Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NAZAREA, 2006 - Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity
NAZAREA, 2006 - Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity
NAZAREA, 2006 - Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Key Words
Abstract
For the past two decades, biodiversity conservation has been an area
of concerted action and spirited debate. Given the centrality of biodiversity to the earths life support system, its increasing vulnerability
is being addressed in international conservation as well as in research by anthropologists and other social scientists on the cultural,
economic, political, and legal aspects of human engagement with biological resources. The concepts of biodiversity as a social construct
and historical discourse, of local knowledge as loaded representation
and invented tradition, and of cultural memory as selective reconstruction and collective political consciousness have also been the
foci of recent critical reection.
317
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
INTRODUCTION
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
(Orlove & Brush 1996). Underlining human cognition, decision making, and behavior, the authors surveyed anthropological perspectives on biodiversity under four themes:
ethnobiology of agricultural diversity, cultural
ecology of plant genetic resources, participatory conservation, and politics of genetic resources. Aside from this review, several books
and edited volumes have been published on
the cultural, economic, political, and legal dimensions of biodiversity conservation in the
past decade (Zimmerer 1996, 2003; Collins
& Qualset 1999; Nazarea 1998, 2005; Brush
2000, 2004; Duteld 2000, 2004; Cleveland
& Soleri 2002). Interest in exploring the complex web of interactions among culture, society, and biodiversity can be expected to grow
with increasing recognition of the need for
complementing formal or institutional approaches like ex situ conservation in gene
banks with more informal or local initiatives
like in situ conservation in homegardens. It
will also intensify with the demand for intersectoral negotiations on access and benets in
relation to plant genetic resources and associated local knowledge.
In light of these developments, this reviews objective is to examine anthropological investment on the subject of biodiversity conservation and loss while recognizing
the questioning that has been going on since
the concept gained some degree of prominence in environmental conservation. I also
take into account local knowledge and memory and examine how they reinforce cultural
and biological diversity. Local knowledge and
memory have followed a similar course of ascendancy, crisis, and renaissance as has the
notion of biodiversity. The deconstruction of
these concepts has provoked serious reexamination, which continues to lead us to deeper
insights. But it has also provoked doubt and
sown confusion, leading to a palpable malaise
in both theory and practice. Recent developments in anthropological thought, particularly in the areas of sensory memory or sensuous scholarship (Seremetakis 1994, Stoller
1997, Sutton 2001), marginality and mime-
CBD: Convention
on Biological
Diversity
CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY
OR IMAGINING BIODIVERSITY?
Whether the problem of biodiversity loss was
cast in a straight and narrow economic mode
or in a more encompassing biocentric mode,
the result was to galvanize the scientic and
policy community into action. International
organizing and advocacy made a strong case
for the urgency of the problem. One watershed document, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was signed in the 1992
Rio Earth Summit. The CBD dened biodiversity as the variability among living organisms from all sources and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes
diversity within species, between species, and
of ecosystems (UNEP 1994, p. 4). It recognized national sovereignty over plant genetic
resources and bound signatory countries to
regulate and manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity and respect, preserve, and maintain
knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying
traditional lifestyles relevant to the sustainable use and conservation of biological diversity (UNEP 1994, pp. 89). There are still
unresolved issues associated with rights and
responsibilities, but the CBD has made it difcult to ignore the enormous challenge of biodiversity conservation and the crucial role of
local knowledge and local custodians in maintaining it.
