76.

122 Cultural Anthropology

Module I Introductory Overview: Concepts, Methods, and heories

!otice: he "aterial in this "odule is under develop"ent #or a course to $e o##ered in %ept. 1&&7. All content is preli"inary and is not intended #or citation or 'uotation. (lease do not lin) to your page*s+. , 1&&6 -niversity o# Manito$a, All .ights .eserved Contemporary world conditions are bringing us into direct contact with peoples of many regions with vastly different values and ways of life. We are, accordingly, faced with the challenge of tolerating and appreciating other culture systems in order to avoid the terrible alternative of increased ethnic nationalism and hostility. In this course you will be introduced to the basic concepts and findings of cultural anthropology, the systematic and comparative study of human institutions and behaviour and will acheive an understanding of the cultural diversity with which we are increasingly confronted and the common humanity that lies beneath it. This introductory module will discuss the main tools that anthropologists use to collect and analyze information about cultural institutions and cultural variatation throughout the world. We will be considering the concept of culture, methods of ethnographic data collection, and principles of ethnological theory.

O$/ectives:
1. Define and discuss the central unifying concepts and principles of cultural anthropology.

. Demonstrate the cultural character of human e!perience, behaviour, and thought as conditioned by the use of symbols to interpret and interact with the real world. ". #mphasize the importance of learning and social milieu for cultural transmission. $. Discuss the interrelatedness of cultural elements within total cultures. %. Describe and evaluate the techni&ues and processes of ethnographic data collection and representation. '. Identify and compare the main ethnological (theoretical) orientations within cultural anthropology in relation to basic assumptions about the causes and origins of cultural phenomena.

Outline o# opics
1. he Culture Concept 1. A 0rie# 1istory o# the Culture Concept 2. A 2e#inition o# Culture 3. 4"phases in the Culture Concept 1. sy"$olic co"position, 2. syste"atic patterning, 3. learned trans"ission, 5. societal grounding. 2. Method and heory in Cultural Anthropology 1. 4thnographic Methods 2. O$/ectivity in 4thnography 3. 4thnology 1. 2i"ensions o# heoretical 2i##erence 2. 4thnological %chools 3. 3. -nit %u""ary 5. 7lossary o# er"s 8. .e#erences he Case o# 2ani 6ar#are

.eadings

0ates 9 (log, Cultural Anthropology * +art I. The ,nthropological +erspective, pp. -.1 Chapter 1. ,nthropology and the /tudy of Culture Chapter . The Development of ,nthropological Theories Chapter ". 0ethods of Cultural ,nthropology 1eider, 7rand :alley 2ani * Chapter 1. /tudying the Dani, pp. 1- ". Brian Schwimmer Department of Anthropology University of Mantioba

Module I: Introduction
I. he Culture Concept
,ll anthropologists share a reliance upon the culture concept, which they ta1e as a starting point for understanding human e!perience regardless of subdiscipline, specialization, or theoretical orientation. ,nthropologists define culture differently from common usage and have e!tended its meaning and applicability beyond a simple term to a comprehensive theoretical paradigm. , historical perspective clarifies the concept2s significance and its development through changing anthropological views of the world2s peoples. , 3rief 4istory of the Culture Concept , Definition of Culture #mphases in the Culture Concept 1. symbolic composition, . systematic patterning, ". learned transmission, $. societal grounding. 0odule 5verview A. A 0rie# 1istory o# the Culture Concept. ,nthropology began as a specialized discipline in the 16th century within a theoretical school called evolutionism. This approach was related to the dominant Darwinist and, more importantly, social Darwinist paradigms of the period. #volutionists proposed a developmental framewor1 for recording and interpreting cultural variations around the world and understanding them in relation to contemporary 7ictorian standards. Culture was reduced to separable traits, which were collected by travellers, traders, and missionaries and collated by 8armchair anthropologists8 in much the same way as natural specimens and fossils. 9rand catalogues of these items were used to chart the stages of the human cultural development under an assumption that some traits were representative of earlier or more 8primitive8 historical periods. This view ultimately rested on a racial theory that these progressively arranged cultural differences were attributable to une&ual genetic propensities and endowments among peoples.

The theses of early anthropology are evident in #dward Tylor2s 1:.1 wor1, +rimitive Culture, which includes the first formal definition of culture; Culture or Civilization, .... is that comple! whole which includes 1nowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits ac&uired by man as a member of society. The telling point of this definition is that, although labelled a whole, culture is actually treated as a list of elements. In effect, culture traits were understood as representing one of a series of stages of mental and moral progress culminating in the rational society of industrializing #ngland. ,lthough most of these pre<udices about non-Western peoples are still with us, anthropologists have thoroughly repudiated the 16th century approach as an e!pression of racialism and ethnocentris", the practice of interpreting and <udging other cultures by the values of one2s own. =ranz 3oas, an early >th century anthropologist, was instrumental in this reversal of perspective and laid out the ground rules for the modern anthropological orientation of cultural relativis". This approach rests on four ma<or postulates, which directly confront the evolutionist position. 1. Cultural aspects of human behaviour are not biologically based or conditioned but are ac&uired solely through learning. . Cultural conditioning of behaviour is ultimately accomplished through habituation and thus acts through unconscious processes rather than rational deliberation, although secondary rationalizations are often offered to e!plain cultural values. ". ,ll cultures are e&ually developed according to their own priorities and values? none is better, more advanced, or less primitive than any other. $. Cultural traits cannot be classified or interpreted according to universal categories appropriate to 8human nature8. They assume meaning only within the conte!t of coherently interrelated elements internal to the particular culture under consideration. /ource; 3oas 16 >. 0. A 2e#inition o# Culture 4"phasis 1. %y"$olic Co"position. The fundamental element or building bloc1 of culture is the culture trait. Traits assume many forms varying from material artifacts -- tools, house structures, art wor1s -- to behaviourial regularities -- family interrelationships, economic e!changes, and legal sanctions -- to abstract concepts and beliefs. ,ll of these diverse and comple! manifestations share one feature in common? they are symbols and as such e!press meaning. , sy"$ol is simply understood as an e!pression that stands for or represents something else, usually a real world condition. The use of words in a language provides the most obvious e!ample. Words stand for perceived ob<ective entities and states. Words as symbols, however, differ from the ob<ects they represent and have special &ualities, which is why they are so useful to us. 5ne important characteristic is that they bear no intrinsic relation to what they represent and are thereby arbitrary. I

