus of much of her research. This essay discusses Mead’s style and theories, as well as how they pertain to seven Oceanic cultures: Samoa, Manus, Arapesh, Mundugumor, Tchambuli, Bali, and Iatmul. McDowell uses these cultures as models to demonstrate Mead’s view of the anthropological world.

Meads viewed data as the “raw material” to help understand human behavior, and they provide educational material for both anthropologists and others. She knew her data were there to help people learn not only about other cultures, but also about their own. The data that Mead presented were not only clear and informative, but also useful to anyone who was interested in her ideas.

The regularity of human life and culture, like childrearing and how individuals relate to one another, were patterns Mead wrote about. She talked a lot about the importance of networks and believed that culture was deeper than just society and community. The purpose of McDowell’s essay is to show that as of yet no one has been able to open up the minds of her readers, taking them on a journey to places where they have never been before like Margaret Mead.

EMILY HORNE Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

McDowell, Nancy. The Oceanic Ethnography of Margaret Mead. American Anthropologist June 1980 Vol.82(2):278-303.

Nancy McDowell praises the work and contributions of Margaret Mead as setting precedents in the field of anthropology. McDowell emphasizes Mead’s fascination with cultural diversity and her emphasis on the importance of data collection. Several aspects of Mead’s ethnology are discussed: usefulness of data, concerns over presentation of materials, pattern and process, and theory. Mead’s research was designed to inform the general public on the nature of human diversity. The data she collected served as reflections for both developing and non-developing countries alike.

Second, McDowell speaks on the significance of Meade’s presentation of material in her ethnographies. Mead felt that research should be done with the intent of being clear and useful to the audience. Her works contain explicit record of her techniques and methods. She incorporated native language in order to keep as much of the integrity of the culture intact. Actual people appear throughout Mead’s works because she felt that it was important to know not only an action but also the person who performed it. McDowell describes Mead’s approach to ethnology as functional in approach, as she stressed the whole rather that the part and attempted to show that every aspect of a culture was functionally interconnected.

McDowell then looks at Mead’s use of pattern and process, examining the relationships between the individual and pattern. In Mead’s opinion, child rearing was a key contributor to the incorporation of pattern. One recurring element in her ethnographies is the emphasis on the dynamism of culture. Her formulation of theory was evident in her ideas on process and system, which included differences between the real and ideal: ethos and eidos.

In her writing on Samoa, Mead depicts the culture itself as very dynamic and flexible. She also found many cultural patterns, which the Samoans manipulated with excellence, especially the concern with hierarchy. Of her Manus ethnography, McDowell cites that Mead’s description of the interactions between economics and kinship. Mead’s research, she claims, led to a greater understanding of the existence of animistic thought among primitive children.

McDowell also reviews Mead’s work with the Arapesh, Mundugmor, and Tchambuli. Mead’s last ethnographies cover her time spent with the Balinese and Iatmul. Her main contributions concerning these groups were her photo and film documentaries, which provided accuracy and “ensured the objectivity of analysis.”

In conclusion, McDowell states that Mead’s ethnographies had objectives in cultural translation. Mead’s talent lay in her ability to communicate the essence of the culture in which she presented. No one, she states, has surpassed Margaret Mead in this ability to communicate culture in this way.

KUTINA WILLIAMS Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Metraux, Rhoda. Margaret Mead: A Biographical Sketch. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol. 82 (2): 262-269.

In this article, Metraux highlights Margaret Mead’s career in anthropology and her personal beliefs. Using Mead’s outlook on life to highlight career decisions, Metraux has painted a portrait of a woman who loved what she did because she thought it could allow her to make the most change in the world. After a brief childhood biography, Metraux has divided Mead’s life path into four time periods.

The first falls between 1925 and 1939, the period in which Mead did extensive fieldwork. She worked with 8 different peoples and did a total of 5 field trips. These field trips included: Samoa (1925-6), Manus (1928-9), Omaha (1931-3), Bali (1936-8, 1939), and New Guinea (1938). During these trips she worked with several other anthropologists, including Reo Fortune (her second husband) and Gregory Bateson (her third husband). At this time she also served as the Assistant Curator of Ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History. She also published nine works and introduced the use of photography as a research tool.

The second period, 1939-48, was devoted to studying the problems of World War II and the post-war period. At this time she published her first essay and spent much of her time organizing her colleagues to focus on interdisciplinary work. She realized the importance of collaborating with scholars from different fields of knowledge in order to wholly understand cultures including our own.

The third phase falls between 1948-53. It was in this phase that Mead was a part of the Columbia University Research in Contemporary Cultures with Ruth Benedict. The work included “a series of projects that grew out of the applied work on contemporary cultures during the war and became variously known as studies of a culture at a distance and studies of national culture or national character.”

In the final period, 1953-1978, Mead used all of her skills to teach and speak with audiences. In the wake of a smaller demand for research and anthropological work, Mead began writing a monthly column for Redbook magazine with the hopes that she could apply anthropology to everyday life and reach a wide audience. She returned to where she had previously conducted fieldwork and continued to learn what she could from the people. She also saw the opening of the Hall of the People of the Pacific (1971) that she had helped bring to the museum where she served as Head Curator in 1969.

Metraux has written a tribute to Margaret Mead that reflects her early childhood influences and goals. The article would be most useful to someone looking for a brief summary of Mead’s major achievements and works, but offers little depth.

AMY NELL Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Metraux, Rhoda. Margaret Mead: A Biographical Sketch. American Anthropologist June 1980 Vol. 82(2): 262-269.

Metraux creates a heartfelt eulogy to the talents, persona, and memory of her friend and colleague Margaret Mead. The article introduces a series of articles in a special issue devoted to Mead’s life. Mead, one of the most famous American anthropologists of the twentieth century was born on December 16, 1901 in Pennsylvania to a family of academics. Metraux highlights the importance the early scholastic influence of Mead’s parents, as well the impact of her grandmother, Martha Ramsey Mead, in determining her life’s path. Metraux writes, “[Mead] used her past to illuminate the present for herself and others and in this way light up the future – the possible future.”

Mead found herself as a student of Barnard College, eventually under the tutelage of Franz Boas. Boas was influential in Mead’s determining to pursue her first fieldwork in Samoa in 1925. Between 1925 and 1939 she made five trips to the Pacific where she studied eight societies, resulting in nine books and numerous articles. Metraux explores Mead’s immeasurable influence on mid-century anthropology. She notes the role Mead played as monthly columnist for Redbook, as a teacher, and as a full curator at the American Museum of Natural History. During her life she received 27 honorary degrees and even a posthumous Medal of Freedom from President Jimmy Carter.

Metraux emphasizes Mead’s unrelenting pursuit of knowledge throughout her life. She never forgot the peoples and cultures she had studied in her youth. Mead was fascinated with documenting the Post-World War effects on peoples of the Pacific, returning to six times between 1953 and 1975 to Manus alone. Until the end, Mead’s life work of observing and learning from people all over the world stood foremost in her mind. She died on November 15, 1978.

TIM LUCCARO Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Metraux, Rhoda. The Study of Culture at a Distance. American Anthropologist, 1980 Vol. 82 (2): 362-373.