Since the rst call to arms in the 1980s,
biological and social scientists have been
www.annualreviews.org Biodiversity Conservation
319
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
ANRV287-AN35-17
320
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
AND ITS TRANSFORMATIONS
Anthropologys engagement with environmental conservation has been rooted in local or indigenous knowledge. In many respects, local knowledge has always been at
the core of anthropology, but it ascended to
prominence in development anthropology in
the early 1980s. Three intellectual waves precipitated this ascent. The rst we can call
the ethnoscientic wave. The concentration on understanding of local understanding had its beginnings in the mid-1950s and
early 1960s (Conklin 1954, 1961; Goodenough 1957; Frake 1962), but it crested in the
1970s and 1980s (Berlin et al. 1974; Hunn
1977, 1982; Ford 1978; Posey 1984; Atran
1985; Berlin 1992; Ellen 1993). Based primarily on cognitive/linguistic principles, ethnoscience systematized data collection and analysis, effectively eticizing the emic. Because
of its promise of methodological rigor and
theoretical signicance, supporters dubbed it
as the new ethnography. However, its detractors found dubious the idea of cognitively
based behavior and referred to it more as
science of trivia or rules for the anemic
and emetic (Harris 1974). The debate also
raged among ethnoscientists themselves, between the structural/intellectualist camp (represented by Brent Berlin and Scott Atran)
and the utilitarian/adaptationist camp (represented by Eugene Hunn and Roy Ellen).
Questions of correspondence between ethnobiological categories and Linnean taxonomies
continue to animate these exchanges, but
some form of synthesis has been achieved in
other areas. Among other things, ethnobiology and ethnoecology provided a framework
IK: indigenous
knowledge
TEK: traditional
environmental
knowledge
321
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
ANRV287-AN35-17
322
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
reied or commodied and imagined or invented. Thus, this reservoir of strength and
resilience called local knowledge that anthropologists endeavored, with considerable success, to bring to the attention of planners,
policy makers, and scholars in other disciplines is often lost in a conceptual quagmire
that submerges scientic measures and ethnographic insights under cross-cutting ripples
of political discourse. Although agency still
echoes somewhere in the background, a disquieting aspect of the more immediate intellectual cosmovision has local people swimming in swift and overwhelming currents of
powerhapless, witless victims with neither
knowledge nor memory. As I see it, the danger
in conceptually stripping local knowledge of
its adaptiveness and reducing it to little more
than political currency and intellectual fodder
to be complicated ad innitum is that we can
lose sight of both the human actors and the environment and ultimately negate the agency
we have taken pains to foreground.
LOCAL ETHNOECOLOGIES
AND GLOBAL CONSERVATION
With regards to biodiversity conservation, we
as anthropologists nd ourselves contending
not only with our ambivalence about local
knowledge but also with inherent tensions
between local t and global standards, between diversity and design. The basic problem in trying to reconcile local knowledge
with global science is one of incommensurability (Fairhead & Leach 1996, Espeland
and Stevens 1998). Local knowledge is experiential and embodied in everyday practice. It
is not logically formulated apart from what
makes sense from living day to day in ones
environment; nor is it inscribed as a set of processes or rules. To treat it solely as information to be tested, or text to be deconstructed,
is to ignore the sensory embodiment of local knowledge as well as the attendant emotion and memory that is its power. In short,
local knowledge is cosmos more than corpus, praxis and pulse more than precision and
323
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
ANRV287-AN35-17
324
Nazarea
MEMORY AND
COUNTERMEMORY
Like local knowledge, memory has risen from
obscurity to a legitimate scholarly focus and
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Some scholars have even argued that the concept of memory stands in opposition to, and
tension with, the concept of history: History
seemed to claim Truth and to vouch for an
objective reality that would correct memorys seemingly subjective, unreliable stance
in a world of objects (Weissberg 1999,
p. 11). But a new scholarly interest predicated
on longing to recall if not to relive the past
took root, ironically, in history itself with the
publication of Noras Les Lieux de Memoire
(19841992). Nora mourned the loss of what
he called milleux de memoire or the milieu of
memory represented by rural life before the
advent of modernity. He noted that the real
environments of memory are gone but that
present-day memory crystallizes and secretes
itself in the lieux de memoire, or sites of memory and lamented that modern day memory
is archival memory (p. 7).