can denote a huge animal with dramatic features such as a hoseli1e snout, enormous ears, and a pair of spearli1e oral pro<ections with very different sound se&uences, such as pachyderm or osono. ,nother important symbolic characteristic is displacement, i.e., words can be used in the absence of the ob<ects represented and thus can be reproduced in any time or place. Thus I can tal1 about elephants without needing to import them from ,frica. This &uality leads to a third ma<or feature, creativity. 3ecause they are freed from the material constraints of real ob<ects, words can be manipulated to produce novel arrangements. Thus we can use the term elephant to postulate things beyond our direct e!perience, such as elephant species, e!tinct elephant ancestors, flying elephants, and elephant gods. While words provide the simplest e!ample, all cultural elements including material artifacts e!hibit a symbolic character. ,rt and ceremonial ob<ects have obvious symbolic meanings and are intentionally created to represent them. Tools and technologies are less obviously symbolic, but do involved representations. They are manufactured from a standard conceptual plan to bring about a desired ob<ective state different from them in form. Technology also gives us a means to transform a symbolically constructed world to a real one of domesticated elephants and ivory piano 1eys. 0. A 2e#inition o# Culture 4"phasis 2. %yste"atic (atterning. Cultural elements as symbols assume their meanings in relationship to other symbols within a broader conte!t of a meaning system. To interpret a symbol, therefore, anthropologists must investigate the interrelatedness of elements and the presence of unifying principles that connect symbols to form larger patterns and cultural wholes. @et us ta1e as an e!ample a prevalent Dani institution that 4eider identifies as 8warfare8. We shall be returning to Dani warfare on several occasions and will try to come to an understanding of its causes and conse&uences. The first assignment that an anthropologist must underta1e, however, is to understand what warfare means in relation to other aspects of Dani culture in the Dani2s own terms. In doing so we must suspend our own concepts and theories of warfare as a way that nation states compete over scarce resources, or as a conse&uence of innate human aggression, or as a delayed reaction to the repression of childhood se!uality. 5ur first clues to Dani warfare may come from their language and a discovery that the Dani have two words for large-scale armed conflict; wim and um2aim. 4eider distinguishes the two as different phases of warfare, but this understanding mas1s the fact that each form is lin1ed into a separate matri! of meaning and behaviour. Wim is conducted between territorial and social units termed alliances. ,ll the combatants share the same culture and language and hold comm on beliefs and understandings about how and why warfare is conducted. 4ostilities between alliances ta1e the form of formal battles or sporadic ambushes or raids. They are always suspended when one of the combatants, or sometimes a bystander, is 1illed. If a fatality occurs, the alliance of the dead person holds a funeral, and the victorious group holds a celebration. (The bereaved group accommodatingly confirms the death and conveys the name of the deceased to the victors). The limits to violence that are inherent in this system, in which only one person is 1illed during a battle, result in a low fatality rate and a balance between opponents in which no territory or other resource is ceded. They also

maintain warfare as a constant state that commits men to guard duty, fighting, and ceremony.

2ani 6arriors during an 4dai *victory+ cere"ony

The 1ey to understanding what might appear to you as something outside of your own cultural e!perience of war is that the Dani pattern combines elements that occur in Western culture into a very different comple! and is related to other Dani institutions within a singular cultural matri!. The Dani provide a coherent understanding of their system by e!plaining warfare in relation to their belief in ghosts. When someone is 1illed, the ghosts of the aggrieved allia nce will demand that the living avenge the death and will harass them until an enemy is 1illed. Ceremonies are then held to appease the ghosts of the two groups involved. The cycle is perpetuated indefinitely, because each new death calls for an additional act of vengeance. The religious rationale and the formalization and ceremonialization of hostility lead 4eider to designate this form as the 8ritual phase8 of warfare. We shall return to a consideration of ritual warfare and the alternate 8phase8 of secular warfare, or um'aim later in this course. =or the present we can conclude that cultural traits and patterns must be initially understood in terms of the logic of the culture and the integration of cultural elements according to internally consistent themes and principles. This perspective is termed holism, a position that maintains that individual culture trai ts cannot be understood in isolation. 0. A 2e#inition o# Culture 4"phasis 3 .;earned rans"ission. Culture traits and broader cultural patterns inclusive of language, technology, institutions, beliefs, and values are transmitted across generations and maintain continuity through learning, technically termed enculturation. ,ccordingly, learning abilit ies and intelligence are essential assets for all human groups and have replaced the role of biologically based genetic transmission of instincts dominant in most other

animal species. 4owever, an important relation between biology and culture must first be ac1nowledged. 4uman biology has affected the development of culture, since symbolic and learning abilities depend upon the physical composition of the brain and other anatomical adaptations, such as vocal structures that can produce speech or manual abilities that can manufacture tools. This biological substratum supports a generalized capacity for culture among all humans and e!plains universal features, such as language learning abilities. 4owever, biological factors do not determine specific cultural traits, such as the ability to spea1 =rench, #nglish, or Dani. ,ll children are preprogrammed by genetics to learn languages through a fi!ed series of stages, but will ac&uire a specific language only through patient instruction. Thus biology determines our general capacity for culture and is responsible for cultural universals, but cultural variations among peoples are attributable to learned traditions and not innate or genetic propensities. The replacement of genetic transmission of behaviour by learning in the course of human evolution has had a clear effect on our biological heritage. We adapt to our environment through cultural strategies rather than genetic predispositions. ,ccordingl y, human groups have spread to every part of the world and survived drastic differences in climate and diet without dramatic anatomical changes. The result has been that physical differences among peoples, which have developed over millions of years in thousands of diverse ecosystems, are remar1ably superficial. Cultural differences, however, are profound and limitless and form a fascinating sub<ect matter for anthropological en&uiry. 0. A 2e#inition o# Culture 4"phasis 5. %ocietal 7rounding Culture is observable only in the form of personal behaviour but can be abstracted from individuals2 actions and attributed to the social groups to which they belong. ,ccordingly, anthropologists underemphasize the importance of individual responsibility and creativity and focus on the common denominator of collective identity and symbols. This position counters some modern understandings of the importance of individual rights and actions. 4owever, a few reflections show that society defines and constrains our behaviour in many unperceived ways. We can best understand the social aspect of culture by realizing that the central function of human symbolization is communication and re&uires adherence to understood conventions. We most consciously e!perience social forces in the form of legal sanctions, which are themselves culturally based, but group norms constrain our behaviour in a wider array of circumstances. There is no law that says that I must communicate with you in #nglish, but I am impelled to do so by the fact that we are engaged in a social relationship that re&uires mutual understanding. Ander special circumstances, you or I might use another language and e!pect that the other learns it or engages a translator. 4owever, I would never be allowed to use my individual creative powers to invent my own personal language. , second e!ample involves the selection of clothing. 4ere in the virtual classroom I am not sub<ect to a dress code, but I do teach this class to a live audience as well and must face each day with the problem of what to wear for my lectures. 5f course there

are some legal constraints to my selection, since I cannot appear na1ed, but there are less obvious social restrictions as well. +ast generations imposed fairly well defined limits to professorial dress. We had to wear academic gowns symbolic of our status. ,t a later period professionally identifying clothing was no longer in fashion, and we donned the more mundane adornments of generic business attire, although gowns were and still are re&uired for academic processions.

