D Michael Warren: An Appreciation
1
€ • Anthropology Newsletter/March Continuedfrom page 2 probability levels would still have to add up to 1.00 with distinction from sea lions being more convincing than the distinction from chimpanzees. Obviously this does not mean that a human being is an ape, despite Jared Diamond and his Third Chimpanzee (1992). Then if you compare your human specimen to a dozen or so groups to which it is in fact closely related and one or two that are distant, the split of its loadings between those to whom it is legitimately tied will be such that it could look as though it did not really belong to any given one. Actually, posterior probability figures are much better at showing what an indi- vidual is not than indicating the group to which it properly belongs. In addition, by dint of repeated testing, we have discovered that we do not get a trustworthy picture if we use fewer,than 15 variables. Two dozen give much more reli- able results, and Howelis's full set is better still. Sarich does not say how many or which measurements he was able to use in the comparisons that he reports. I was to get my full two dozen measurements on Cr6-Magnon, Monte Circeo, Saccopastore \ and, of course, my reference samples. I \ also ran those fossils against representa- tives of the 8 worldwide regional clusters in my database, and these included New World groups and Australo-Melanesians before I whittled the comparative sample down to what I reported in the November AN. It was in that initial run that I discov- ered that Cro-Magnon and the Nean- derthals could be distinguished from every group in the world except Europeans, and Qafzeh from every group except Africans. Only then did I tease apart the European and African samples to test the anthropo- logical folklore concerning the status of Cro-Magnon. C Loring Brace U of Michigan, Ann Arbor clbmce@umich. edu Racism Is No Joke Lee Drummond (January 1998 AN, p 64) astonishes when he propounds a pre-Boas synonymity of cultural and biological dif- ferences. He stuns when he proposes that cultural differences within multicultural societies are species differences. That eth- nic groups in modern societies would be better protected in zoos is an astonishing idea to come out of anthropology. Along with the accompanying cartoon depicting "politically correct anthropologists" speak- ing anthropological insights and then pray- ing to change the subject, this is an extraor- dinary follow-up of the Association's year- long discussion of the meaning of "race." Perhaps it is really a joke. Drummond used humor to good effect in his Caribbean work. But racial and ethnic jokes have always done the work of racism. Virginia Heyer Young U of Virginia, Charlottesville U New Mexico for the Record Members of our department read with interest the January 1998 article "Evaluat- ing Anthropology Departments from the Outside" (p 22). AN advice to prospective students is well taken, especially that emphasizing the key role of personal research rather than mindless acceptance of frequently abstruse ranking systems. The reality is, however, that such prestige sys- tems are influential not only in graduate program choice by prospective students but also in terms of resource allocations at local, state and even national.levels. The article notes that some well-regarded pro- grams were not included in certain rating schemes, and the U of New Mexico Anthropology Department is then cited as an example mysteriously missing from the NRC and Gourman rankings (p 23). Earli- er, the same paragraph suggests that per- haps full data were not compiled by their institution, for whatever reason. Indeed! Anthropology was one of 16 doctoral pro- grams at UNM (out of 22) for which infor- mation was never generated for the NRC by the (now former) Associate Provost for Academic Affairs/Dean of Graduate Stud- ies. We had hoped to be listed among the top 10 institutions in 1995, improving our position slightly over earlier polls. Our archaeology program, for example, was ranked as high as 7th during a 1992 review conducted by the Society for American Archaeology. Unfortunately administrative oversight precluded our aspirations. Keith Basso, Garth Bawden, James L Boone, Jane E Buikstra, Patricia L Crown, David W Dinwoodie, Les W Field, Jeffrey W Froehlich, Larry P Gorbet, Kim Hill, Bruce Huckell, Ana Magdalena Hurtado, Joel D Irish, Hillard S Kaplan, Louise A Lamphere, Jane B Lancaster, Robert D Leonard, Carole Nagengast, Joseph F Powell, Ann F Ramenofsky, Sylvia Rodriuez, Mari Lyn Salvador, Robert S Santley, Karl H Schwerin, Lawrence G Straus, Marta Weigle, Win H Wills, Joseph C Winter Post-NAGPRA Debate Continues Since my experience may be instructive for other researchers and filmmakers, I'd like to respond to David Horst Thomas's defense of his policy regarding the