From interest in philosophy on the phenomenology of remembering and forgetting,
to the preoccupation in psychoanalysis with
seduction, trauma, and fantasy, to anthropologys fascination with identity politics in relation to transnationalism and postcolonial
memories, and nally to historys own inspired quest for history from below and
history of everyday life, the study of memory became a consuming past-time (Tonkin
1992, Sutton 1998, Harkin 2003, Gordillo
2004, Moran 2004). But as memorys stock
rose, its nature and function became even
more enigmatic. As Boutin et al. (2005)
observed,
[i]t has become increasingly clear that the
construction of memory is imbricated in
a complex network of social, psychological, political and cultural practices spanning
a wide range of scholarly disciplines. We
cannot understand how collective memories
gain currency or, a contrario, slip into oblivion, without understanding the dynamics of
power within the societies in which they circulate. Equally important is an understanding of the cultural forms in which memories
are inscribed. (p. 5)
www.annualreviews.org Biodiversity Conservation
325
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
ANRV287-AN35-17
326
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
politically motivated) plant breeding and introduction, and for unethical bioprospecting
and biopiracy can hardly be called inappropriate. As Connerton (1989) pointed out,
[a]ll totalitarianisms behave in this way: the
mental enslavement of the subjects of a totalitarian regime begins when their memories
are taken away. When a large power wants to
deprive a small country of its national con-
Research into cultural memory is usually approached through the analysis of texts,
events, and rituals where memories of the
dominated sediment. In reections on postcolonial memories and identity politics, there
is a gradient from countermemories inscribed
in subversive discourse to those incorporated
in performative ceremonies. To give just a
few examples, in Fragmented Memories, Saika
(2004) examined buranjis or chronicles of
glorious exploits written on the bark of aloe
wood to unearth a distinctive Assamese identity in the context of contemporary India;
in The Politics of Memory, Rappaport (1998)
highlighted native historians oral accounts
of changes in the Colombian Andes as opposed to ofcial historical accounts; in Embodying Colonial Memories, Stoller (1995) considered Songhay spirit possession and broader
social relations as a sensual reconciliation
of history, and in The Weight of the Past,
Lambek (2002) focused on Sakalava spirit
mediums who bear the past through ritual performances that give body and voice
to the ancestors. Stoller (1994) argues that
there is a signicant difference between the
merely discursive and the performative because . . . embodiment is not primarily textual; rather, the sentient body is culturally
consumed by a world lled with forces, smells,
textures, sights, sounds and tastes, all of which
trigger cultural memory (p. 636).
327
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Ecology
Invented traditions
Local
Local
Knowledge
knowledge
Biodiversity
conservation
Memory
History
Fantasy
Figure 3
Recreating the
milieu of
biodiversity.
Exterior landscape
the United States layer sweet potatoes, lemon
grass, bitter melon, and banana plants in furrows and trellises in their yards and stir herbavored pho (noodle soup) in their kitchens
to summon an out of place sense of place
(Nazarea 2005). In a book eventually published by her daughter under the title, In Memorys Kitchen, a starving Jewish artist gathered
recipes of rich cakes and savory dumplings
from other women in the German concentration camp of Thereseinstadt to send to her
daughter beyond the prison walls and across
life and death with the injunction, Let fantasy run free (de Silva 1996). What is special and promising about sensory memories
in connection with biodiversity conservation
is that it is difcult to tell if we are dealing with
sites of memory or with the milieu of memory itself, one that allows for both recollection
and experience. Denitely, it is not archival
memory, and it challenges rather than surrenders to the purposeful straightening and
organized forgetting imposed by modernity
and other totalitarianisms (Figure 3). It seems
possible that comfort food and familiar places
328
Nazarea
Interior landscape
enwrap people with warmth, avors, and aromas that make the milieu itself transcendent
and tangible.
CONSERVATION AS
MEMORY WORK
In the eld of environmental conservation and
landscape restoration, ecologists have come to
the conclusion that the ability of ecosystems to
rebuild after large-scale natural and humaninduced disturbances is dependent on ecological memory. According to Bengtsson and
her coworkers (2003), ecological memory is
the network of species, their dynamic interactions, and the combination of structures that
make reorganization possible. They further
pointed out that there are two principal components of ecological memory: one internal
or within-patch and the other external or outside reserves. The former consists of biological legacies that serve as foci for regeneration and growth, whereas the latter consists
of resources outside the disturbed area such
as ecological fallows and dynamic reserves in
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
the surrounding landscape. Hence, for a nature reserve to function in the longer term,
there has to be a buffer to disturbance in the
landscape that conserves the capacity to reorganize and recover from perturbations. There
has to be ecological resilience (2003, p. 390).