Installation o# a new .ector at %t. (aul<s College. 2onning the o##icial College ro$e sy"$oli=es a change in social role

In the 16'>s, anti-authoritarian values dictated a new standard; <eans and wor1-shirts. Bow we have apparently achieved a wide freedom to select whatever dress styles we want, but there are still strict cultural limits. I could not come to class in a bathing suit, even on a hot humid day when doing so would contribute to my comfort. ,s a male, I could not wear high heels and a minis1irt, at least not without creating undesired attention that would detract from my teaching effectiveness. /uch conventional meanings and limitations attached to dress are arbitrary and assume &uite different forms in other cultures. 4ighland 0ayan men and women in the 9uatemalan community of /an ,ntonio must invariably both follow a strict dress code in which everyone in the village wears the same dress. Cudging from Western fashion, we might describe both male and female outfit as consisting of a blouse and wrap-around s1irt, which might cause us to &uestion the masculinity of 0ayan men.

Mayan 2ress #ro" %an Antonio (alapo, 6estern 1ighlands, 7uate"ala

4owever, a close appraisal of the above picture will illustrate that /an ,ntonian men and women dress in ways that clearly mar1 se!ual differences. The clearest contrast is in the colour patterns of the tops; the male style is mar1ed by a red and white striped vest and solid red sleeves? the women2s style is the e!act inverse of the men2s. 3esides mar1ing se!ual roles, highland 0ayan dress forms also mar1 community membership, since each village has adopted a distinct outfit which unambiguously identifies its residents. While the emphasis on the social determinants of personal behaviour are basic to the culture concept, anthropologists have tended to e!aggerate their influence to the point of overloo1ing individual behaviour completely. ,s such, people are often viewed as actors in a play written and directed by an e!tra-natural author labelled 8culture8 or 8society8. (This tendency is called reification, the process of assigning a material reality to an abstract concept.) Cultural and social forces are manifest only in the behaviour of individuals, who are sub<ect to influences of a different nature, such as psychological drives, personal ambitions, and creative imaginings. The anthropological focus on the culture concept gives us only a partial view of the human reality and we must borrow from or cooperate with other disciplines to achieve a total understanding of the human e!perience.

II. Method and heory in Cultural Anthropology.

4aving covered the main sub<ect matter and unifying concepts of cultural anthropology, we must now turn to the more specific issues of how anthropologists record and represent cultural data and use them to address theoretical issues. ,nthropology is a science and, as such, must deal with both the ob<ective collection and recording of empirical data and the treatment of their findings in terms of an e!planatory system. 4thnography is the process of recording and describing a culture of a specific people, such as the Dani, and its traits, patterns, and principles of coherent

integration. ,nthropologists produce ethnography on the basis of firsthand field observation of the people who are being studied. 4thnology covers the theoretical aspect of anthropology. #thnologists ascertain how cultures differ or e!hibit similarities through comparison and generalization, suggest reasons for cross cultural regularities observed, and use these e!plana tory inferences to formulate new research hypotheses.

#thnography and ethnology are interrelated in a comple! fashion. Deductive scientific method dictates that research must be organized to address a theoretical hypothesis that is derived from prior reasoning. This re&uirement creates an anthropological d ilemma, however, since an ethnographer must understand hisDher observations in terms of their meanings within a particular cultural conte!t, which may substantially depart from theoretical system chosen for interpretation. There are accordingly two ethno graphic styles; 1. the deductive, or problem oriented, approach, which narrows investigation in terms of issues and principles identified as significant within anthropological theory . the inductive approach, which identifies research problems and builds e!planation from the field e!perience per se, and Inductive approaches have been more characteristic of the older schools of anthropology that developed between the start of the century and World War II. They have resulted in fairly general ethnographic descriptions. +roblem oriented approaches are ty pical of current anthropological research and tend to focus on specialized sub<ect matter, such as subsistence techni&ues, economic transactions, or religious rituals. ,nthropologists must still ta1e general ethnography and local meaning systems into acc ount, however, and must be open to modifying their research directions and theoretical assumptions if they prove inapplicable or problematic. A. 4thnographic "ethods. Cultural data assume the form of directly observable material items (tools, cultivated fields, houses, statues, clothing), individual behaviours and performances (ceremonies, fights, games, meals) as well as ideas and arrangements that e!ist only in people2s heads. =rom the perspective of the culture concept, anthropologists must first treat all these elements as symbols within a coherent system and, accordingly, must record observations with due attention to the cultural conte!t and the meanings assigned by the culture2s practitioners. These demands are met through two ma<or research techni&ues; participant o$servation and )ey in#or"ant interviewing. +articipant observation is based on living among the people under study for a lenghty period, usually a year, and gathering data through continuous involvement in their lives and activities. The ethnographer begins systematic observation and 1eeps daily field notes, in which the significant events of each day are recorded along with informants2 interpretations. Initial observations focus on general, open ended data gathering derived from learning the most basic cultural rules and usually the local language as well. This initial orientation process is important not only for providing a bac1ground for more narrowly focused investigation but also helps the anthropologist to gain rapport with hisDher informants, avoid breaches of eti&uette, and test out

whether the original research ob<ectives are meaningful and practical in the local situation.

he author participating in a cocoa harvest in 7hana in 1&72.

My #irst research pro/ect was located in 7hana, 6est A#rica and #ocused on the social and econo"ic organi=ation o# a "ar)et place syste" that connected a large co""ercial town to a rural hinterland. he "ain econo"ic $ase o# the locality was cocoa production #or e>port, which was organi=ed through a govern"ent "ar)eting $oard and not the nor"al "ar)eting syste" I was investigating. 1owever, I was interested in all sorts o# other activities in order to achieve a wide perspective on the local econo"y and culture. My #ellow harvesters were all "e"$ers o# a reciprocal wor) party, who help on each others #ar"s in turn during periods o# pea) la$our de"and. Although no pay"ents are e>changed, everyone gets a reward o# #ood and drin) #ro" the host #ar"er at the end o# the day, and a party at"osphere do"inates the day<s events.