This article reads as a promotional piece discussing the Columbia University project on Research in Contemporary Cultures, which was founded in the fall of 1947. It focuses on the impact Margaret Mead had on this field of study and culture at a distance. The premise of the Research in Contemporary Cultures project was that through literature, art, and other resources, one could create an ethnography without setting foot in the field. Rhoda Metraux was a part of this research group and discusses the function, purpose, and history of it. The research outlines the delineation of regularities in cultural patterns in the character structure of a society. Mead, along with Ruth Benedict, was a key figure in this group. Mead’s organizational skills and creative imagination enabled her to establish and motivate scholars interested in this new research method, but over time, she moved away from this type of study. This article was written over 30 years after the founding of the research center, and pays homage to Mead’s many contributions to the field. This new paradigm for anthropological study was useful to the military and government in understanding the culture that they were engaged with politically and socially. Benedict’s book, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Patterns of Japanese Culture is an example of how to study cultures at a distance. She demonstrates the thoroughness that one can achieve in studying a culture from a distance, as well as the usefulness and practicality of it. The institute also allowed research to be done on countries such as France where parallel work has the potential of being done at a later date. However, other places like China and Russia were off limits at that time for future work. Nonetheless, this model was useful to obtain an understanding of the complexities and workings of other cultures that could not be visited. The study groups were loosely organized with only a few people working on a certain culture, and there were regular meetings with the entire staff to discuss different perspectives. Mead was passionate about this endeavor; she was supportive, engaging, and personable in her interactions with people. Mead left this form of research in the late 1950s and it dissolved soon thereafter. However, Mead’s work with the Research in Contemporary Cultures Project was part of her ideal of dealing with the world as an engaged human being.

MAURA MAE DEEDY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Metraux, Rhoda. The Study of Culture at a Distance: A Prototype. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol.82(2):362-373.

Metraux, who had worked with Margaret Mead and others on the Columbia University Research in Contemporary Cultures project, examines this project as a prototype for the study of culture at a distance. In particular, she attempts to show how Mead, who cared so much for intensive fieldwork, came to be a key figure in research carried out at a distance, as well as why the projects organized by Mead and Benedict succeeded where other successive projects failed. She also suggests that this prototype of the study of culture at a distance could be modified for present needs, in studying contemporary cultures.

Although Metraux does touch on all three of these major points, she writes much more about Margaret Mead and how she became a key figure in this project, which had its origins in the exigencies of World War II. Margaret Mead became increasingly active during this period, taking part in organizations such as the Committee for National Morale, the Council on Intercultural Relations, the Hanover Seminar of Human Relations, and the Seminar on the Impact of Culture on Personality, to name only a few. Metraux also states that Mead’s innovative fieldwork in Bali provided experience in working with a complex culture, helping her develop some of the methods that would later be employed in the study of culture at a distance. It is apparent in Mead’s actions and writings that she had become committed to the value of this sort of cross-cultural, interdisciplinary research through the framework of anthropology at a distance in order to increase our knowledge of the world we live in. Mead ultimately thought that this type of research could lead to a more unified human science. Metraux also shows that it was primarily due to the period of time when they were working, as well as their intense personal connection, that allowed for Mead and Benedict’s work to succeed where others failed. They had an intense understanding of one another’s research methods and a complementary relationship, which was fundamental in the planning for the study of culture at a distance. At the end of her article, Metraux describes briefly how this method of studying culture at a distance could be adapted for current issues pertaining to complex societies and cultures, like our own, in order to generate a holistic rather than piecemeal understanding of ourselves as well as other peoples.

SEAN GANTT Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Raab, L. Mark, Klinger, Timothy C., Schiffer, Michael B., and Goodyear, Albert C. Clients, Contacts, and Profits: Conflicts in Public Archeology. American Anthropologist, September 1980 vol. 82 (3): 539-551.

This essay by Raab, Klinger, Schiffer, and Goodyear focuses on the nature and the cause of Client-oriented (CO) archeology, and its major for both public and private organization environments. “CO studies can be distinguished by their emphasis on providing a technical as opposed to a research service” (540). They approach this subject by looking at archeological techniques and other types of technical services consultants utilize.

They address two problems with CO archeology. The first is that archaeologists are not well prepared for the research they must do. And second is the professional performance of archeologists is not up to par when compared to other professions. Some other problems affecting the quality of the scientific research of CO archaeology are the criteria of resource significance, publication of data, and peer review.

Since archeology sites have become more prevalent, federal laws protect them when they are listed in National Registers of Historical Places. The acceptance into this register or consideration for it has widened. However, CO archaeologists are not interested in the value of research, and because of this they do “little to promote the research criteria of significance” (543). Furthermore, from a technical point of view, publishing research is not necessary; thus, due to research rarely being published peers are unable to read and/or review it.

There are no clear solutions for these problems, though many are brought up, and there is no guarantee that even with these solutions that the quality of methods of the research will improve.

EMILY HORNE Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Raab, L. Mark, Timothy Klinger, Michael Schiffer, and Albert Goodyear. Clients, Contracts, and Profits: Conflicts in Public Archaeology. American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol.82(3):539-551.

As Raab et al. explain, contract archaeology has met with problems in the Client-Oriented (CO) Approach. As a technical service, the CO approach is responsible to the client’s interests. Scientific research and discovery are generally disregarded with this approach. The CO approach places too much emphasis on profits rather than the requirements of the law, the needs of archaeological science, and the protection of client interests. There are professional discrepancies resulting from the conflicting interests of technical approach and archaeological research; the CO approach sometimes allows for work of poorer quality because profit, not research, is not the objective. The authors seek to spark debate for the compromise of the two techniques and further solutions in contract archaeology.

Contract archaeology employs technical and research archaeologists alike, without a professional or scientific standard for meeting legal requirements and training. According to the authors, there are no controls on professionals, no licensing procedures based on competency examinations. They suggest that standards be established for technical workers, as those with little archaeological training could have difficulty with the scientific problems of fieldwork.

The control of scientific quality in contract archaeology has also proven difficult. The definitions of archaeological significance that determine the degree to which artifacts and sites should be protected have been too broadly defined. This ambiguity of guidelines is based on various Preservation Acts requiring that methods of contract archaeological comply with regulations concerning the disposition of archaeological remains. The authors point to the lack of commitment by clients and archaeologists in publishing research. Finally, what is published often has not been subjected to peer review, falling into an area lacking academic review, “gray literature.” The establishment of a peer review service by the Interagency Archaeological Services (IAS) has helped remedy this problem.

Profit motives are the driving force in contract archaeology. The authors ask whether profit can serve public, scientific, and professional interests and the shorter ends of individuals and institutions. Profits appear in the form of direct income, overhead money from research contracts for institutions, and use of contracts as job training for students, to name a few. Technical orientation is too businesslike; it fails to give attention to the special resource at hand, or the greater skills and responsibilities that correspond to it.

They ask, whose interests should be served with archaeological research, and contract archaeology specifically? Genuine research that serves archaeological science and also brings the client into compliance with environmental-protection laws is the best method to preserve scientific and cultural values.

The authors propose several solutions. These include training contract investigators as professional researchers, determining a policy for access to archaeological work, maintaining a standard of responsibility to groups whose special interests involve the research and stirring debate to reach a consensus on ethical dimensions of contract work from which further policy might be developed.

MEGHAN FERRITER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Roe, Peter G. Art and Residence Among The Shipibo Indians of Peru: A study in Microacculturation. American Anthropologist March, 1980 vol. 82 (1): 42-71.

Roe’s essay on the Shipibo Indians of Peru considers how women’s art mirrors the social structure. He examines both art and the purpose it serves, more specifically, the designs on the Shipibo cloth samples. He also discusses the Deezt-Longacre hypothesis concerning “stylistic uniformity with matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence” (42), how it pertains, and how it does not relate to the idea of “ethnic iconography”. Ethnic iconographic art shows not only the different styles of the work within a community, but it also helps the anthropologist to understand “residential patterns and kinship ties” (47).