In cultural terms, living or working
memory is the equivalent of within-patch
legacies on which reconstruction can be based.
But just as important are external reserves of
memory from dynamic repositories outside
the traumatized sphere. Therefore, reconstruction for biodiversity conservation should
not only recover internal pockets of memory (Nazarea 1998) but also draw on archived
memory, to the extent of copying and recycling from other communities. Memory work
or active re-membrance is called for because
of the gravity of historical events that bring
about repression or loss of memory (Haug
2000, Radstone 2000). Colonialism, for instance, can pose such a disorienting dialectic
between European and indigenous consciousness that the only recourse for dealing
with postcolonial trauma is to artfully hybridize or purposely forget (Comaroff &
Comaroff 1997, Abercombie 1998, Cole
2001). Restorative memory work should facilitate not only transmission from one generation to another but also jump across memory gaps where transmission has failed or was
thwarted. Boutin et al. (2005) referred to these
gaps as cognitive and ethical void(s) arising
Experience
Aesthetics
Individual behavior
Identity
Emotion
Social movement
Hybridity
Imagination
Political action
Figure 4
Interlinked concepts
in memory work
www.annualreviews.org Biodiversity Conservation
329
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
ANRV287-AN35-17
LITERATURE CITED
Abercrombie TA. 1998. Pathways of Memory and Power: Ethnography and History among an Andean
People. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press
Agrawal A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classication. Int. Soc. Sci. J.
173:28797
Altieri MA, Merrick LC. 1987. Agroecology and in situ conservation of native crop diversity
in the third world. In Biodiversity, ed. EO Wilson, pp. 36169. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press
Ashby JA. 1985. The social ecology of soil erosion. Rural Sociol. 50(3):33796
Assman J. 1997. Das Kulturelle Gedachstnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und Politische Identitat in Fruhen
Hochkulturen. Munich: Beck
Atran S. 1985. The nature of folk-biological life forms. Am. Anthropol. 87(2):289315
Basso K. 1996. Wisdom sits in place: notes on a western Apache landscape. See Feld & Basso
1996, pp. 5390
Beattie A, Ehrlich PR. 2001. Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity Is Money in the Bank. New Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press
Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanualson U, Folke C, et al. 2003. Reserves, resilience,
and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32(6):38996
Bentley J, Andrew KL. 1991. Pests, peasants, and publications: anthropological and entomological views of an integrated pest management program for small-scale Honduran farmers.
Hum. Org. 50(2):11324
Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classication: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in
Traditional Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven PH. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classication. New
York/London: Academic
Bloch E. 1988 [1930]. The fairy tale moves on its own in time. In The Utopian Function of Art
and Literature: Selected Essays, ed. J. Zipes, pp. 16366. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Boddy J. 1989. Wombs and Alien Spirits: Women, Men, and the Zar Cult in Northen Sudan. Madison:
Univ. Wis. Press
Bourdieu P. 1980. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 1987. What makes a social class?: On the theoretical and practical existence of
groups. Berk. J. Sociol. Crit. Rev. 31:118
330
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Boutin A, Hargreaves AG, Leushuis R, Walters LJ. 2005. Introduction. J. Eur. Stud. 31(1):59
Brokensha D, Warren DM, Werner O, eds. 1982. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development.
Washington, DC: Univ. Press Am.
Brosius P. 1999. Analyses and interventions: anthropological engagements with environmentalism. Curr. Anthropol. 40:277309
Brush SB. 1991. A farmer-based approach to conserving crop germplasm. Econ. Bot. 45:15365
Brush SB, ed. 2000. Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. Rome: Int. Dev.
Res. Cent. Int. Plant Gen. Resour. Inst.