,fter the initial orientation or entry period, which may ta1e " months or longer, the researcher follows a more systematic program of formal interviews involving &uestions related to research hypotheses and specialized topics. /everal different methods of selecting informants are possible. Asually a few 1ey informants (between 1>- >) are selected for in-depth sessions, since the investigation of cultural patterns usually calls for lengthy and repeated open ended interviews. /election of such a small number does not allow for strict assurance of a representative sample, so the anthropologist must be careful to choose sub<ects who are well informed and reliable. #thnographic researchers will also train informants to systematically report cultural data and recognize significant cultural elements and interconnections as the interview se&uences unfold. Eey informant selection is 1nown as /udge"ent sa"pling and is particularly important for the 1ind of &ualitative research that characterizes ethnography. ,nthropologists will very fre&uently also need to carry out &uantitative research from which statistically validated inferences can be drawn. ,ccordingly they must construct a either larger rando" sa"ple or a total population census for more

narrowly focused interviewing according to a closed &uestionnaire design. 5ther important &uantitative data might include direct measurement of such items as farm size, crop yield, daily caloric or protein inta1e, or even blood pressure or other medical data, depending on the anthropologist2s research focus. ,side from written observation and records, researchers will often provide ethnographic representations in other forms, such as collected artifacts, photographs, tape recordings, films, and videos. To illustrate the range of research techni&ues that anthropologists regularyly employ, I can enumerate % systematic data gathering procedures that I used to study a 9hanaian mar1eting system; 1. Intensive open-ended repeated interviews among mar1et traders about their trading practices and their wider social and economic activities. (Data was collected from a /udge"ent sa"ple of %> informants) . , brief survey of all the traders in the mar1et places in the study area. (Data was collected from a rando" sa"ple of %>>) ". , periodic census of all the truc1s leaving the mar1et at the end of the day to determine the type, &uantity, and destination of all agricultural goods. ( otal population of >>) $. , census of two neighbourhoods in the central mar1et town to determine basic population characteristics including occupational and migration information. ( otal population of 1,>>>) %. Interviews with the elders of each mar1et settlement about the history of the establishment, development, and administration of the mar1et and other community institutions. (?udge"ent sa"ple of >)

;earning Activities
Those of you who would li1e to find out more about research methods in anthropology can loo1 at two Internet based sources; , detailed account from @aura Tama1oshi of the stages of her fieldwor1 and ethnography among the 9ende of +apua Bew 9uinea from initial planning to final reporting; =ieldwor1; the anthropologist in the field an analysis of the ethnographic sampling issue in a published article Werner, 5swald and 4. Fussel 3ernard, 16:6 /hort Ta1e 1"; #thnographic /ampling Cultural ,nthropology 0ethods, 7olume 1, Bo.1.

0. O$/ectivity in 4thnography Current issue in research ethics and o$/ectivity: 2ar)ness in 4ldorado Gou will probably already have realized that the conditions and techni&ues of ethnographic fieldwor1 impose many challenges to the goal of providing an ob<ective

picture of a cultural reality. ,ll the information that contributes to the ethnography is filtered through the researcher2s impressions and hisDher biases inherent in theoretical orientation, research strategy, social status, and individual bac1ground and personality. The following constitutes a partial listing of the biases that ethnographic observers can introduce into their representation of other cultures. 0iases in ethnographic #ieldwor): 1. %)ewed *nonrepresentative+ sa"pling. 1. In#or"ant selection. /ince anthropologists wor1 with a small number of informants, it is difficult to guarantee that interview information collected is fully representative of all possible e!periences or even taps the predominant cultural perspective. . @ield location. ,nthropologists need to develop an identity and role and ma1e intensive firsthand observations within a single community, which is usually only a small component of the total cultural community and social matri! under consideration. Get heDshe will generalize about this totality from a relatively microcosmic view. This perspective neglects variations in traits, patterns, and values, that are often present within a culture. =ocus on a single location also limits the e!tent to which the researcher can recognize significant influences that are present on wider regional or national levels. ". i"e #ra"e. The anthropologist2s observations are limited to a short time horizon, but many cultural processes may involve longer cycles unperceived by a short term visitor. . heoretical $iases. Current strategies in fieldwor1 emphasize the importance of formulating a research hypothesis on theoretical grounds and testing it through the research activity. 4owever, the presence of a hypothesis and commitment to a theoretical orientation may lead the researcher to selectively collect information that is consistent with hisDher preconceptions and to ignore any counter evidence. The interview process in itself may include leading &uestions that influence the character of the informant2s answer. ". (ersonal $iases. Fesearchers2 personalities, cultural orientations, social statuses, political philosophies, and life e!periences will colour how they interpret other cultures. $. 4thical considerations. ,nthropologists often uncover information, which might be harmful to their study community or otherwise threaten its cultural integrity. They may, accordingly, limit discussion of some issues to protect their sources of information. The convergence of all the biases inherent in the ethnographic process may result in a description that is uni&uely the product of a particular observer. ,ccordingly, two

different researchers may produce contradictory accounts of the same culture. This situation has occurred on several occasions, most notably in the analysis of childrearing practices and adolescent behaviour on the +olynesian island of /amoa. The noted anthropologist, 0argaret 0ead, published an anthropological classic on this sub<ect (0ead 16 :). 4er research was based on a hypothesis that adolescent behaviour, and, in particular, adolescent crises typical in ,merican family life, was culturally determined and not influenced by biological processes, such as hormonal changes during maturation. ,ccordingly, she observed /amoan parents raised their children in a permissive, manner which brought them to a healthy adulthood without the an!ieties and frustrations of ,merican teenagers. ,nother anthropologist, Dere1 =reeman, carried out a study of the same culture that started from the opposite hypothesis (=reeman 16:"). 4is data firmly supported his position that /amoan adolescence was <ust as restrictive and turbulent as the ,merican e!perience and that both reflected universal biological tendencies. Gou can learn further details of the 0eadD=reeman debate on page .1 of the 3ates and =rad1in te!t. in Conathan Taylor2s The 0eadD=reeman Debate H Coming of ,ge in 3ender et. al. The 0argaret 0ead and Dere1 =reeman Debate The problems of ethnographic ob<ectivity identified here have led some anthropologists to conclude that unbiased research is an impossibility and that all ethnography is sub<ective. +ostmodern anthropologists ta1e this position one step further and argue that ethnography is fiction and is to be evaluated on the basis of literary form as well as scientific principles. 0y own perspective on this issue is that, although perfect ob<ectivity may not be attainable, it can be appro!imated. We must maintain scientific standards and procedures to try achieve as impartial a perspective on cultural data as possible. We must also ac1nowledge and clearly discuss our sources of bias when reporting research results. C. 4thnology. #thnology, or the theoretical aspect of anthropology, is concerned with the e!planation of cultural regularities and variation through comparison and generalization based on e!isting ethnographic literature and the formulation of hypotheses for further research. ,ccordingly, theory building occurs both before fieldwor1, as the anthropologist reviews the findings of other researchers to identify issues for investigation, and after, as heDshe evaluates the significance of the findings. While there is some loose agreement on basic concepts, such as culture, numerous theoretical controversies and differences in orientation have dominated the development of ethnology. The following discussion covers the ma<or anthropological theories that start from a scientific orientation and from the 3oasian assumption that human nature must be understood in terms of cultural conditioning. I shall not cover those schools which cont est these a!ioms, namely; +ostmodernists, who deny the possibility of ob<ective scientific reporting and e!planation. /ociobiologists, who interpret human behaviour primarily as a conse&uence of biology. 1. 2i"ensions o# theoretical di##erences.