docu- mentary Science or Sacrilege (January 1998 AN,p9). In 1996,1 attempted to secure permission to publish 8 photographs from the American Museum of Natural History's collection. These had been included in my MA thesis, which was about to be distributed by U of California CMIL. In August, I received a photocopy of a memo, dated May 24, from Thomas to the librarian denying my request. Up to that point I received no substantial explanation of this decision from anyone. When I requested the AMNH's policy on publication of archival materials from their legal department, (1) none was offered and (2) the AMNH perceived no need for a clear policy. The reason became clear when I finally managed to contact Thomas and the curator informed me that, in effect, the poli- cy is whatever he happens to say it is. Thomas's distinction between use of materials in "scholarly outletfs]" and "pub- lic" ones is specious, since all scholarly pro- ductions are public. Indeed, it is in the spirit of NAGPRA that scholarly material relevant to Native Americans be made more accessi- ble. Moreover, Thomas seemed to be under the impression that the word video necessar- ily implies "commercial." For the record, the tape has been sold primarily to universi- ties and libraries, the same places "scholarly outlets" serve. Thomas seems to take a principled stand when he withholds wide publication of images of Native American human remains. While recognizing the difficulty of the prob- lem, I did explain to him that my video dealt with the very issue of historic scholarly insensitivity to native concerns and that showing excavation photos was an integral part of telling such a story. Moreover, it is hardly clear why scholars publishing in "conventional outlets" should be deemed more sensitive to native concerns than any- body else. But Thomas wasn't interested in context or case-by-case quibbles. He certainly had no clear idea of the content of the photos he was withholding, because 5 of the 8 didn't show human remains at all. Nor did he both- er to view the video before making his deci- sion. I trust I'm not alone in thinking this is very curious behavior for someone in a position of such responsibility. Many individuals at the AMNH were quite helpful and sympathetic to my posi- tion. They were, unfortunately, left in the awkward position of trying to explain what was evidently a hasty decision. I remain appreciative to those who contributed posi- tively to resolving the problem. Finally, I raised this issue in the context of a commentary on Kennewick Man and NAGPRA because Thomas's attitude is typ- ical of all too many in the post-NAGPRA world: an arrogation of the mantle of "sensi- tivity" by those little interested in reasoned debate. At least now Thomas and the AMNH have gone on record with some sort of clear position. Hopefully, this is where debate can begin, not end. Nicholas Nicastro Cornell U More than a Single Approach Recent commentaries by Margery Wolf ("Relevant Anthropologists, Responsible Citizens," September 1997 AN, p 68) and Paul Durrenberger and Kendall Thu ("Rele- vant Anthropologists and Relevant Com- mentary," December 1997 AN, p 12) draw attention to the virtual absence of an anthro- pological voice in US public debate. The commentators agree on the vital importance of providing the American public anthropo- logical perspectives on salient concerns, such as immigration, abortion rights, doctor- patient relations in an era of radically chang- ing medical care and the destruction of tra- ditions of family fanning. This contrasts with other industrialized nations that honor the perspective anthropol- ogists bring to vital policy issues. On a visit to Barcelona, we observed that the death of Spanish ethnologist Caro Baroja occasioned several columns of front-page news in the mass circulation newspaper La Vanguardia. The article was a celebration of his ethno- logical studies of Spanish village life, not an obituary. During another of our visits, sever- al mass circulation newspapers (including the national daily El Pais) carried an inter- view with noted urban anthropologist Paul Kogel, reporting extensively on the results of his research on homelessness in Los Angeles and their relevance to homelessness in Barcelona. About a month later the arrival of American medical sociologist Vicente Navarro was marked by front-page coverage in La Vanguardia of Navarro's views on the delivery of health care in diverse capitalist nations. On each of these occasions newspaper readers were treated to a sophisticated social scientific perspective on issues of historical or contemporary importance. Wolf, Durrenberger and Thu offer differ- ent solutions to anthropologists' failure to engage the American public in debate on issues of similar concern. Wolf urges anthropologists to develop "a double con- sciousness," contributing