Brush SB. 2004. Farmers Bounty: Locating Crop Diversity in the Contemporary World. New
Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press
Casey ES. 1996. How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time: phenomenological prolegomena. See Feld & Basso 1996, 1:1352
Chapin FS, Osvaldo ES, Ingrid CB, Grime JP, Hooper DU, et al. 2000. Consequences of
changing biodiversity. Nature 405:23442
Choo S. 2004. Eating satay babi: sensory perception of transnational movement. J. Intercul.
Stud. 25(3):20313
Cleveland DA, Soleri D, eds. 2002. Farmers, Scientists and Plant Breeding: Integrating Knowledge
and Practice. New York/London: CABI
Cohen JI, Williams JT, Plucknett DL, Shands H. 1991. Ex situ conservation of plant genetic
resources: global development and environmental concerns. Science 253:86672
Cole J. 2001. Forget Colonialism? Sacrice and the Art of Memory in Madagascar. Berkeley/Los
Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Collins WW, Qualset CO, ed. 1999. Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. Washington, DC: CRC
Press
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1997. Of Revelations and Revolutions: The Dialectics of Modernity in a
South African Frontier. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press
Conklin H. 1954. The relation of Hanunuo culture to the plant world. PhD diss. Yale Univ.
Conklin H. 1961. The study of shifting cultivation. Curr. Anthropol. 2:2761
Connerton P. 1989. How Societies Remember. New York/London: Cambridge Univ. Press
Cruikshank J. 2005. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. Vancouver/Toronto: Univ. Br. Columbia Press
DeSilva C, ed. 1996. In Memorys Kitchen, trans. BS Brown. Northvale, NJ: Aronson
DeWalt B. 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource
management. Hum. Org. 53(2):54052
Dove M. 1986. The practical reason of weeds in Indonesia: peasant vs state views of Imperata
and Chromolaena. Hum. Ecol. 14(2):16389
Dove M. 1999. The agronomy of memory and the memory of agronomy: ritual conservation
of archaic cultigens in contemporary farming. In Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located
Lives, ed. VD Nazarea, 4:4569. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Duteld G. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity. London: Earthscan
Duteld G. 2004. Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. Sterling,
VA/London: Earthscan
Ehrlich PR. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. BioScience
52:3143
Ellen R. 1993. The Cultural Relations of Classication: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal Categories
from Central Seram. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ellen R, Harris H. 2000. Introduction. In Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, ed. R Ellen, P Parkes, A Bicker, pp. 133.
Amsterdam: Harwood Acad.
www.annualreviews.org Biodiversity Conservation
331
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Ellen R, Parkes P, Bicker A, eds. 2000. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives. Amsterdam: Harwood
Escobar A. 1998. Whose knowledge? Whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5:5482
Espeland WN, Stevens ML. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
24:31343
Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology of a Forest
Savanna Mosaic. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Feld S, Basso KH, eds. 1996. Senses of Place. Santa Fe: Sch. Am. Res. Press
Ford RI. 1978. Ethnobotany: historical diversity and synthesis. In The Nature and Status of
Ethnobotany, ed. RI Ford, Anthropol. Pap., 67:3349. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press, Mus.
Anthropol.
Fowler C, Mooney P. 1990. Shattering: Food, Politics, and Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson: Univ.
Ariz. Press
Frake CO. 1962. Cultural ecology and ethnography. Am. Anthropol. 64:5359
Freud S. 1976 [1900]. The Interpretation of Dreams. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 4. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Freud S, Breuer J. 1974 [18931895]. Studies on Hysteria. Penguin Freud Library, vol. 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Geertz C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic
Books
Gold A, Gujar B. 2002. In Time of Trees and Sorrows. Ithaca/London: Cornell Univ. Press
Goodenough WH. 1957. Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In Report of the Seventh Annual Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study, ed. PL Garvin. Washington, DC:
Georgetown Univ. Monogr. Ser. Lang. Ling.
Gordillo GR. 2004. Landscape of Devils: Tensions of Place and Memory in the Argentinean Chaco.