,nthropologists differ in their treatment and e!planation of cultural reality primarily over the reasons or causes for general cultural universals and specific cultural variations. 4owever, there are other differences in theoretical schools that must be considered before directly investigating fundamental causal issues. These involve different approaches to how meaning is inferred from cultural data and whether cultures can be grou ped into wider categories for the purpose of generalization. a. Attri$ution o# Meaning; We have already considered the problem of meaning in the ethnographic reporting, since researchers must record not only their direct observations of cultural phenomena but must also consider the meaning that informants e!plicitly or implicitly assign to ob<ects and events in a cultural conte!t. This strategy is called the e"ic approach, an aw1ward designation that comes from a distinction that linguists ma1e between phone"es (sound categories) and phones (actual vocal production) when analyzing language sounds. (We shall cover this topic in the ne!t unit.) ,n emic depiction of cultural elements is opposed to a second strategy of classifying and understanding traits as representing cross culturally applicable terms and categories rather than culturally specific meanings. This type of analysis is termed the etic approach. To some e!tent emic and etic approaches are complementary. T he anthropologist starts with certain cross-cultural analytical principles to help identify a research issue and organize and interpret the data but also considers hisDher observations within the informants2 categorization and meaning system to provide an additional empirical dimension. ,fter fieldwor1 the research proceeds to process the data in an etic framewor1 of general analytical categories and theory. 4owever, some anthropologists maintain that it is not legitimate to apply any cross-cultural terms and that the etic approach is invalid. $. 7enerali=ation Differences between emic and etic approaches are closely related to issues of generalization. ,nthropologists who argue that etic or cross-culturally valid terms and categories are not possible also maintain that cultures and their component traits and institutions cannot be sub<ected to comparative conclusions or generalizations. #ach culture represents a particular configuration of elements and must be understood only in terms of its uni&ueness. 3oas first articulated this approach to culture and established an ethnological school which is sometimes called historical particularis" because it is critical of generalization. In contrast to particularism, many anthropological theories emphasize the need to draw general conclusions or laws on the basis of comparing individual cases. There is a range of intermediate positions between e!treme particularists and generalizers. /ome anthropologist maintain that comparisons and generalizations must be done on a carefully controlled basis, in which a few case studies are chosen to allow for recognition of the cultural conte!t of the institutions that are under consideration. 0ore radical generalizers compare traits from hundreds of culture without much attention to conte!t and have created a substantially compendium of cross-cultural data, the 4uman Felations ,rea =iles, as a basis for their comparative research.

Gou may wish to ta1e a vist the the 4uman Felations ,rea =iles WWW site. c. Identi#ication o# cause #thnological theory is most heavily focused on the causes of cultural patterns and elements and how and why cultures persist and change. While there are numerous causal schemes most fall into three broad categories -- material determinism, social determinism, and ideological determinism -- which ultimately reflect different philosophies of which human needs are the most basic.

Ideological deter"inis". Ideological, or more appropriately cognitive determinists, believe that the most basic human need is to establish some system of ordering an infinitely variable and chaotic natural, social, and internal world. ,ccordingly, culture is mainly a system of ideas or cognitive (thought) categories and principles that helps to reduce confusion by neatly classifying and interrelating raw e!perience. Technology, subsistence, social organization, and other cultural systems are a further conse&uence of mental ordering. %ocial deter"inis". /ocial determinists maintain the population patterns, social groupings and especially the need to maintain a social order form the fundamental underpinnings of human e!istence. Ideology, technology and other cultural systems develop in relation to their importance in upholding social institutions. Material deter"inis". 0aterial determinists or materialists hold that cultural institutions are most important because they meet basic needs for stable and efficient subsistence production. ,ccordingly, the development of technologies and the e!ploitation of the natural environment to provide food and other necessities constitute a central human concern and determine other aspects of culture, including social institutions and their beliefs and values.

4thnological %chools Differences in ideas about assigning meaning, ma1ing generalizations, and attributing causation are reflected in a number of theoretical schools. The proliferation of anthropological theories poses a &uandry that anthropologists have never been able to fully e!plain. +erhaps the comple!ity of the human e!perience does not satisfactorily lend itself to a single interpretive system. The following represent the best 1nown e!amples, but by no means cover the full field of theoretical alternatives in the discipline. a. 1istorical (articularis" This school developed in the Anited /tates in the first half of the century under the guidance of =ranz 3oas, who did much to develop the culture concept and the ethnographic tradition. 0ainly in reaction to wea1nesses in 16th century anthropology, 3oas contested attempts to compare cultures and draw up universal cultural stages. Individual cultures can be understood only as historically uni&ue configurations and internal meaning systems. 4istorical particularism focuses heavily on the influence of ideology and cognitive patterns on behaviour and the primary influence of cultural values on all areas of human behaviour. /ome of 3oas2 students