In the Shipibo village there is little cohesiveness and it is in the matrilineal family unit that loyalty and cooperation are found. In these families, younger women learn the traditional design of the compound from older women. Complex designs and techniques are passed down from mother to daughter, and mother to granddaughter. The daughter’s work is more complex than the mother’s work because she is able to bunch more patterns into the same frame. Many daughters may produce patterns that closely resemble a particular mother’s design and utilize the same theme, but all the works take different routes of complexity. In a matrilineal community, where the artists are mostly sedentary women, one is able to see how art mirrors the social structure of society.

EMILY HORNE Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Roe, Peter G. Art and Residence Among the Shipibo Indians of Peru: A Study in Microacculturation. American Anthropologist March 1980 Vol.82(1):42-71.

Roe’s goal is to examine style in archaeology, “using art as a mirror of social structure.” He sets out by examining three archaeologists’ approaches to the study of material culture in the context of social structure, which he clusters together into what he terms the Deetz-Longacre Hypothesis, which, despite heavy criticism, had played a major role in archaeological thought on this matter since the 1960s. These archaeologists all attempted to “read extinct social organization into the patterning of archaeological artifacts.” Specifically, Deetz himself believed that changes in ceramic design could indicate changes in a culture’s residence rule. Matrilineal descent, with matrilocal residence, would preserve strict design techniques, and changes in this rule would reduce repeated patterns. He and others were subsequently deemed “ethnic iconographers,” studying “ceramic sociology.”

Criticism of the Deetz-Longacre Hypothesis, Roe explains, fell into two major groups. First were those who found fault with the ethnic iconographers’ stylistic analysis: Deetz-Longacre studies have been based on primitive systems of ceramic classification, which ignore many potential explanations for stylistic variation. The second, more severe criticism came from those who questioned “the very notion of inferring social organization from the designs of an extinct society.” This criticism accuses ethnic iconographers of falling into a “time lag” reminiscent of Murdock’s 1949 “residence classification.” Roe concludes, then, that analysis of stylistic homogeneity should focus on patterns of coresidence rather than attempting to ascertain descent, and he recommends a new emphasis, which would gather data via ethnography, directly from a population, rather than a collection of archaeological material culture.

Roe does not, however, wish wholeheartedly to reject the efforts of the ethnic iconographers. Instead, he sets out to discover whatever can be salvaged from the Deetz-Longacre hypothesis, in the context of textiles produced by the Shipibo of Peru, “showing that, on a synchronic level, coresidence can produce and foster microtraditions of design theory among female artists.” Among the Shipibo, Roe explains, there is a great degree of informal learning and sharing of artistic techniques. While individual women, who produce these cloths, may have individual stylistic techniques, they can tend to follow standardized rules, and seek to learn from (though not copy) great artists. In the Shipibo town of Casamira, Roe finds that the daughters of the town’s namesake follow themes used by their mother, a respected artist, with individual stylistic variations. The daughters also share ideas with each other, often painting together, without visciously “stealing” one another’s designs. Roe concludes, then, that “creative exchange through social stimulus” sustains general stylistic themes in the microtradition of the family of Casamira, while concurrently sparking individual artistic creativity. Indeed, one member of the community, Iba, who practices significantly different stylistic techniques from the rest, is viewed as an inferior artist.

Roe then moves to describe the rules of Shipibo artistic design. He explains that his perspective on analyzing Shipibo design comes from the 1970s archaeological movement “onto the track of a concern for rules equal to that for elements,” seeking to ascertain thematic stylistic rules within cultures. In this light, he presents a framework of Shipibo design, which, he argues, not only explains the rules of Shipibo art, but also presents the manner in which a microtradition like that of the family of Casamira exists. Having decided upon this framework, Roe can then discover what makes for a “good” Shipibo artist: one who uses a large number of rules of Shipibo design, within more highly regarded traditional layouts.

Finally, Roe turns to the art of Francisca, the daughter of Iba. According to the Deetz-Longacre hypothesis, her art would mirror that of her mother; in reality, though, she has been strongly influenced by the Casamira microtradition, and has picked up many of its stylistic rules. Roe then concludes that coresidence is a powerful factor in artistic design, as even Iba’s daughter has assimilated to conform to the group. In light of Roe’s ethnography, then, the Deetz-Longacre hypothesis can be rejected insofar as it claims that stylistic homogeneity stems from matrilineal descent, but he does recognize that this single instance does not make for a wide-reaching generalization, but it does enforce the influence of coresidence, as well as Roe’s “rule-based approach to the study of style.”

DAVID SUMMERS Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Romanucci-Ross, Lola. Anthropological Field Research: Margaret Mead, Muse of the Clinical Experience. American Anthropologist June, 1980. Vol. 82 (2): 304-318.

In this article Lola Romanucci-Ross comments on Margaret Mead’s methods and the ultimate goal of her fieldwork. Romanucci-Ross begins the article with defining field research as the context of how anthropological techniques are developed as well as foreign situations where culture-contact may result in a situation where the culture studied may have a gain or loss as a result of translation. Reflection of the outcomes of fieldwork and what influences the models of fieldwork has just begun within the discipline, and as Romanucci-Ross states, Margaret Mead welcomed this contemplation.

As the paradigm of fieldwork began to shift in the 1920’s into the form of the “new ethnography,” Margaret Mead added a new dimension to the method. She traveled from place to place identifying and scrutinizing behavior and events with special interest in human development. Mead focused on the “social cynosure,” or the personality that became the spotlight of massive attention in the culture, rather than pursuing the model personality through projective tests.

She meticulously kept her collected data in order, separating her diary from her official notes, as well as placing all letters in her notes as they might be utilized at a later date. She presented herself in everyday fieldwork as an advocate of the indigenous people. She wanted very much for the people to be involved in the progress and to share collective control of their own future.

ALISON TREBBY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner).

Romanucci-Ross, Lola. Anthropological Field Research: Margaret Mead, Muse of the Clinical Experience. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol. 82(2):304-317.

Romanucci-Ross reflects upon the techniques and assumptions present in Margaret Mead’s fieldwork. Romanucci-Ross contends that Mead’s ethnographic process involved “rethinking, reexperiencing, and recasting problems” as she moved from culture to culture, just as a physician goes from patient to patient, “touching, feeling, looking, and listening, while storing and retrieving incremental knowledge the better to understand the next patient.” Her goal in the field was not to prove or disprove theoretical models, but rather to “stimulate readers to think about how culture is transmitted between generations, and that whatever arguments and discussions came out of this were what really mattered.” She strived for a more reflexive, holistic, and inclusive approach to fieldwork that allowed for “intuitive” methodologies; for these goals, as well as for her many other contributions to anthropology, Romanucci-Ross salutes Margaret Mead.

Romanucci-Ross first discusses the techniques and theoretical orientation(s) that Mead brought with her to the field. While she notes that Mead “recorded the affective interaction of others with the group she was studying in great detail,” she points out that Mead did not go so far as to use the type of configurational approach that Benedict employed. In terms of her beliefs on the role of anthropologists in the field, Mead believed that there did exist some instances in which it was ethical for anthropologists to intervene in a benevolent manner. In the majority of situations, however, Mead’s theoretical orientation produced an emphasis on “nontampering” and ahistorical examination. In order to fill in the “silent spaces” present in ethnography, she utilized the resources of experts from non-traditional disciplines, such as engineering, psychiatry, and art. Along this vein, she emphasized praxis and feedback as being part and parcel of effective ethnographic methodology.

In the latter half of her article, Romanucci-Ross provides commentary on the “intuitive” nature of Mead’s fieldwork. She notes that this “intuition” may better be described as a means by which Mead connected seemingly discontiguous elements of culture into a cohesive whole. Indeed, this brand of holism/reductionism was a trademark of Mead’s ethnographic analysis. Romanucci-Ross goes so far as to contend that Mead’s fieldwork “will always remain contemporary because she looked at psychodynamics in addition to structure and functon, and the interaction models rather than roles exclusively.”

