ANNUAL

REVIEWS Further  The Politics of Perspectivism

Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:  Alcida Rita Ramos
• Other articles in this volume Departamento de Antropologia, Universidade de Bras ılia,´  Campus Universit ´ 
Universit ario
´  Darcy 
• Top cited articles Bras ´ ılia; email: alcida.ramos@uol.com.br
Ribeiro, 70910-900 Bras´ 
• Top downloaded articles
  g
  r
  o • Our comprehensive search
 .  .
  s   y
   l
  w   n
  e
   i   o
  v  e
  e   s
  r
   l   u
  a   l
  u  a
  n  n
  o
  n  s
  a
 .   r
  w  e
  p
  w  r
  w   o
   F
  m  .
  o   2
  r   1
   f   /
   d   9
   0
  e   /
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
   D  e
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
  :   R
   1  o
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  r
  a
   0  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l  Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:481–94
  o   F
  p  e
Keywords
  o   d
  r
   h   a  The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at  indigenous peoples, anthropological theory, Brazilian anthropology,
   t   i
   d
  n  s anthro.annualreviews.org
   A  r poststructuralism
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n  This article’s doi:
   R
 .   U 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145950  Abstract 
  u  y
  n   b
  n
   A
Copyright   c 2012 by Annual Reviews. In recent decades, ethnographic research in Brazil has been influenced
 All rights reserved
by a model termed perspectivism that inverts the equation between
0084-6570/12/1021-0481$20.00 nature (as a given) and culture (as variable). Focusing on the interac-
tion between humans and animals, this model attempts to generalize
about thought processes across indigenous Amazonia, resulting in the
propos
pro positio
ition
n tha
thatt nat
nature
ureisis the var
variab
iable
le whe
wherea
reass cul
cultur
turee rem
remain
ainss the sam
same.
e.
 The model’s generality has resulted in a remarkable similarity of ethno-
graphi
graphicc int
interp
erpret
retati
ations
ons,, giv
giving
ing the fal
false
se imp
impress
ression
ion tha
thatt the Ama
Amazonzon is a
homogeneous culture area. This critique of perspectivism highlights its
theoretical and empirical flaws and points out that the recurrent use of 
certai
certain
n lad
laden
en exp
expres
ressio
sions
ns can hav
havee adv
advers
ersee con
conseq
sequen
uences
ces for ind
indige
igenou
nouss
peoples.

 481
 INTRODUCTION: in Brazil and abroad, influenced a growing
PERSPECTIVISM IN  number of professionals and students, and
PERSPECTIVE projected Brazilian anthropology beyond its
 The word perspective has gained a surprisingly  national borders. Unlike the equally influential
inflated dimension since Brazilian anthropol- theory of interethnic friction proposed by 
ogist Viveiros de Castro began to apply it to another Brazilian anthropologist, Cardoso de
a new theoretical offshoot of L´  evi-Strauss’s Oliveira, in the 1960s and 1970s (Cardoso
structuralism (Turner 2009). Viveiros de de Oliveira 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976),
Castro has dedicated many years of his prolific perspectivism bypasses the political reality 
career to intensive and extensive readings on of interethnic conflict to concentrate on the
lowland South American cultures. In analyzing principles of ontology and cosmology internal
the vast mass of ethnographic material in the to indigenous cultures. Under Viveiros de
 Amazon region and elsewhere, he concluded Castro’s leadership, an impressive collection of 
  g
  r
  o
 .  . that Amerindian philosophy—or ontology, as monographic works on Amazonian Indians has
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n he prefers—about nature and culture inverts been produced since the 1990s (Andrello 2006;
   i   o
  v  e Calavia S´ aez 2006; Cesarino 2011; Fausto 2001;
  e
  r   s the Western model. Hence, for Amazonian
   l   u
  a   l Gonçalves 2001; Gordon 2006; Lagrou 2007,
  u  a Indians, nature is the variable, whereas culture
  n  n
  n  o Lasmar 2005; Lima 2005; Pinto 1997; Pissolato
 .   s
  a   r is the constant. As a corollary, humans and
  w  e
  p 2007; Vilaça 1992, 2006; among others).
  w  r nonhumans (especially animals, and game
  w   o
   F
 . animals in particular) partake of the same However, most of this copious production
  m   2
  o
  r   1 fails to exhibit the talent of its mentor. In con-
   f   / ontological makeup, and what varies is their
   d   9
  e   0
   / point of view, that is, their specific perspective. trast to the theory of interethnic friction, which
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l He dubs this dichotomy Amerindian multi-  was enacted with similar aptitude by its creator
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i naturalism versus Western “multiculturalism.” and many of his followers, perspectivism suffers
   D  e from what has troubled, for instance, Marxism:
 .   n “One ‘single’ culture,” multiple “natures,”
  a
   4   J
   9 It is very interesting in Marx’s hands, but not 
  -   e
   4 he asserts (Viveiros de Castro 1998, p. 478)
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4 and reiterates (Viveiros de Castro 2004, p. 6). so in those of many of his disciples. A common
  :   R
   1  o feature of these perspectivism-inspired works is
   4
 .   d  These various natures would be literally incor-
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r porated in the body. In a plethora of articles, theuniformityofresults.Mostfocusoncosmol-
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l he persistently elaborates on this idea (Viveiros ogy, shamanism, categories of otherness, es-
  o   F
  p  e chatology, mythology, and associated symbolic
  o
  r   d de Castro 1998, 2002, 2004, 2011). Each new 
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i publication takes his generalizing imagination systems. Such similitude of ethnographic prod-
  s
   A  r ucts reinforces the notion that perspectivism
 .   e
  v a little further away from the nitty-gritty of 
  v   i
  e   n is the most appropriate theoretical strategy to
   R
 .   U
indigenous real life. Structuralism is at once
  u  y apply in indigenous Amazonia, thus creating
  n   b
  n
his inspiration and point of departure, whereas
   A a certain facet of Western metaphysics is part  a feedback effect that propels further research
of his motivation and rhetoric. Latour (2009) projects in the same direction. The Indians thus
eagerly endorsed perspectivism as it reinforces portrayed, regardless of where they are in the
his hyperbolic argument against modernity   Amazon, what their linguistic affiliation is, and
according to which the West is as “holistic”  which historical paths they have trodden, differ
as any indigenous society. This review intends  very little from each other. Perhaps the model’s
to survey perspectivism by pointing out its excessive generality and its pr ˆ et- à-porter char-
contribution as well as its shortcomings. acter render it easily applicable even when it is
not quite appropriate. Regrettably, it has be-
 AMAZONIAN INDIANS BACK  come a facile recipe for producing copies with-
ON CENTER STAGE out the flair of the original. The ease with which
In the past two decades, perspectivism has one can deploy perspectivism facilitates its dis-
dominated a certain kind of ethnography both semination and capacity to travel far and wide.