tried to depict synthetic models of total cultures in terms of world views based on unifying themes and values. Gou can read a short and entertaining e!ample of unifying themes and world views within a little studied comtemporary culture available online in; (0iner, 4. 16%' 3ody rituals among the Bacirema) $. 4thnoscience #thnoscience is a subse&uent ,merican school that developed some of 3oas ideas. It is particularly interested in culture as a cognitive system and has developed models of whole cultures and sub-areas by constructing prevailing semantic (meaning) categories and principles from culturally specific vocabularies. 3ecause of the emphasis on meaning and emic analysis, this school is also called ethnosemantics. ,n important contemporary activity of ethnoscience is in the emerging area of indigenous 1nowledge systems. This field covers the detailed understanding of a people2s specialized 1nowledge of their natural environment or other critical sub<ect area as apparent in their semantic categories and principles. Fesearch findings have disclosed important 1nowledge about plant properties and other natural phenomena that were previously unappreciated by Western scientists. They also demonstrate ways of managing nature which may offer viable alternatives to Western strategies of environmental use. c. %tructuralis" /tructuralism is a different cognitive approach that was established by the wor1 of Claude @evi-/trauss, a =rench anthropologist. 4is main departure from the historical particularists or the ethnoscientists lies in his analysis of classification and meaning systems in terms of universal principles. ,ccordingly, he identifies two layers of meaning, a superficial one, which the is observed and recorded from the native2s perspective, and a deep structure which reflects a universal principle of opposition or duality. This constant feature is engendered by the basic human dilemma of imposing a rigid cultural construction on an ambiguous and ambivalent natural world. 3asic cultural institutions, such as rituals, myths, marriage arrangements, and economic e!changes, represent the e!pression and mediation of intellectural contradictions and oppositions. d. %tructuralA@unctionalis" /tructural-functionalism is predominantly a social primacy or social determinist theory and should not be confused with structuralism, which emphasizes cognitive rather than social structures. It was founded by the =rench sociologist, #mile Dur1heim, and developed as the central position of 3ritish social anthropology by Fadcliffe-3rown in the first half of the century. /tructural functionalists investigate a number of social variables, such as population size, density, and comple!ity, but are most p re dominantly interested in how people are bound together within a social order, consisting of essential groups, roles, and conventions. 5ther aspects of society and culture are e!plainable in terms of their function in maintaining the particular social structure. /ocieties are classified into cross cultural types based on the size, distribution, articulation, and functions of basic social groups and categories.

e. Mar>is" There are a number of 0ar!ist approaches in anthropology but the most important is that established by Claude 0eillassou!, a =rench anthropologist, who developed a version of 0ar!ist theory that was grounded in detailed ethnographic observation. Consistent with basic 0ar!ist principles, 0eillassou! is a social determinist and sees cultural elements and institutions in the conte!t of a prevailing social order. Anli1e the structural-functionalists, however, 0ar!ists view the social order in terms of class divisions, which are based on the restricted ownership of essential productive resources such as land or capital. Class systems are classified into cross-cultural categories termed "odes o# production. 0eillassou!2s addition to the 0ar!ist analysis was to reclassify societies which most 0ar!ists label 8primitive communist8 in a category alternatively termed the lineage or ,frican mode of production. In these societies class divisions and relationships are evident in the dominance of elder family and community members over younger generations though control of marriage systems, i.e. the 8mode of reproduction8. #. Cultural 4volution ,lthough claiming a heritage with 16th century evolutionism, @eslie White founded the school of cultural evolution in the Anited /tates on principles that re<ected the racial determinism and rationalism of 7ictorian anthropologists, and in some ways advocated a 3oasian view of culture. White2s main thesis was that the driving force in culture and human affairs was technology and its ability to transform natural resources into energy available for human use. Cultures and societies assumed different forms and institutions in so far as they were able to capture different amounts of energy from the natural environment. #ach society could be assigned a figure for the energy that its particular tool1it could produce, but would be more appropriately understood in terms of broader technological categories defined by one of a limited number of subsistence technologies. This perspective is adopted by +log and 3ates in your course te!t, which allocates a whole chapter (%-1>) to each broad subsistence technology. g. Cultural 4cology Cultural ecology was founded by Culian /teward, another ,merican, who adopted some of White2s ideas but observed that a culture2s subsistence base was as dependent upon its local environment as it was on its technology. ,ccordingly, he proposed a local ecology model which emphasized the influence of technology, natural resource availability and some social variables, such as population and intergroup relationships. /teward actually referred to his theory as one of multilineal rather than unilineal evolution and reflected some of the historical particularist influences from his mentor ,lfred Eroeber, one of 3oas2 main disciples. 3ates and +log adopt an ecological perspective in combination with cultural evolution and accordingly include two case studies for each subsistence system to document different ecological situations. Thus the Inuit of the ,rctic and the IEung of the Ealahari are both hunters and gatherers but have developed differences in culture and society because of different food sources and transportation and storage technologies. C. 4thnology.

3. he case o# 2ani war#are. While I have gone to some length to describe and compare theoretical difference in ethnology, this course will not re&uire you to master all the subtleties and peculiarities of such a wide range of approaches. /ome important theoretical issues will be raised but will be discussed further at the appropriate points in the syllabus. 4owever, to give a preliminary illustration of ethnological analyses, I will briefly apply some of the above schools to an interpretation of Dani warfare, which 4eider does treat in the first chapter of his ethnography (9rand 7alley Dani; 16- ") and which we shall revisit in a later module (+olitical ,nthropology). a. 1eider<s orientation. 4eider2s research, as reported in the 9rand 7alley Dani, was not conducted with a view towards testing a theoretically derived hypothesis of affirming or adding to a specific body of ethnological thought. In fact 4eider abandoned his original research ob<ective, to study stone a!es from an ethnoarchaeological perspective, and gradually changed his focus 8from the material aspects of culture to the mental phenomena which ma1e up culture8. This statement suggests a general 3oasian strain in his thin1ing which is evident in other points in the ethnography as well as in his presentation of a fairly descriptive account of Dani culture. 4is final stand on understanding the Dani suggests that all the pieces of Dani life 8ma1e sense as part of a larger pattern of Dani culture ( )8. This pattern is defined by a unifying principle of 8low psychic energy8. This conclusion and subse&uent treatment is vague and only loosely developed but does illustrate an adherence to a 3oasian perspective. 4eider2s historical particularism is not totally uncritical and he does go off on some interesting tangents in parts of his boo1. 5ne occurs in his 8first revision8. ,s a good 3oasian, he initially assumes that Dani warfare was integrally lin1ed to all the other elements of Dani culture, an e!pression of the principle of holism. ,ccordingly, he was concerned when the Dutch colonial authority forced the pacification of the area, a policy which he thought would lead to disruption and disturbances in other aspects of Dani life. 4owever, the elimination of warfare caused no appreciable reaction, at least not one on the scale 4eider had hypothesized. This observation not only &uestions 3oas2 specific theorization but the entire culture concept that the anthropological community has adopted across several different ethnological perspectives. If valid, it indicates that culture is not as tightly integrated or as determinative of individual behaviour as many anthropologists suggest. $. 2anietics and 2anie"ics. I have already stressed that Dani warfare must in the first instance be considered in terms of the Dani2s own cultural understandings and e!planations, ultimately as a series of acts and observances related to their concern with the ghosts. ,n anthropologist who insists on e!clusive adherence to emic methods might further contend that such an e!planation was sufficient and could not be elaborated within wider conceptualization or theory of warfare, unless other groups practised and understood it in e!actly the same way as the Dani. (This perspective is actually assumed in 9ardiner2s treatment of Dani warfare in the film Dead 3irds, which we shall screen at a later time.)