Romanucci-Ross concludes her article by emphasizing why Mead’s vision and scholarship will be appreciated by both anthropologists and the general public for years to come. In particular, Mead’s willingness to accept nearly every aspect of human life as “excellent material for anthropological analysis” distinguishes her as an important voice. As Romanucci-Ross observes, “her field notes are not bracketed by palm trees; the field was and is all human behavior that is culturally and biologically determined.” Further: “[Mead] conducted fieldwork that will be referred to again and again because she focused on process, because her methods were ever open-ended, even Polynesian in their inclusiveness.” To Romanucci-Ross, these are innovations for which fieldworkers are undeniably indebted to Mead.

ADAM BROWN Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Rosen, Lawrence. The Excavation of American Indian Burial Sites: A Problem in Law and Professional Responsibility. American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol.82 (1): 5-27.

Lawrence Rosen’s article analyzes the controversial issue of “who has the right to excavate, or prevent excavation of, a recent or ancient Indian burial site, and on what authority is that right to be based?” (6). There are significant ethical problems that follow the excavating of American Indian graves. For anthropologists who are interested in tracing the development of ancient American Indians, archaeological excavations of burial sites are of extreme importance. However, many Native Americans have concerns about the desecration of Indian graves. Some Native Americans who trace their descent and/or spiritual affiliation to ancestors whose graves are disturbed have problems with the scientific and educational pursuits of anthropologists and archaeologists.

Archaeologists have been able to communicate with American Indians and are sensitive to their concerns about disrupting the human remains of a burial site. There are many Indians however, who take pride in the discovery of their ancestor’s accomplishments and vigorously seek professional excavation of their local sites. However, there is no single point of view shared by all American Indians or all archaeologists.

Rosen discusses this problem along with alternative approaches that could be taken to create a resolution. He touches upon the ways in which courts of law could consider the issue and on the legislative enactments that deal with this problem. Consideration is also given to the role of professional relations in formulating guidelines for archaeologists. A set of guidelines and procedures is suggested that might aid in resolving arguments over American Indian burial excavations. Rosen states, “although the analysis necessarily winds its way through a maze of legal details and considerations of primary concern to the field of archaeology, it will be seen that more is at issue here than some arcane features of archaeology and law” (6). The real issue at hand is how anthropologists must think their way through problematic ethical decisions that occur from their studies of other human beings.

LINDSAY HUMPHRIES Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)


Rosen tackles the serious ethical issue of the archaeological excavation of American Indian burial sites. Coming from a background in law, where he worked on a number of American Indian legal cases, it is only natural that he would examine the issue from a legal perspective, both from the judicial as well as the legislative point of view. He attempts to show how this issue can be resolved through mutual respect and offers some guidelines that could help solve some of the difficult problems associated with excavations of American Indian burial sites.

Rosen begins his article with a very brief statement of some of the main problems surrounding the issue of American Indian burial site excavation. He highlights the fact that researchers see the archaeological excavation of burial sites as indispensable for scientific study, but that ethical problems can arise when this process frequently causes deep resentment in the native community. Rosen asks, “Who has the right to excavate, or prevent excavation of, a recent or ancient burial site, and on what authority is that right to be based?” He then presents the judicial approach, in which he defines several elements of the issue in legal terms, including what constitutes a cemetery and the legal definition of defamation. He cites several court cases that demonstrate varying legal approaches followed in order to halt excavations. Central to this discussion is the concept of legal standing, which he explains, as well as how individuals can assert legal standing in order to halt an excavation. Rosen then turns to what he has labeled the legislative approach, attempting to give the reader an understanding of the legislative history surrounding this issue as well as pointing out key pieces of existing legislation which could be helpful in the attempt to halt an excavation. He then touches on the guidelines archaeologists have set for themselves and for the discipline, primarily through professional organizations, in regard to this issue.

Rosen concludes his article with the presentation of a set of guidelines, in order to help facilitate extrajudicial solutions to the problems that arise in regard to the issue of American Indian burial site excavation. These guidelines are based on a breakdown of these excavations into: those of remains found on Indian reservations, of recent remains not on reservations, and of ancient remains not on reservations, each category having its own unique standards. Rosen pointedly ends his article by reaffirming his desire for mutual respect and forgiveness in order for the people involved in this issue to acknowledge their common humanity. Interestingly, since the publication of this article an act was passed which seeks to resolve many of the issues Rosen discusses in this paper (Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990).

SEAN GANTT Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Margaret Mead’s View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol. 82 (3): 340-347.

Sanday discusses the various books that Margaret Mead wrote about how different societies view the sex roles of men and women, including those of America. Sanday examines how critics viewed these works by Mead. The biggest discrepancy in her work, found by Sanday and others, was that Mead seems to contradict herself in what she writes as her observations and what she concludes about them. She gives Mead a great deal of credit for her new approach in the way in which she looks at sex roles in various societies and how she wrote her books to be comprehensible for the general public. As Mead stated, her methodology was “a completely new insight into the nature of sex roles in culture and into the ways in which innate differences of temperament and culture are related” (341).

Sanday focuses on three of Mead’s books including Sex and Temperament, Blackberry Winter, and Male and Female. Sanday explains how Mead’s personal experiences in the field with her first husband, Fortune, are partly what drove her to concentrate on sex roles and how they affect the rearing of children. Mead soon found out, while doing fieldwork among the Arapesh, Mundugumer, and Tchamuli, that she and Fortune had very different ideas about the world. It was here that Mead first met Bateson, who she later married, and with whom she had a child. Sanday relates how Mead, Fortune, and Bateson spent a great deal time working together in the field. They made of Benedict’s methodology when it came to the way in which they tried to “describe temperamental types systematically as these were standardized by the organization of particular cultures” (342).

Sanday ends by talking about Mead’s ideas concerning “full sex membership,” which Mead felt was key to understanding why each sex behaved in a particular manner. The way in which Mead presented her information also angered many feminists because she said that women should take jobs that utilized the female nature instead of trying to compete with men at jobs that were not natural for women. Once again Mead refers back to Samoa and how each gender has “full sex membership,” and this is why men and women in Samoa are satisfied with their positions. Sanday does not portray Mead as an anti-feminist, but as a woman who was trying to understand the sex roles of various societies and the way in which culture and temperament fit into the construction of these male and female roles.

KATHERINE D. GILL Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Sanday, Peggy Reeves Margaret Mead’s View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies. American Anthropologist June1980 Vol.82(2):340-48.

Margaret Mead wanted to create a study of sex roles in different societies. Her research on the Arapesh and the Mundugumor was conducted with her then-husband, Reo Fortune. Mead and Fortune discovered personality differences within the sexes in the Arapesh and Mundugumor; these differences seemed to be reflected in the relationship between Mead and Fortune. Conferring with future husband, Gregory Bateson, Mead concluded that temperamental types appear with the organization of particular cultures. She believed the Arapesh and Mundugumor failed in their attempts to make a single human sex type- androgynous, endowed with “characteristics” of both sexes.

Mead adhered rigidly to cultural and biological sex role definitions. She believed that societies would face great difficulties if they tried to “bend” one temperament (“sex”) to the natural disposition of the other. The sex that is bent will lose the respect of the other, as well as their validity as a sex. Sanday reports that in Male and Female, Mead expresses concern for the individuals who fail to accept their “full sex membership.”

Women are assured full membership in their sex with the act of conception and bearing of a child. Men face more a more difficult task in gaining full membership; they must develop their cultural role to replace their fleeting biological role. As Sanday points out, “Because men are denied the fruits of the womb, envy propels them to monopolize the fruits of civilization.” This explains Mead’s concept of universal sexual asymmetry.