first to the devel- opment of anthropological scholarship and also presenting our well-founded views to Congress and readers of influential periodi- • cals. In contrast, Durrenberger and Thu argue that the proper point of entry into pol- icy is at the local level in "courtrooms, town meetings, legislative assemblies and class- rooms" (p 12). They accuse Wolf of elitism and disdain her emphasis on influencing readers of opinion-shaping periodicals. Yet enhancing the contribution of anthropology to policy debate is far too important to be restricted to a single approach. It is essential to find ways to influence rural communities, as well as Washington power brokers and intellectuals, on issues of vital importance to us all. Arthur J Rubel U of California, Irvine Carole H Browner U of California, Los Angeles One day when I was nearing the end of two years' dissertation research in the Ama- zon forest, a young man in my adopted tribe commented to me, "You have learned many of our secrets, Curious One, and the elders in your country will reward you well for your new knowledge. But can you help me get a job?" I remember feeling that getting involved with things like employment would com- promise my detached, scientific objectivity. After all, I was there to study these people, not change them. And as for being richly rewarded by my elders, well, I knew what was in store for me: I spent 4 postdisserta- tion years in temporary, underpaid academ- ic positions. I met Mike Warren in Accra in 1977. Here was an anthropologist who held a tenured faculty position yet also applied anthropology in intriguing ways. For exam- ple, he started a program in which Ghana- ian health authorities collaborated with indigenous healers to prevent deaths from dehydration. I was immediately intrigued by this alternative: instead of teaching in- troductory anthropology, I could be saving lives by applying anthropology. When I expressed interest in Mike's project, he strongly encouraged me to become in- volved. I was not used to this kind of invitation. I thought established scholars in whatever academic field jealously guarded their turf and regarded neophytes as gate crashers. Life was a zero-sum game where my gain meant your direct-proportional loss. So I became an applied medical anthropologist and, in fact, used Mike's indigenous healer project as a model for similar programs in several African countries. Mike encouraged me enthusiastically every step of the way. Warren died suddenly of an embolism on December 28, 1997, just a day after he had returned to Ara, Nigeria, the site of much of his recent research and development work. Among the more impactful of Mike's con- tributions was the way he packaged "indigenous knowledge systems" (IKS) in a way that USAID, the World Bank and UN organizations could immediately under-' stand and, more importantly, incorporate into the way they approached economic development, and people, in developing countries. The Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural De- velopment (CIKARD), at Iowa State, •became the prototype for IKS centers that have sprung up in some 33 countries. The IKS approach to development starts with recognition of the depth, empirical accuracy and functionality of indigenous knowledge related to health, agriculture and nutrition. Mike was buried at Ara, in accordance with his wishes. It attracted the largest crowd ever witnessed in the history of Ara, according to residents. Kings, chiefs, pro- fessors and untitled folk whose lives Mike touched all had much to express at grave side. Those of Professor Bola Ayeni of Ibadan will have to serve as representative: "Mike, you were a bundle of blessing to humanity. Ara is proud of you. Nigeria is proud of you. The whole of the African race is proud that you came its way. . . . You were a tireless apostle of helping the disad- vantaged, the less privileged and the rural people all over the world." Edward C Green Washington, DC
-
Upload
edward-c-green -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
3
Transcript of D Michael Warren: An Appreciation
€ • Anthropology Newsletter/March
Continued from page 2
probability levels would still have to addup to 1.00 with distinction from sea lionsbeing more convincing than the distinctionfrom chimpanzees. Obviously this does notmean that a human being is an ape, despiteJared Diamond and his Third Chimpanzee(1992). Then if you compare your humanspecimen to a dozen or so groups to whichit is in fact closely related and one or twothat are distant, the split of its loadingsbetween those to whom it is legitimatelytied will be such that it could look asthough it did not really belong to any givenone. Actually, posterior probability figuresare much better at showing what an indi-vidual is not than indicating the group towhich it properly belongs.