Durham/London: Duke Univ. Press
Halbwachs M. 1992. On Collective Memory, ed./trans. LA Coser. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Hammer K. 2003. A paradigm shift in the discipline of plant genetic resources. Genet. Res.
Crop. Evol. 50:310
Harkin ME. 2003. Feeling and thinking in memory and forgetting: toward an ethnohistory of
the emotions. Ethnohistory 50(2):26184
Harris M. 1974. Why a perfect knowledge of all the rules one must know to act like a native
cannot lead to a knowledge of how natives act. J. Anthropol. Res. 30:24251
Haug F. 2000. Memory work: the key to womens anxiety. In Memory and Methodology, ed. S
Radstone, 7:15578. New York: Berg
Hawkes J. 1991. The importance of genetic resources in plant breeding. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
43:310
Hayden C. 2003. When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico.
Princeton/Oxford: Princeton Univ. Press
Heatherington T. 2001. In the rustic kitchen: real talk and reciprocity. Ethnology 40(4):32945
Hunn E. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classication of Distcontinuities in Nature. New York:
Academic
Hunn E. 1982. The utilitarian in folk biological classication. Am. Anthropol. 84:83047
Hunn E. 1989. Ethnoecology: the relevance of cognitive anthropology for human ecology. In
The Relevance of Culture, ed. N Freilich, pp. 14360. New York: Bergin and Garvey
Ingold T. 1996. Hunting and gathering as ways of perceiving the environment. In Redening Nature: Ecology, Culture, and Domestication, ed R Ellen, K Fukui, 5:11756.
Oxford/Washington, DC: Berg
ANRV287-AN35-17
332
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Ingold T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge
Jarvis D, Hodgkin T. 2000. Farmer decision making and genetic diversity: linking multidisciplinary research to implementation on-farm. In Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation
of Crop Diversity, ed. SB Brush, pp. 26178. Rome: Int. Dev. Res. Cent. Int. Plant Gen.
Resour. Inst.
Kahn M. 1996. Your place and mine: sharing emotional landscape in Wamira, Papua New
Guinea. See Feld & Basso 1996, 5:16798
Knight CG. 1980. Ethnoscience and African farmers: rationale and strategy. In Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Development, ed. DW Brokensha, DM Warren, pp. 20330. Boston,
MA: Univ. Press Am.
Lambek MJ. 2002. The Weight of the Past: Living with History in Mahajanga, Madagascar. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan
Laplanche J. 1992. Notes on Afterwardness. In Jean Laplanche: Seduction, Translation, Drives,
ed. J Fletcher, M Stanton, pp. 21723. London: Inst. Contemp. Arts
Levitt P. 2001. Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Li TM. 1999. Marginality, power and production: analysing upland transformations. In Transforming the Indonesian Uplands: Marginality, Power and Production, ed. TM Li, 1:144. Amsterdam: Harwood Acad.
Lipsitz G. 1991. Time Passages. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Lovejoy TE. 1997. Biodiversity: What is it? See Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997, pp. 714
Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd B, Hawkes JG. 1997. Complementary conservation strategies. In Plant
Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach, ed. N Maxted, B Ford-Lloyd, JG Hawkes,
pp. 1540. London: Chapman and Hall
McDowell L. 2004. Cultural memory, gender and age: young Latvian womens narrative memories of war-time Europe, 19441947. J. Hist. Geogr. 30:70128
Merleau-Ponty M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. C Smith. London: Routledge/
Kegan Paul
Moran J. 2004. History, memory and the everyday. Rethink. Hist. 8(1):5168
Myers N. 1996. The biodiversity crisis and the future of evolution. Environmentalist 16:3747
Nabhan G. 1989. Enduring Seeds: Native American Agriculture and Wild Plant Conservation. San
Francisco: North Point
Nazarea V. 1998. Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Nazarea V. 1999. A view from a point: ethnoecology as situated knowledge. In Ethnoecology:
Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, ed. VD Nazarea, 1:319. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Nazarea V. 2005. Heirloom Seeds and Their Keepers: Marginality and Memory in the Conservation
of Biological Diversity. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Nazarea-Sandoval V. 1995. Local Knowledge and Agricultural Decision Making in the Philippines:
Class, Gender, and Resistance. Ithaca/London: Cornell Univ. Press
Nora P, ed. 1997 [19841992]. Les Lieux de Memoire. Paris: Gallimard
Norgaard RB. 1988. The rise of the global exchange economy and the loss of biological diversity. In Biodiveristy, ed. EO Wilson, pp. 20611. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Oakley E, Momsen JH. 2005. Gender and agrobiodiversity. Geogr. J. 171(3):195208
Oldeld M, Alcorn JB. 1987. Conservation of traditional agroecosystems. Bioscience 37:199208
Orlove BS, Brush SB. 1996. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 25:32952
Parkes P. 2000. Enclaved knowledge: indigent and indignant representations of environmental
management and development among the Kalasha of Pakistan. In Indigenous Environmental
www.annualreviews.org Biodiversity Conservation
333
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Knowledge and its Transformations, ed. R Ellen, P Parkes, A Bicker, 9:25391. Amsterdam:
Harwood Acad.