Mead attempted to explain the formation of core gender identity and the biological and psychological dimensions that play into the sex differences. Men and women, Mead concluded, will identify with the primary sex characteristics of the sex whose role is valued positively. As Ruth Benedict writes, to fully appreciate and develop the potential of society, there must be recognition of the differences in mind and body of and cooperation between men and women.

Some of the theories Mead presented were inconsistent with her prepared research, which Sanday believes could be a problem. She was not afraid to instruct or lecture the masses. Her theories have been unpopular with feminists because she insisted women should retain domestic roles, perhaps in tandem with professional careers. Mead was exceptionally influential with her matter-of-fact and original thought in the study of sex roles. Margaret Mead was, and remains, a tremendous force in anthropological thought.

MEGHAN FERRITER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Schacht, Robert M. Two Models of Population Growth. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82 (4): 782-797.

This article deals with two specific models of human population growth, which lend insight to the idea that no single model is sufficient to encompass the changes in ecological pressures as a population changes over time. This would be most useful for those interested in cultural ecology, population growth and paleodemographics. Schacht examines “exponential” growth with “r-selection,” and “logistic” growth, with “K-selection.” “r-selection” refers to the maximal intrinsic rate of natural increase and “K-selection” to carrying capacity. He suggests that the “r-selection” model is applicable for populations that grow exponentially under a lack of selective pressures, and that once a population has attained sufficient size, “K-selection” takes place. He analyzes settlements from southwest Iran from ca. 4000-2350 B.C.E. during two phases (in chronological order): the Uruk and Proto-Dynastic. From these examples he demonstrates that the first model better fits the earlier “r-selection” and the later, the “K-selection.” By taking into account the greater number of variables involved where human cultural ecology is concerned, this study shows the need for more careful and specific models when examining human population growth

DANA YOUNKIN Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner).

Schacht, Robert M. Two Models of Population Growth. American Anthropologist December 1980 Vol. 82(4):782-798.

Generally, models of population growth are labeled under two types, “mathematical” and “component”, in which component models take into account birth, mortality, immigration, and emigration rates. Mathematical models, on the other hand, uses estimates of general population size in determining population growth. Robert Schacht utilizes mathematical models in his analysis and discussion of two models of population measurement that may be aptly and easily applied by anthropologists. Schacht designates the two mathematical models he will discuss into unconstrained and constrained, or exponential and logistic models. Exponential models have only two variables, time and population, at a given time, while the actual rate of growth is held constant. Schacht provides two formulas for exponential models. He then shows how logistical models allow for a changing rate of population growth, i.e. a decrease. He presents a mathematical formula that requires three unknown variables: time, population at a given time and “K” (“carrying capacity”). Schacht provides further formulas for determining reasonable estimations of a population’s carrying capacity, or maximum sustainable population.

In order to illustrate the usefulness of population growth models Schacht applies his two models of analysis on a specific historical example; the Susiana Plain of Southwest Iran over two growth periods, the Uruk (c.3900-3300 B.C.) and the Proto-Dynastic (c.3300-2500). He discovers that each model can be applied most appropriately to one of the two periods. The exponential model suits the Uruk period and the logistic corresponds to the Proto-Dynastic. His discovery fittingly ties together the underlying purpose of the article. Schacht admittedly writes from a cultural ecological vantage point, in which he determines that his proposed models of population growth provide valuable insight into social behavior. In a somewhat drastic simplification, Schacht labels the exponential model as the “r-selection” and the logistic model as the “K-selection”. The “r-selection” represents the period of time when populations have an unrestricted growth rate. During this period, due to inexhaustible resources, the society’s best interest is to reproduce as much as possible, placing a behavioral emphasis on productivity. In contrast, the “K-selection” indicates a society approaching its carrying capacity and “leads to increasing efficiency of utilization of environmental resources.” Thus, though a population’s growth rate may not be increasing, an anthropologist may predict that “K-selected” populations would be likely to adopt cultural behaviors like irrigation or storage facilities. Schacht goes as far as to say that “K-selection” favors well-developed social behavior in order to control such things as irrigation and storage facilities that are necessarily adopted.

Schacht applies both the analytic tools gained from population growth-rate models and the models themselves to his discussion of the Susiana Plain. He notes that as the population approached its carrying capacity during the Proto-Dynastic period numerous hypotheses can be used to explain the level of the carrying capacity: a consequence of state organization, introduction of new crops, technological improvements, or many other factors. Regardless, Schacht’s essential aim is to show how “the population growth curve for a given group is not merely to be viewed as a simple descriptive device, but as a component of a theoretical system that could ultimately help to explain many important aspects of the group’s behavior.” True to cultural ecology, the article correlates rates of population growth and ecological determinants to cultural behavior.

TIM LUCCARO Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Silk, Joan B. Adoption and Kinship in Oceania. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol.82 (4): 799-820.

Silk’s article discusses behavior and patterns of Oceanic adoption in relation to a sociobiological model of adoptive decisions. The Oceania adoptive behavior can be explained in the context of sociobiological theory, although it might not be completely clarified within that structure. To better understand the sufficiency of sociobiological conditions concerning the importance of family size to adoptive decisions, one must have more detailed data from Oceania, such as parental investment strategies, economic statuses of the biological and adoptive parents, and the degrees of relatedness between the adopters and the adoptees. By their data and comparative data from other cultures in which adoption is practiced, it may be possible to interpret why adoption is so prevalent in some societies and not others.

The common pattern of Oceanic adoption provides a way of adjusting family size in response to economic needs. Silk states, “adoption occurs with a disproportionate frequency among closely related individuals given the expected distribution of close and distant kin in the population” (826). The new parents discriminate between children recruited through birth and adoption by giving them unequal resources. The adoption never completely replaces the biological relationship between parents and their natural children.

“The claim that patterns of adoption in Oceania which favor relatives over non-relatives can be explained without consideration of the biological influences upon human behavior is clearly not justified in this case” (826). In Oceania, biological relatedness is essential criteria in the selective process and way of future treatment of the adopted children. This is the foundation of conflict among adopted siblings and a source of power during the judicial nature of the adoption. The biological and adoptive parents usually share the jural authority over adoptive children, which allow both of them to terminate the adoption at any time. In this article one finds new, cross-cultural insight on the modes and behaviors of human adoption and kinship relations.

LINDSAY HUMPHRIES Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Silk, Joan. Adoption and Kinship in Oceania. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol. 82(4):799-820.

Joan Silk analyzes the occurrence of adoption among various Oceanic societies, which have one of the highest rates of adoption in the world. Silk, in using a sociobiological approach, attempts to explain the reason for adoption among kin in the region. She states that the main reason for such behavior can be explained by altruism, which has been seen as an anomaly in terms of its importance to human evolution. Silk shows that, contrary to the belief of other academics, adoption is strongly influenced by kinship, and is, as Silk, describes, ” a transaction in kinship.”

Silk’s study found that, in some societies to adopt a child that was not a member of the kinship group was an insult to kin. The reasons for such sentiments were in many instances a product of inheritance of land and other possessions whose distribution was governed by elaborate kinship systems. Due to high population densities and scarcity of available cultivatable land, such considerations are highly important in these horticultural and agricultural Oceanic societies. Silk found that family size was directly correlated to adoption.

Silk discovered that in most cases adopted children had at least some assistance from their biological parents, which was necessary because of the possible bias by adoptive parents on behalf of their biological children. It is Silk’s hypothesis that “adoption allows human parents to adjust family size.” The situation can be viewed in terms of investment energies on the part of the parents. The personal fitness of the child is affected by the size of the family into which the adoptive child is embraced relative to the threshold. If the size of the adoptive family is larger than the natal family of the adoptive child, he/she will more than likely be at a disadvantage. If a child is adopted into a family that is below the threshold level, then it will be to the adoptive child’s advantage.