 482 Ramos 
  Just like L´ evi-Strauss’s structuralism, when intellectual wealth of the “Rest.” The novelty 
used in local cultures, perspectivism leaves out  in Viveiros de Castro’s theoretical proposition
such a large sociocultural residue that the fi- hinges on its philosophical rhetoric, which is
nal product is a suspect ethnographic homo- more appropriate to generalizations than to the
geneity covering over the Amazon and beyond. understanding of specific worlds of meaning,
 The creativity and specificity of each indige- a feature he candidly admits: “[M]y strong (or
nous group are thus drowned under the run-of-  weak) point has always been the synthesis, gen-
the-mill Kuhn (1970) called “normal science.” eralization, and comparison rather than the fine
I do not delve into particular perspectivist  phenomenological analysis of ethnographic
ethnographies, important as it is to assess the materials” (Viveiros de Castro 2011, p. 3). Un-
merit and shortcomings of this theory when fortunately, this inclination has skidded into the
applied to the specificity of ethnographic work. terrain of reductionism, oversimplification, and
 My purpose is rather to delineate perspectivism overinterpretation. For a West-trained mind,
  g
  r
  o
 .  . in terms of its theoretical, methodological, and to break up with deeply rooted dichotomies
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n political profile.  would take much more effort than required to
   i   o
  v  e simply invert the terms of an equation. Indeed,
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l perspectivism replicates structuralism, (Turner
  u  a
  n  n PERSPECTIVISM IN A 
  n  o 2009) without the latter’s ambitious quest to
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p POLITICAL NEVERLAND arrive at a universal human mind frame.
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
 Most ethnographers who spend more than  As in the structuralist era, the enormous
  m   2
  o
  r   1 a couple of months in an Indian village rec- indigenous diversity is currently in danger of 
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   / ognize in Viveiros de Castro’s “discovery” being compressed into formulas and principles
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l of animal-human interaction a very familiar of an alien philosophy. For this reason, and for
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
phenomenon. Intercourse between human the automatism with which it has been applied,
   D  e and nonhuman beings is a recurring fact in perspectivism, started as a brilliant idea, runs
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 fieldwork, regardless of one’s research focus. the risk of spawning a new ethnographic
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
Nevertheless, this does not entitle us to pro- species: a generic Amerindian forever trading
  :   R
   1  o pose that, for the Indians in general, culture is substances and viewpoints with animals in a
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
constant and nature is variable. First, because cosmological orgy of predation and canni-
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l there are no Indians in general; second, because balism. Closely associated, but somewhat in
  o   F
  p  e the very idea of nature as we use the word, be competition with perspectivism, and equally 
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
it one or many, is mostly alien to indigenous inspired by French structuralism, is the model
  s
   A  r peoples; third, because to attribute so much concept of animism, an anthropological de-
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n uniformity to native thinking—Amerindian funct that has been resurrected by French
   R
 .   U
  u  y thought, Amerindian mind, Amerindian soul, anthropologist Descola (1996a,b; Bird-David
  n   b
  n
   A even Amerindian Bildung  are favorite phrases 1999). Whatever its theoretical sequels may 
(Viveiros de Castro 1998, pp. 470, 476, 478, be, the perspectivist model for constructing
481, 482; 2004, pp. 6,19; 2011, p. 3)—is to ethnographies has stamped its brand on Brazil-
flatten down (if not deny) their inventiveness ian anthropology and has become a reference
and aesthetic sophistication and to ignore their point in international ethnology.
specific historical trajectories. Essentialism By and large, perspectivism is indifferent 
may be an apt label for such an approach. to political considerations regarding the
 There is no reason why we should expect  predicament of indigenous peoples in adverse
indigenous peoples to behave according to this interethnic contexts, but it can be the object of 
or that academic model. And fourth, because political scrutiny. If we agree with Austin (1975)
to squeeze the ethnographic imagination into a that words can shape behavior and, hence, real-
rigid cast is to rob anthropology of itsbest asset, ity, it should not go unnoticed that perspectivist 
namely, to expose the heedless “West” to the  vocabulary has the disquieting potential to add