In addition, by dint of repeated testing,we have discovered that we do not get atrustworthy picture if we use fewer,than 15variables. Two dozen give much more reli-able results, and Howelis's full set is betterstill. Sarich does not say how many orwhich measurements he was able to use inthe comparisons that he reports. I wasto get my full two dozen measurements onCr6-Magnon, Monte Circeo, Saccopastore \and, of course, my reference samples. I \also ran those fossils against representa-tives of the 8 worldwide regional clustersin my database, and these included NewWorld groups and Australo-Melanesiansbefore I whittled the comparative sampledown to what I reported in the NovemberAN. It was in that initial run that I discov-ered that Cro-Magnon and the Nean-derthals could be distinguished from everygroup in the world except Europeans, andQafzeh from every group except Africans.Only then did I tease apart the Europeanand African samples to test the anthropo-logical folklore concerning the status ofCro-Magnon.
C Loring BraceU of Michigan, Ann Arbor
clbmce@umich. edu
Racism Is No JokeLee Drummond (January 1998 AN, p 64)
astonishes when he propounds a pre-Boassynonymity of cultural and biological dif-ferences. He stuns when he proposes thatcultural differences within multiculturalsocieties are species differences. That eth-nic groups in modern societies would bebetter protected in zoos is an astonishingidea to come out of anthropology. Alongwith the accompanying cartoon depicting"politically correct anthropologists" speak-ing anthropological insights and then pray-ing to change the subject, this is an extraor-dinary follow-up of the Association's year-long discussion of the meaning of "race."Perhaps it is really a joke. Drummond usedhumor to good effect in his Caribbeanwork. But racial and ethnic jokes havealways done the work of racism.
Virginia Heyer YoungU of Virginia, Charlottesville
U New Mexico for the RecordMembers of our department read with
interest the January 1998 article "Evaluat-ing Anthropology Departments from theOutside" (p 22). AN advice to prospectivestudents is well taken, especially thatemphasizing the key role of personalresearch rather than mindless acceptance offrequently abstruse ranking systems. Thereality is, however, that such prestige sys-tems are influential not only in graduateprogram choice by prospective students butalso in terms of resource allocations atlocal, state and even national.levels. The
article notes that some well-regarded pro-grams were not included in certain ratingschemes, and the U of New MexicoAnthropology Department is then cited asan example mysteriously missing from theNRC and Gourman rankings (p 23). Earli-er, the same paragraph suggests that per-haps full data were not compiled by theirinstitution, for whatever reason. Indeed!Anthropology was one of 16 doctoral pro-grams at UNM (out of 22) for which infor-mation was never generated for the NRCby the (now former) Associate Provost forAcademic Affairs/Dean of Graduate Stud-ies. We had hoped to be listed among thetop 10 institutions in 1995, improving ourposition slightly over earlier polls. Ourarchaeology program, for example, wasranked as high as 7th during a 1992 reviewconducted by the Society for AmericanArchaeology. Unfortunately administrativeoversight precluded our aspirations.
Keith Basso, Garth Bawden, James LBoone, Jane E Buikstra, Patricia L Crown,
David W Dinwoodie, Les W Field,Jeffrey W Froehlich, Larry P Gorbet,
Kim Hill, Bruce Huckell, Ana MagdalenaHurtado, Joel D Irish, Hillard S Kaplan,
Louise A Lamphere, Jane B Lancaster,Robert D Leonard, Carole Nagengast,Joseph F Powell, Ann F Ramenofsky,Sylvia Rodriuez, Mari Lyn Salvador,Robert S Santley, Karl H Schwerin,Lawrence G Straus, Marta Weigle,
Win H Wills, Joseph C Winter
Post-NAGPRA DebateContinues
Since my experience may be instructivefor other researchers and filmmakers, I'dlike to respond to David Horst Thomas'sdefense of his policy regarding the docu-mentary Science or Sacrilege (January 1998AN,p9).