Silk devised an equation for calculating the degree of relation of adoptive children and adoptive parents. The results show that the adoption of illegitimate children, as well as the adoption of sibling’s children, is rare. These relationships comprise the closest possible degree of relationship between the adopted and the adoptee and have a relationship index of .5. Most adoptions consisted of relationships that had a relationship index of .25 and .125.

The coefficient of relationships in Silk’s study was utilized in determining considerations of altruistic behavior. “Altruistic behavior is expected to evolve only when the ratio of benefits to costs (k) of behavior exceeds the inverse of the degree of relatedness.” The closer the relationship of the adoptive parent to the adoptive child, “the smaller the minimum value of k must be in order for altruism to be favored.”

The rules governing jural authority over adoptive children vary among societies. Partial parental authority is usually the arrangement in most adoptive cases. This is in the child’s best interest because of the possibility of exploitation by the adoptive parent.

Adjustment of family size, again, is the primary function of adoption in Oceania, and childlessness is the single most common grounds for adoption. Silk’s study shows that adoptive children relieve the economic burdens of their natal parents who already have large families that are above threshold. The adoption of children is rarely initiated by the biological parent and is mostly performed as an obligation among kin. It is in considering aforementioned variables in family size, reproduction, and economic need in adoptions in Oceania, that Silk bases her conclusions of the sociobiological significance of adoption.

KUTINA WILLIAMS Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Singer, M. Signs of the Semiotic Self: An Exploration in Semiotic Anthropology. American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol. 82(3): 485-507

In approximately 7000 words, Milton Singer explores the realm of C. S. Peirce’s semiotic theory, and provides his own interpretations and analysis of Peirce’s publications.

Singer notes that Peirce’s semiotic theory is based on signs, and it influences notions of self-identity as both the object and subject of such a system. Reflecting back on anthropological history, Singer begins with a trend that developed in the 1940’s and 50’s in order to think of the “self” through a phenomenological approach, that is, to study awareness and cognition as a philosophy. Furthermore, he explains that it was generally unaccepted by anthropologists because phenomenology was too subjective. Singer continues by commenting that the 1960’s movement to consider culture as a system of symbols and meanings produced over-interpretation of ideas; not everything is a sign and symbol. Peirce’s semiotics combines theories of significance and communication to both classify and identify the producer and interpreter of signs.

Singer praises Peirce’s semiotic theory for avoiding subjective interpretation of signs, saying that it is closer to science than previous theories of self-identity. However, Singer’s main objective in his essay is to explore Peirce’s theory of signs in order to produce a conception of self that combines both semiotics and phenomenological theory. He feels it will be particularly significant to the development of culture theory.

TODD PANG Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Singer, Milton. Signs of Self: An Exploration in Semiotic Anthropology. American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol. 82(3):485-507.

Milton Singer, the distinguished lecturer of 1978 and professor emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, addresses here the special challenges in the anthropological study of self. Singer attempts to validate a semiotic approach to exploring the self by outlining the historical intellectual movements that contribute to its logic, stressing its ability to avoid subjectivity, and demonstrating its effectiveness in constructing a social theory of self. In addition to completing his objectives in this article, Singer also establishes some of the concepts that are characteristic of the post-modernist movement of the years to come.

Singer implies that there are two underlying philosophical theories that guide anthropological research: Cartesian thought and anti-Cartesian thought. Cartesian thought, the legacy of Descartes, includes dualism and is fundamental to positivist theory. Anti-Cartesian though, on the other hand, is characterized by the phenomenological approach developed by Kant. To address issues of the self, Singer advocates phenomenological and semiotic approaches as developed by the philosopher Peirce. In this article, Singer draws from various works of Peirce to support the authority of this approach to study of the self.

Singer suggests that a theory of self rooted in semiotism (theory of signs) and phenomenology is the natural progression from the combination of trends of phenomenology popular in the 1940s and 1950s and symbolic and interpretative anthropology popularized in 1960s. Although in the author’s view, this approach had been too unscientific and subjective, Singer explains that Peirce’s semiotic theory circumvents this criticism by establishing the self as both an object and subject of symbols. By expanding semiotic theory, Singer explains that Peirce avoids subjectivism by recognizing the impact of symbolic interactions on a person and a person on symbols, thus retaining a person’s concept of an inner and outer world. Within this argument, Singer focuses on the way Peirce dealt with pronouns and their ability to indicate self-consciousness. The self at any given time is both the “interlocutor in a dialogue with other selves as well as a signified object and interpretant of a specific code of signs (494)”. Within this atmosphere of (intra)interpersonal and extra-personal dialogue, personality can be seen through semiotics as being both socially and culturally conditioned but also critical to personal identity formation.

Singer sees semiotics as a promising resource. Because it establishes the self as a conglomerate of social and cultural consciousness, semiotics avoids of problems stemming from a conflict of personal identity with social-cultural identity and begs questions about the bonds of feelings that hold people together or separate them. Singer also feels that phenomenology should become more dominant in ethnography and cites works of Geertz, Redfield, Schneider, Sahlins, Rabinow, Riesman, Srinivas, BPteille, and Madan as examples in which fieldwork was effected by this method. Through it all Singer seems to condemn Cartesian thought as a dividing rather than a unifying concept of anthropological research.

ELIZABETH SHAFER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Thomas, David Hurst. Margaret Mead as a Museum Anthropologist. American Anthropologist June, 1980 Vol. 82 (2): 354-361.

In approximately 2500 words, David Hurst Thomas introduces Margaret Mead’s involvement with and influence at the American Museum of Natural History as it corresponds to her fieldwork. In a sense, Thomas’ account is a specialized obituary of Mead’s museum career.

Thomas chronicles Mead from the beginning of her tenure at the Museum of Natural History. He emphasizes that her work as curator “removed from the conventional academic establishment,” in fact underpinned her public and professional image. He notes that her library dissertation written in 1928 prepared Mead for museum anthropology, and that from her first year of museum curatorship, she understood the value of well-documented ethnographies.

According to Thomas, when Mead returned from Samoa after her first ethnography, she only brought back only two artifacts. However, Thomas remarks that after she spent time working with the museum, much of her focus changed to collecting artifacts: she returned from Manus in 1929 with nearly 800 varieties. Thomas also delves into Mead’s return to Manus in 1953 by noting her involvement in cross-generational comparison of traditional and new material culture. In 1971, Mead opened the Peoples of the Pacific exhibit hall in the museum with great pride, after nearly 20 years of collecting artifacts in Samoa, Manus, and New Guinea.

Thomas clarifies that Mead was careful never to use her fame and success for personal gain, and he boasts that she rallied to generate funds for the mundane aspects of the museum’s maintenance. He paraphrases her statement that museums must not sacrifice authenticity for display. Thomas concludes with the final observation that Mead’s lifelong commitment to one institution shows the blend of pragmatism and intimacy that pervaded her work.

TODD PANG Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Thomas, David H. Margaret Mead as a Museum Anthropologist. American Anthropologist April, 1980 Vol.82(2):354-361.

Thomas discusses the work of Margaret Mead in the context of her work with the American Museum of Natural History. Although Mead did work as an adjunct professor of anthropology of Columbia University and held several other visiting professorships at other institutions around the country, according to Thomas she was “largely removed from the conventional academic establishment.” In addition, she felt comfortable in a museum environment because it welcomed all who were interested in anthropology and did not “evict its curators as universities evicted their professors.”