,n etic approach to Dani warfare would involve any one of many possible interpretations that viewed it in cross cultural terms as discussed in the subse&uent subsections. ,t this point, I will introduce a =reudian argument, although this approach is not very current, perhaps because it adopts an e!treme disregard of native meaning systems. , =reudian interpretation would view the events, ob<ects, and rituals of war as symbolic of a universal se!ual dynamic. ,ccordingly we might view Dani ghosts as father figures or superegos who perpetuate e!periences of childhood repressions and punishments. They demand se!ual abstinence and e!tensive incest avoidances in the same way that fathers2 deny their sons se!ual access to females within the family. To compensate for the resulting frustrations, they encourage continuous warfare, which provides an outlet for se!ual energy and assumes a se!ual imagery in the form of spears and arrows. c. %tructures and @unctions o# 6ar#are , structural-functionalist theory of warfare would emphasize its role in establishing a common purpose and interest within a social group. In the face of a common enemy and attendant dangers the members of Dani alliances and confederations must put aside their local differences and unite for common action against their foes. 9roup identity, harmony, and continuity is thus insured both by warfare and the funeral and victory rituals that are lin1ed to it. Constant warfare in its 8ritual phase8 would be particularly 8functional8 in the Dani social landscape, which is composed of groups whose members do not ta1e on specialized occupations and thus has no 8organic8 unity and offers no intrinsic economic incentives for cooperatation. d. Class 6ar#are , 0ar!ist position would first identify important socio-economic divisions among the Dani perhaps those which divide men from women, or elder married males from younger bachelors, or men holding different statuses in the Dani prestige hierarchy. We might then see warfare as a way of establishing or reinforcing e!ploitative relationships and une&ual benefits among Dani classes. Women, who do most of the basic labour, can be viewed as an labouring class e!poited by men, who claim e!clusion from daily wor1 responsibilities because they must continually prepare for battle, serve as watchmen, or organize ceremonies e. 4cological 6ar#are 4eider actually entertains a cultural ecological e!planation for Dani warfare in his 8second revision8 ( 1). 4e cites and gives substantial credence to the conclusion of a famous study of warfare carried out in another area of Bew 9uinea by a prominent cultural ecologist, Foy Fappaport. This study maintained that warfare and its integration into a ritual cycle involving pig sacrifices 1eeps populations below the natural environment2s carrying capacity and redistributes them in accordance with land availabilities among simple cultivators. The Dani similarly raise pigs and have constructed a cycle of warfare and ceremony that is similar to other highland Bew 9uinea societies and might serve the same purpose. We will return to ethnographic and ethnological issues and to a re-evaluation of Dani warfare later in this course.

2iscussion 4>ercise II Gou have <ust finished reading about different possible interpretations of Dani warfare. I would li1e all of you post an opinion on our e-mail list as to why you thin1 the Dani go to war. We will consider this issue at the end of the course hopefully armed with a good deal more information about anthropological analysis and Dani culture. =or now you can <ust speculate and register an opening opinion. (/et up as cgi form) In my opinion the following ethnological theory best e!plains Dani warfare; 1. . ". $. %. '. 4istorical particularism (as per 4eider2s general orientation) =reudian psychology /tructural-functionalism 0ar!ism Cultural #cology 5ther (identify)

Module I: Introduction: Concepts, Methods, and heories

%u""ary
This module has covered a basic introduction to the subdiscipline of cultural anthropology and discussed the concepts, methods, and theories that anthropologists have developed for describing, analysizing, and e!plaining human thought and behaviour in cross-cultural perspective. Cultural anthropologists adopt many different approaches to understanding of the human e!perience but uniformly start their en&uiries from the perspective of the culture concept. Culture is understood as a uni&uely human system for organizing and adapting to the natural and social worlds and our psychological reactions to them. It is characterized by four salient features; symbolic composition, systematic patterning, learned transmission, societal grounding. ,s a science of human thought and behaviour, anthropology is concerned with describing cultures, a process termed ethnography, and with e!plaining cultural regularities and variation, a process termed ethnology. #thnography involves e!tensive fieldwor1 and the personal, first-hand collection of data within the society whose culture is to be described. The ma<or research methods of ethnography include participant observation and 1ey informant interviewing. ,n ethnographer tries to compose a accurate, ob<ective picture of the culture he or she studies but must be aware of numerous sources of bias. These include; inade&uate sampling, theoretical preconceptions, personal biases, and ethical concerns.

#thnology is the theoretical aspect of cultural anthropology and involves the identification and e!planation of cross-cultural regularities and differences through analysis, comparison, generalization, and hypothesis formation. ,nthropologists have proposed many competiting ethnological schools for interpreting and understanding culture. These differ according to three ma<or theoretical considerations; 1. whether cultural meaning is best elucidated through an emic approach or etic approach, . whether valid cross cultural generalizations can be formulated, and ". whether human behaviour reflects predominant concern with the basic needs for subsistence, social order, or intellectural order. /pecific ethnological schools discussed include; 1. 4istorical +articularism . #thnosemantics ". /tructural =unctionalism $. 0ar!ism %. Cultural #volution '. Cultural #cology We can summarize the main introductory points and concepts and anticipate the modules which follow in a conceptual diagram, which can also serve as a map for the territory covered in this course.