In 1996,1 attempted to secure permissionto publish 8 photographs from the AmericanMuseum of Natural History's collection.These had been included in my MA thesis,which was about to be distributed by U ofCalifornia CMIL. In August, I received aphotocopy of a memo, dated May 24, fromThomas to the librarian denying my request.Up to that point I received no substantialexplanation of this decision from anyone.
When I requested the AMNH's policy onpublication of archival materials from theirlegal department, (1) none was offered and(2) the AMNH perceived no need for a clearpolicy. The reason became clear when Ifinally managed to contact Thomas and thecurator informed me that, in effect, the poli-cy is whatever he happens to say it is.
Thomas's distinction between use ofmaterials in "scholarly outletfs]" and "pub-lic" ones is specious, since all scholarly pro-ductions are public. Indeed, it is in the spiritof NAGPRA that scholarly material relevantto Native Americans be made more accessi-ble. Moreover, Thomas seemed to be underthe impression that the word video necessar-ily implies "commercial." For the record,the tape has been sold primarily to universi-ties and libraries, the same places "scholarlyoutlets" serve.
Thomas seems to take a principled standwhen he withholds wide publication ofimages of Native American human remains.While recognizing the difficulty of the prob-lem, I did explain to him that my video dealtwith the very issue of historic scholarlyinsensitivity to native concerns and thatshowing excavation photos was an integralpart of telling such a story. Moreover, it ishardly clear why scholars publishing in"conventional outlets" should be deemedmore sensitive to native concerns than any-body else.
But Thomas wasn't interested in contextor case-by-case quibbles. He certainly hadno clear idea of the content of the photos hewas withholding, because 5 of the 8 didn'tshow human remains at all. Nor did he both-er to view the video before making his deci-
sion. I trust I'm not alone in thinking this isvery curious behavior for someone in aposition of such responsibility.
Many individuals at the AMNH werequite helpful and sympathetic to my posi-tion. They were, unfortunately, left in theawkward position of trying to explain whatwas evidently a hasty decision. I remainappreciative to those who contributed posi-tively to resolving the problem.
Finally, I raised this issue in the contextof a commentary on Kennewick Man andNAGPRA because Thomas's attitude is typ-ical of all too many in the post-NAGPRAworld: an arrogation of the mantle of "sensi-tivity" by those little interested in reasoneddebate. At least now Thomas and theAMNH have gone on record with some sortof clear position. Hopefully, this is wheredebate can begin, not end.
Nicholas NicastroCornell U
More than a Single ApproachRecent commentaries by Margery Wolf
("Relevant Anthropologists, ResponsibleCitizens," September 1997 AN, p 68) andPaul Durrenberger and Kendall Thu ("Rele-vant Anthropologists and Relevant Com-mentary," December 1997 AN, p 12) drawattention to the virtual absence of an anthro-pological voice in US public debate. Thecommentators agree on the vital importanceof providing the American public anthropo-logical perspectives on salient concerns,such as immigration, abortion rights, doctor-patient relations in an era of radically chang-ing medical care and the destruction of tra-ditions of family fanning.
This contrasts with other industrializednations that honor the perspective anthropol-ogists bring to vital policy issues. On a visitto Barcelona, we observed that the death ofSpanish ethnologist Caro Baroja occasionedseveral columns of front-page news in themass circulation newspaper La Vanguardia.The article was a celebration of his ethno-logical studies of Spanish village life, not anobituary. During another of our visits, sever-al mass circulation newspapers (includingthe national daily El Pais) carried an inter-view with noted urban anthropologist PaulKogel, reporting extensively on the resultsof his research on homelessness in LosAngeles and their relevance to homelessnessin Barcelona. About a month later thearrival of American medical sociologistVicente Navarro was marked by front-pagecoverage in La Vanguardia of Navarro'sviews on the delivery of health care indiverse capitalist nations. On each of theseoccasions newspaper readers were treated toa sophisticated social scientific perspectiveon issues of historical or contemporaryimportance.