Mead had an enduring interest in the material culture of human societies and contributed thousands of artifacts and detailed ethnographic information collected during her fieldwork. Particularly important were the materials she brought back from her 1928 expedition to Manus, which became the only tangible evidence of the “old ways” in Manus as the society changed dramatically in a matter of 25 years. In addition, she brought back nearly 2,500 artifacts from New Guinea, following her 1933-34 fieldwork. In addition to her contributions of material culture, Mead also contributed her expertise to the exhibitions at the American Museum. She planned and constructed a new Peoples of the Pacific Hall and meticulously documented and labeled the artifacts that were to go in the new hall.

Finally, Mead understood the funding challenges facing the modern museum. Financial assistance was scarce, as grants were more likely to go to fieldwork than exhibitions because they were more “exciting.” Because of this, Mead used the money raised in her popular book sales and lecture circuits to raise funds for the museum’s Department of Anthropology, as well as to create fellowships and committees for scholars who wished to work with the museum. She remained cautious about “selling out” by using high-pressure, competitive sales tactics, and instead urged the museum to assume social responsibility for its exhibitions and adapt to the changing times. She refused to sacrifice authenticity for showmanship.

According to Thomas, Mead had an “intensely personal involvement” with her museum. She understood the value of museums in their ability to provide a sense of permanence amidst turmoil and change.

KRISTINE HARRINGTON Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

White, Geoffrey M. Conceptual Universals in Interpersonal Language. American Anthropologist December, 1980 Vol.82 (4):759-781.

In this article White discusses the role of personality trait-terms in language and tells of their existence in a diverse range of languages. White notes that the conjectures, he makes in this article, are not definitive because they are being drawn from only a few languages. The basis for his case is primarily a comparison of similar lexical data of A’ara, Oriya, and American English. He uses English translations in this article for clarity. He acknowledges that this hides some culture-specific meanings, but still allows the argument of structural similarities to be displayed. As a linguist, White uses terms of the discipline to discuss personality research and the findings of related studies. He supplements his work with charts that represent personality descriptors of the three languages being examined. The article also features several figures, including the “Interpersonal Check List” and the “Interpersonal Behavior Circle.”

White theorizes that, “the dimensions of solidarity and dominance reflect conceptual themes in folk interpretations of social behavior generally” (776). He says that these dimensions are found in several cultures. He discusses the possibility of an interaction between “universal psycholinguistic structures and certain panhuman conditions of social life” (776). White also discusses evaluation and potency. He mentions that the concepts he has introduced are speculative and at least can serve as hypotheses that may be disproved upon more intense study.

AMANDA DALY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

White, Geoffrey M. Conceptual Universals in Interpersonal Language. American Anthropologist December 1980 82(4):759-81.

Drawing on his own ethnographic research, as well as the work of others, White makes a comparative study of interpersonal communication, reaching tentative conclusions that point to universals in the ways in which different cultures characterize corresponding personality types. White’s study has led him to believe in “universal psycholinguistic processes and very general conditions of human social life, which create the similarities that he has discovered. Personality, he believes, is one of the best places to examine “descriptors” of traits, as “one of a limited number of semantic domains which languages typically handle with a set of adjectives, if the language includes an adjective class.”

Considering his own work among the A’ara language speakers of the Solomon Islands and Shweder’s 1972 work among the Oriya of India, White constructs a bi-axial framework on which he sets a number of different personality descriptors. He places personality traits on a plane according to two spectrums: conflict-solidarity, which forms the x-axis, and dominance-submission, which forms the y-axis. According to interviews with twenty-five members of each culture, White has found that members of the two cultures place similar “personality descriptors” at similar points in the plane, according to where subjects place them on the two axes. He has also discovered that personality descriptors form a symmetrical circle around the center of the axis, indicating a tendency to view personality traits on bipolar spectrums, “as if on endpoints of a diameter line.”

White then moves to consider personality trait identification among English speakers, which has been studied in depth in social psychology. Studies of personality descriptors among English speakers that have been arranged on a plane similar to White’s, with a “good-bad” x-axis and a “hard-soft” y-axis. While lacking the neat circular structure of the A’ara and the Oriya, they do position similar personality traits in corresponding regions of the plane. White admits, though, that this connection can be made only in general terms: when moving toward specific terminology—considering the fact that A’ara speakers place “sympathetic” in the same spot as English speakers place “helpful,” for instance—he finds increasing degrees of variation in cultural definition of the descriptors.

Noting this variation, White begins to explore cultural contextual bases for specific differences within the context of general similarity. Social categories (such as “republican” or “southerner”), he believes, offer a good opportunity, and he describes a few examples of arrangements of interpersonal behavior that parallel his arrangement of personality descriptors. White concludes that all the aforementioned conclusions “lend credence to the speculation that a universal two-dimensional conceptual structure underlies the meanings of personality descriptors cross-culturally,” based largely on psycholinguistic analysis. From this point, he delves in to behavioral generalities and their cultural reference points.

White believes that his aforementioned references imply that “personality descriptors are systematically related to behavioral items (personality traits).” Examining more personality research, White points out Leary’s 1957 “circumplex” of types of interpersonal behavior, which also neatly fits all of the other manners in which he has framed personality and interpersonal relations. Following this analysis, White concludes that, generally speaking, there is a cross-cultural connection between personality classification and corresponding behavior in interpersonal relationships. Because his study only takes three cultural groups into account, and questions arise with each new study that he mentions, further study would be necessary to add validity to this argument. However, White still believes that a strong enough correlation exists to merit this further study.

DAVID SUMMERS Davidson College (Grant D. Jones)

Wilner, Dorothy. For Whom the Bell Tolls: Anthropologists Advising on Public Policy. American Anthropologist March, 1980. Vol. 82 (1): 79-94.

This article addresses issues facing politics and anthropology. Wilner questions what cultural anthropologists can add to public policy as well as the roles they can assume in policy making. After reviewing and critiquing current viewpoints in political anthropology, she claims that anthropologists should not only attempt to contribute to policy making on the executive level, but on the legislative level as well. The article primarily focuses on the United States, but may be applicable to other representative systems as well.

Because anthropologists form special trust relationships with the people they study, Wilner believes this distinct relationship should continue into policy making on behalf of the studied groups. The special knowledge, responsibilities, and problems that face anthropologists also affect administrators and attributes of governance. In political anthropology, a perspective is taken on the specific political systems and areas of action in which public policy is contrived and enacted, as well as the authority exercised. However, Wilner feels that some political anthropologists do not take into consideration the politics and systems of governance. She cites the theorist Goodenough’s article entitled “Intercultural Expertise and Public Policy,” as ignoring politics when he advocates who should survive and who should be sacrificed in extreme situations such as famines. She also states that because Goodenough does not acknowledge how public policy making stems from the political process he does not imply that life-and-death priorities in a democracy involve citizens as well as administrators. Wilner also believes that it is dubious for Goodenough to think that because anthropologists have studied a group, they are better suited to make decisions for that group in life or death situations. She feels that it is possible that the peoples’ own healers, theologians, and philosophers who share the same fate as the rest of the group may be suited for the job.

Wilner believes the ethical considerations of the anthropologist in advising a group whose fate he does not share affects the anthropological paradigm. The anthropologist as a consultant serves as a middleman, or an expert in bridging two worlds: his own and one he doesn’t share where he is a guest. In this middleman position he must face the realities of policy making. The situation is set up hierarchically, impersonally, and systematically with rules that have not been developed mutually. Employees and advisors of bureaucracies face the facts that the unique qualities of anthropology do not easily fit within the framework of policy making. The anthropologist in this situation is torn between keeping the trust relationship with the people he is advocating for and molding to a hierarchically conducted authority. Another issue facing anthropologists and advocacy is the tricky relationship of advocating for dependent people while explaining they are not official political representatives.