Course Map

!ote: his is a Bclic)a$leB i"age "ap, $ut only the lin) #or "odule 1 can $e success#ully activated

The landscape begins with the real world, which provides the resources and challenges that establish the primary conditions of human survival. Feal world phenomena include the natural environment, human population distribution and biologically determined psychological states. Concrete reality and the way in which it is ordered provide numerous sub<ect areas for other natural and social sciences. 4owever, the natural order is fundamentally incidental to anthropological analysis, since our primary focus is on cultural processes, which impose their own categories and rules on the perception of the phenomenal world and provide the immediate framewor1 for human perception, thought, and action. ,nthropologists do borrow concepts and methods from other sciences to set their understanding of particular cultural systems in a wider scientific conte!t, but we are more interested in how cultures filter and pattern perceived realities than in the natural order in itself. The culture concept, therefore, defines the sub<ect matter of anthropolgy and its basic modes of description and e!planation and provides a shared conceptual orientation which distinguishes anthropologists from other scientists. Culture is an abstract concept but is manifest in human thought and behavior as ethnographic data, which anthropologist reconstruct from their empirical observations

in the form of an ethnography. #thnography per se is an important process in cultural representation and has its own rules and conventions for accurate and systematic description. Cultural description and analysis are sub<ect to various specializations in relation to several ethnological schools and subfield concentrations. These subdivisions are reflected in both theoretical differences and alternative empirical emphases and methods. The main differences within the subdiscipline are defined by ethnological schools, which start from different assumptions about the primacy of human needs and develop different causal theories about how culture are organized to satisfy them. Cognitive anthropogists emphases our need to organize a frightening chaotic reality into neatly defined and interrelated mental categories. /ocial determinists stress the need for social and moral order. Cultural materialists are concerned with basic survival problems and the need for ac&uiring food and other subsistence resources through the application of technology to the environment. Different theoretical orientations produce different emphases on sub<ect matter. ,nthropologists interested in culture as an intellectural order fre&uently focus on ideology and belief systems, which are most often embedded in the sub<ect area of religion. /ocial anthropologists concentrate on politics, social structure, and economic organization. Cultural materialists are most concerned subsistence technology and environmental conditions and have a secondary interest in the e!change of products among social units. These specialized foci define five main subfields, each of which covers an set of specialized institutions or sub-systems within the wider cultural milieu; 1. cultural ecology - concerned with technology and environment, . economic anthropology - concerned with the e!change of goods and services, ". social anthropolgy - concerned with the structure of social groups and relationships, $. political anthropology - concerned with the distribution and use of power, and %. anthropology of religion - concerned with perception and manipulation of the supernatural order. #ach subfield has created its own set of analytical terms for describing, classifying, and e!plaining cultural institutions within its own area of concern and e!pertise. These specialized institutional subsystems will comprise the separate topics that we shall cover one-by-one in subse&uent modules within this course. (5f course specialization within an subfield does not mean the e!clusion of attention to issues appropriate to the others. The principle of holism re&uires that specific institutions must be understood in the conte!t of total cultures.) Gou may want to return to this map as you proceed through the course in order to orient your understanding and progress through the modules in terms of a general overview. Brian Schwimmer Deparment of Anthropology University of Mantioba J 166. Aniversity of 0anitoba, all rights reserved.

Module I: Introduction Concepts, Methods, heories

7lossary
cultural relativism, the practice of interpreting and <udging other cultures in terms of their own internal meaning and value systems. culture, the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning. emic approach, the analysis of cultural elements in terms of a native2s e!plicit or implicit categories and meaning system. enculturation, the process of transmitting culture through learning. ethnocentrism, the practice of interpreting and <udging other cultures by the values of one2s own. ethnography, the process of recording and describing a culture of a specific people and its traits, patterns, and principles of coherent integration. ethnology, the theoretical analysis of cultures and cultural elements through comparison, generalization, and hypothesis formation. etic approach, the analysis of cultural elements in terms of cultural neutral, comparative categories and principles. holism, a position that maintains that individual culture elements must be understood in terms of how they are articulated to other elements and cannot be understood in isolation. <udgement sampling, selection of research informants on the basis of their cultural 1nowledge or other special abilities 1ey informant, an informant selected because of hisDher detail cultural 1nowledge. (/ee also <udgement sample.) participant observation, the collection of cultural data through first hand e!perience in the culture and daily lives of the people under study. random sampling, selection of research informants at random, without any consideration of their personal statuses or abilties. symbol, an e!pression that stands for or represents something else, usually a real world condition. world view, basic philosophical and ethical orientation that provides the basis for a people to organize their perceptions of their natural and social surroundings.

.e#erences and @urther .eading *and %ur#ing+

he Culture Concept
3oas, =ranz 16 > 0ethods of ethnology ,merican ,nthropologist ;"11-" 0iner, 4orace 16%' 3ody Fitual ,mong the Bacirema ,merican ,nthropologist %: ; %>"-%>. (8The anthropologist has become so familiar with the diversity of ways in which different people behave in similar situations that he is not apt to be surprised by even the most e!otic customs. In fact, if all of the logically possible combinations of behavior have not been found somewhere in the world, he is apt to suspect that they must be present in some yet undescribed tribe. In this light, the magical beliefs and practices of the Bacirema present such unusual aspects that it seems desirable to describe them as an e!ample of the e!tremes to which human behavior can go.8)

Anthropological @ieldwor) and .esarch Methods

,gar, 0ichael 16:> The professional stranger; an informal introduction to ethnography. Bew Gor1; ,cademic +ress. Cultural ,nthropology 0ethods. 16:6 - current. , <ournal of &ualitative and &uantitative methods in anthropology. =reeman, Dere1 16:" 0argret 0ead and /amoa; The ma1ing and unma1ing of an ,nthropological myth. Cambridge, 0ass; Cambridge Aniversity +ress 0ead, 0argret 16 : Coming of age in /amoa. Bew Gor1 0orrow. Werner, 5swald and 4. Fussel 3ernard 166$ /hort Ta1e 1"; #thnographic /ampling Cultural ,nthropology 0ethods 7ol.' Bo. Tama1oshi, @aura =ieldwor1; the anthropologist in the field (, detailed account of the stages of fieldwor1 and ethnography from initial planning

to final reporting among the 9ende of +apua Bew 9uinea.)

4thnological heory
4arris, 0arvin 16': The rise of anthropological theory? a history of theories of culture Bew Gor1 Crowell 3ohannan, +aul and 0ar1 9lazer 16.". 4igh points in anthropology. Bew Gor1; Enopf.

Anthropological .esources on the Internet

,s part of the presentation for this course, I have included lin1s to a number of anthropological resourses that are available on the Internet and will from time to time be sending you notices of new material, which is being added at a rapid rate. =or a general overview of information for anthropologists on the internet you can view the following documents, each of which includes hypterte!t lin1s to the sites discussed; 9eneral Indices /chwimmer, 3rian 166' ,nthropology on the Internet; , Feview and #valuation of Betwor1ed Fesources (This also appeared in print in Current ,nthropology, Cune 166') @utins, ,llan ,nthropology Fesources on the Internet Eanter, Cohn Cool Web /ites