Wolf, Durrenberger and Thu offer differ-ent solutions to anthropologists' failure toengage the American public in debate onissues of similar concern. Wolf urgesanthropologists to develop "a double con-sciousness," contributing first to the devel-opment of anthropological scholarship andalso presenting our well-founded views toCongress and readers of influential periodi- •cals. In contrast, Durrenberger and Thuargue that the proper point of entry into pol-icy is at the local level in "courtrooms, townmeetings, legislative assemblies and class-rooms" (p 12). They accuse Wolf of elitismand disdain her emphasis on influencingreaders of opinion-shaping periodicals. Yetenhancing the contribution of anthropologyto policy debate is far too important to berestricted to a single approach. It is essentialto find ways to influence rural communities,as well as Washington power brokers andintellectuals, on issues of vital importance tous all.
Arthur J RubelU of California, Irvine
Carole H BrownerU of California, Los Angeles
One day when I was nearing the end oftwo years' dissertation research in the Ama-zon forest, a young man in my adopted tribecommented to me, "You have learned manyof our secrets, Curious One, and the eldersin your country will reward you well foryour new knowledge. But can you help meget a job?"
I remember feeling that getting involvedwith things like employment would com-promise my detached, scientific objectivity.After all, I was there to study these people,not change them. And as for being richlyrewarded by my elders, well, I knew whatwas in store for me: I spent 4 postdisserta-tion years in temporary, underpaid academ-ic positions.
I met Mike Warren in Accra in 1977.Here was an anthropologist who held atenured faculty position yet also appliedanthropology in intriguing ways. For exam-ple, he started a program in which Ghana-ian health authorities collaborated withindigenous healers to prevent deaths fromdehydration. I was immediately intriguedby this alternative: instead of teaching in-troductory anthropology, I could be savinglives by applying anthropology. When Iexpressed interest in Mike's project, hestrongly encouraged me to become in-volved.
I was not used to this kind of invitation. Ithought established scholars in whateveracademic field jealously guarded their turfand regarded neophytes as gate crashers.Life was a zero-sum game where my gainmeant your direct-proportional loss. So Ibecame an applied medical anthropologistand, in fact, used Mike's indigenous healerproject as a model for similar programs inseveral African countries. Mike encouragedme enthusiastically every step of the way.
Warren died suddenly of an embolism onDecember 28, 1997, just a day after he hadreturned to Ara, Nigeria, the site of much ofhis recent research and development work.Among the more impactful of Mike's con-tributions was the way he packaged"indigenous knowledge systems" (IKS) in away that USAID, the World Bank and UNorganizations could immediately under-'stand and, more importantly, incorporateinto the way they approached economicdevelopment, and people, in developingcountries. The Center for IndigenousKnowledge for Agriculture and Rural De-velopment (CIKARD), at Iowa State,•became the prototype for IKS centers thathave sprung up in some 33 countries. TheIKS approach to development starts withrecognition of the depth, empirical accuracyand functionality of indigenous knowledgerelated to health, agriculture and nutrition.
Mike was buried at Ara, in accordancewith his wishes. It attracted the largestcrowd ever witnessed in the history of Ara,according to residents. Kings, chiefs, pro-fessors and untitled folk whose lives Miketouched all had much to express at graveside. Those of Professor Bola Ayeni ofIbadan will have to serve as representative:
"Mike, you were a bundle of blessing tohumanity. Ara is proud of you. Nigeria isproud of you. The whole of the African raceis proud that you came its way. . . . Youwere a tireless apostle of helping the disad-vantaged, the less privileged and the ruralpeople all over the world."
Edward C GreenWashington, DC