Wilner strongly states that anthropologists in these positions, as well as anthropologists as people with strong concerns about public policy, should look beyond the executive branch in advocating for causes. The legislative and judiciary branches of democracies are also available and attainable. She also cites writing letters and seeking access to congressional committees as tactics in political action.

ALISON TREBBY Wheaton College, MA (Donna Kerner)

Willner, Dorothy. For Whom the Bell Tolls: Anthropologists Advising on Public Policy. American Anthropologist March, 1980 Vol.82(1):79-94.

Willner focuses on the role of anthropologists as advisors in public policy decisions, examining the constraints they face because of their unique roles in the “sciences.” She finds that anthropologists are faced with a special responsibility, because governments may use the knowledge they have acquired from their fieldwork in making policy choices that directly affect the cultures and populations they have studied. Willner suggests that the conflicts anthropologists face as administrators could begin to be alleviated by moving from working for executive agencies to influencing legislative decisions.

Willner exemplifies this argument by discussing life-and-death priorities within a society and the application of anthropology to formulating such priorities. She argues that in this case, applying anthropology is an end in itself, an assertion of decision-making power, rather than a means to a greater good. She argues that anthropologists are not in the best position to advise on policies that will have consequences they themselves will not have to face.

Instead anthropologists should consider their field as a means to a public good, applying their field to formulations of public policy. However, Willner also acknowledges the challenges and frustrations anthropologists inevitably face in the field. The most significant challenge is the so-called “Wonderland” phenomenon, in which anthropologists are not a part of the world of the policymakers and government officials, nor do they share the fate of the cultures about which they are advising. In this way, she argues, “the consulting anthropologist creates or accepts a role as expert in bridging worlds – his own world with a world he doesn’t share and a world where he is a guest.”

Willner also traces the development of representative government, as opposed to the “participatory democracy” of the ancient Greek city states. From this history, especially Locke’s theory of political society, she argues that the most important aspect of a representative government is the legislative branch, which is “bound to dispense Justice.” The importance of the legislature still holds today because of its representative role, as opposed to executive agencies that are not popularly elected and do not have to answer to any sort of constituency. Because of this lack of accountability, Willner argues that anthropologists would be better served to work closely with the legislative branch. Justice, not power, is the ultimate end of government; consequently, anthropologists will be able to do more good by working with the branch of government which is meant to dispense justice. Because public policy is defined as a decision (or nondecision) that a public official makes about a government action in response to a problem/issue before it, anthropologists should turn to political representatives who have jurisdiction and/or authority over that particular issue. Willner argues that anthropologists can have a much more powerful and influential role when they directly influence legislation and can see the direct result of their advocacy efforts, rather than being relied upon as a token “expert” by an administrative agency without ever knowing that their knowledge was able to make an impact. In this way, they will be able to make an important contribution to the public good.

KRISTINE HARRINGTON Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).

Zamora, Mario D. and Kristin J. Olsen. Cecilio Lopez 1898-1979. American Anthropologist September 1980, Vol.82 (3): 555-556.

On September 5, 1979, Cecilio Lopez died of a heart attack. Considered the father of Philippine Linguistics, Lopez held the position of Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Oriental Studies since 1963 at the University of the Philippines (UP). Not only known for his humanity, Professor Lopez is remembered in the Philippines and abroad for his brilliant and influential publications on linguistics, dynamic teaching, pioneering research on the Philippine and Indonesian languages and dialects, as well as for his noteworthy role in promoting a national language for the Filipinos.

Cecilio Lopez was born on February 1, 1898, in Marikina, Rizal, Philippines. He belonged to the Tagalog ethnic group. Lopez received his B.S. degree in 1923, majoring in zoology and minoring in languages. Following his degree he taught French for three years and was a government pensionado to Germany, Holland, and France. During that time he earned his doctorate of philosophy at the University of Hamburg. He received a postdoctoral fellowship from the University of Leiden, Holland. After leaving Holland, Lopez attended the Institut Brittanique in Paris for a summer term and then traveled to Hamburg again to work as a scientific assistant.

Lopez returned home to occupy various academic and administrative positions. For 15 years he was a professor and acting head of the Department of Oriental Languages, a position that was broken up when he worked as a secretary and executive officer at the Institute of National Language of the Philippines for eight years. Consequently he became a member of the National Council of Education and received a fellowship in linguistics form the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation at the University of Michigan and Yale University. Through 1951-55 he was a secretary of the Graduate School, UP, while overlapping this position with the chairmanship of the Social Science Research Center. In 1954, he became acting director of the Institute of National Language, Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines. One year later he was appointed acting dean of the College of Liberal Arts, UP.

Lopez was the executive secretary of the Institute of Asian Studies at UP from 1956-63. During this time he also held positions such as chairman of the Division of Humanities, acting dean of the College of Liberal Arts, professor of linguistics and oriental studies. He consistently published his pioneering research during his busy career. Many of his publications contained progressive scientific studies on Philippine languages and dialects.

While maintaining his varied positions in the academic world, as well as his research, Cecilio Lopez managed to represent his country in international conferences in linguistics and ethnology. Several of these conferences include, the 17th International Congress of Orientalists, Leiden, Holland (1927), Linguistic Society of America, Michigan (1950), he was convener of the linguistic sessions of the 9th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, Thailand (1957) and that same year he was chairman of the Philippine delegation of the first round-table conference Southeast Asian Language Experts. After a tour of Southeast Asia for a language project in 1960 through 1961 he went on an educational mission to West Germany and participated in the centennial celebration of the Filipino national hero Dr. Jose Rizal.

In 1973, following several more international conferences and consistent momentous research, Cecilio Lopez was honored by the Linguistics Society of the Philippines with a festschrift entitled Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez as well as a compilation of his works entitled Selected Writings of Cecilio Lopez in Philippine Linguistics.

ALISION TREBBY Wheaton College, MA (Donna O. Kerner)

Zamora, Mario D and Kristin J. Olsen. Obituary: Cecilio Lopez 1898-1979. American Anthropologist September, 1980 Vol. 82(3):555-556.

Zamora and Olsen describe the numerous academic and professional accomplishments of Cecilio Lopez. Lopez was a considered the “Father of Philippine Linguistics”. He was born in the Philippines in Marikina, Rizal and belonged to the Tagalog ethnic and linguistic group. Lopez was well informed in many disciplines and received many academic degrees and mastered many languages and dialects. He received his undergraduate degree in zoology with a minor in languages. He taught French for several years, but then became the government’s pensionado to Germany, Holland, and France. While in Germany, Lopez completed a second degree in philosophy at the University of Hamburg. Lopez completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Leiden in Holland and then spent a summer at the Insitut Brittanique in Paris and the following fall as a scientific assistant at the University of Hamburg.

Lopez returned to the Philippines after his studies in Europe, and he took a position at the University of the Philippines as professor and acting chair of the Department of Oriental Languages. While working at the University of the Philippines, he received many fellowships and awards for his studies into the languages and dialects of the Philippines. By 1955, Lopez became the dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of the Philippines. Lopez published twenty-five works on the languages of the Philippines, but A Comparative Philippine Word-List (1976) and the compilation Selected Writings of Cecilio Lopez in Philippine Linguistics (1977) are his best known works. Lopez also represented the Philippines in many international conferences on linguistics and ethnography.

Olsen and Zamora say little about Lopez’s personal life. It is clear from this obituary, however, that Cecilio Lopez was a man dedicated to his professor and his education.

ELIZABETH SHAFER Davidson College (Grant D. Jones).