Patrick R. 1997. Biodiversity: Why is it important? See Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997, 3:1524
Pimbert M. 1994. The need for another research paradigm. Seedling 11:2032
Pitt-Rivers J. 1971. The People of the Sierra. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 2nd ed.
Plucknett DL, Smith NJH, Williams JT, Anishetty NM. 1987. Gene Banks and the Worlds Food.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Posey DA. 1984. Ethnoecology as applied anthropology in Amazonian development. Hum.
Org. 43:95107
Radstone S. 2000. Screening trauma: Forrest Gump, lm, and memory. In Memory and Methodology, ed. S Radstone, 4:79110. New York: Berg
Rappaport J. 1998. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Raven PH, McNeely JA. 1998. Biological extinction: its scope and meaning for us. In Protection
of Global Biodiversity, ed. LD Guruswamy, JA McNeely, pp. 1332. Durham, NC/London:
Duke Univ. Press
Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO, eds. 1997. Biodiversity II. Washington, DC: Joseph
Henry
Rhoades RE, Booth R. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer. Agric. Admin. 11:12737
Rhoades RE, Bebbington A. 1995. Farmers who experiment: an untapped resource for agricultural research and development. In Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimension
of Development, ed. PM Warren, D Brokensha, LJ Slikkerveer, pp. 296307. London:
Intermed. Technol.
Ribero GL. 1997. Transnational virtual community? Exploring implications for culture, power,
and language. Organization 4(4):496505
Richards P. 1986. Coping with Hunger: Hazard and Experiment in a West African Farming System.
London: Allen and Unwin
Richards P. 1996. Culture and community values in the selection and maintenance of African
rice. In Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual Property Rights, ed. SB
Brush, D Stabinsky, pp. 20929. Washington, DC: Island
Rigney A. 2005. Plentitude, scarcity and circulation of cultural memory. J. Eur. Stud. 35(1):11
28
Saikia Y. 2004. Fragmented Memories: Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India. Durham, NC/London:
Duke Univ. Press
Seremetakis NC. 1994. The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as Material Culture in Modernity.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Shiva V. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London/
Penang: Zed Books
Sillitoe P. 1996. A Place Against Time: Land and Environment in the Papua New Guinea Highlands.
Amsterdam: Harwood Acad.
Smith EA, Wishnie M. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 29:493524
Soleri D, Smith SE. 1999. Conserving folk crop varieties: different agricultures, different goals.
In Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, ed. VD Nazarea, 8:13354. Tucson, AZ:
Univ. of Ariz. Press
Soule M. 1993. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. In Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case
Studies of Genetic Resource Conservation and Development, ed. CS Potter, JI Cohen, D
Janczewski, pp. 317. Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
ANRV287-AN35-17
334
Nazarea
ANRV287-AN35-17
ARI
9 September 2006
8:38
Steinberg M, Taylor MJ. 2003. Public memory and political power in Guatemalas postconict
landscape. Geogr. Rev. 93(4):44968
Stewart K. 1996. A Space on the Side of the Road. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Stoller P. 1994. Embodying colonial memories. Am. Anthropol. 96(3):63448
Stoller P. 1995. Embodying Colonial Memories: Spirit Possession, Power and the Hauka in West
Africa. New York/London: Routledge
Stoller P. 1997. Sensuous Scholarship. Philadelphia, PA: Univ. Penn. Press
Sutton DE. 1998. Memories Cast in Stone: The Relevance of the Past in Everyday Life. New York:
Berg
Sutton DE. 2001. Remembrance of Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and Memory. New York: Berg
Takacs D. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Univ.
Taussig M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity. New York: Routledge
Taussig M. 1999. Defacement. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Tonkin E. 1992. Narrating Our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History. New York/London:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Tsing AL. 1993. In the Realm of the Diamond Queen: Marginality in an Out-of-the-Way Place.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Uehling GL. 2004. Beyond Memory: The Crimean Tartars Deportation and Return. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan
UNEP (United Nations Env. Program.). 1994. Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annexes. UNEP/CBD/94/1. Geneva: Interim Secret. Am. Biol. Divers.
Valladolid J, Apffel-Marglin F. 2001. Andean cosmovision and the nurturing of biodiversity. In
Interbeing of Cosmology and Community, ed. J Grim, pp. 63970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Warren DM. 1989. Linking scientic and indigenous systems. In The Transformation of International Agricultural Research and Development, ed. JL Compton, pp.15370. Boulder, CO:
Lynne ReRienner
Warren DM, Slikkerveer LJ, Brokensha D, eds. 1995. The Cultural Dimension of Development:
Indigenous Knowledge Systems. London: Intermed. Technol.
Weissberg L. 1999. Introduction. In Cultural Memory and the Construction of Identity, ed. D.
Ben-Amos, L Weissberg, pp. 726. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press
Wilcox BA. 1984. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer
Wilkes G. 1991. In situ conservation of agricultural systems. In Biodiversity, Culture, Conservation
and Ecodevelopment, ed. M Oldeld, J Alcorn, pp. 86101. Boulder, CO: Westview
Wilson EO. 1988. The current state of biological diversity. In Biodiveristy, ed. EO Wilson, pp.
318. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Wilson EO. 1997. Introduction. See Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997, 1:13
Wolf E. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Zerubavel Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israel National Tradition.
Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
Zimmerer K. 1996. Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and Peasant Livelihood in the Peruvian Andes.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Zimmerer K. 2003. Just small potatoes (an ulluco)? The use of seed-size variation in native
commercialized agriculture and agrobiodiversity conservation among Peruvian farmers.
Agric. Hum. Val. 20:10723
335
AN35-17-Nazarea.qxd
9/9/06
10:01 AM
Page C-1
Figure 1
V. Nazarea with members of culinary revival group in Cusco, Peru.
www.annualreviews.org
Biodiversity Conservation
C-1
AN35-17-Nazarea.qxd
9/9/06
C-2
10:02 AM
Nazarea
Page C-2
Figure 2
Contents
ARI
13 August 2006
13:30
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents
Prefatory Chapter
On the Resilience of Anthropological Archaeology
Kent V. Flannery p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse
Joseph A. Tainter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p59
Archaeology and Texts: Subservience or Enlightenment
John Moreland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 135
Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives
Michael Dietler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229
Early Mainland Southeast Asian Landscapes in the First
Millennium a.d.
Miriam T. Stark p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407
The Maya Codices
Gabrielle Vail p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 497
Biological Anthropology
What Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about the
Evolution of Culture
Susan E. Perry p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 171
Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of
Adaptive Versatility
Peter S. Ungar, Frederick E. Grine, and Mark F. Teaford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Obesity in Biocultural Perspective
Stanley J. Ulijaszek and Hayley Lonk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
ix
Contents
ARI
13 August 2006
13:30
Contents
Contents
ARI
13 August 2006
13:30
xi
Contents
ARI
13 August 2006
13:30
xii
Contents