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 483

 to indigenous political difficulties and intellec-  With this L´  evi-Straussian canon guiding the
tual fragility. I exemplify this point by focusing profession for more than two decades, it is un-
on some terms that, as anthropological com- derstandable that anthropologists have stuck to
monplace, frequently appear in perspectivist  the reduced model conveyed in the concept of 
discourses without a necessary critical appraisal. cosmology. As a result, the Indians have cos-
 Take, for instance, cosmology. A perfectly  mology, whereas Westerners have theory. Fur-
sound concept in its dictionary sense, it be- thermore, L´ evi-Strauss’s proposition has been
comes problematic in its vulgar rendering. As deemed so efficient as to induce us to believe
the study of the cosmos, it maintains its scien- that it equips us to reach out into the most in-
tific integrity, but as worldview, its most cur- timate corners of indigenous cosmological sys-
rent anthropological usage, it has opened up tems. In perspectivism, a label Viveiros de Cas-
an unnecessary gap between indigenous and tro(2004,p.5)usestoreferto“asetofideasand
 Western science. A theory of knowledge along practices found throughout indigenous Amer-
  g
  r
  o
 .  . the lines Evans-Pritchard (1937) spelled out  ica,” cosmology is a key concept. “This cos-
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n for Zande witchcraft merits the name episte- mology imagines a universe peopled by dif-
   i   o
  v  e mology rather than cosmology. In this sense, ferent types of subjective agencies, human as
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l the creation and popularity of the notion of   well as nonhuman, each endowed with the same
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o “pens´ ee sauvage” (L´ evi-Strauss 1962) has con- generic type of soul, that is, the same set of 
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p tributed to widening the gap between West- cognitive and volitional capacities” (Viveiros de
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
ern and indigenous knowledge systems, despite Castro 2004, p. 6). Here cosmology is an in-
  m   2
  o
  r   1 L´ 
evi-Strauss’s caveat that savage, wild, nonsci- strument of reductionism, a conceptual cookie
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   / entific thinking is also present in the West. cutter leveling out all differences both trivial
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l Even in the academic milieu, one easily forgets and important that make a difference between
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
thisL´ evi-Straussian appealto the “psychic unity  being a Makuna, a Ye’kuana, or a Yanomami
   D  e of mankind” and often regards savage thought  (to invoke the examples by J.A. Kelly, unpub-
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 as mere folklore pertaining exclusively to na- lished information1 ). Myth is another loaded
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
tivepeoples.Moreover,tocharacterize,asL´  evi- term. Like any other word, it is not semanti-
  :   R
   1  o Strauss did, indigenous intellectual activity as a cally neutral. Myth is part of the common lan-
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
manifestation of the “science of the concrete” guage used by both anthropologists and nonan-
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l contributes to reducing indigenous thinking to thropologists. Precisely because we share the
  o   F
  p  e an infrascientific level. We should recall that  same idiom with our readers, nonspecialists can
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
L´ 
evi-Strauss’s way to demonstrate indigenous read what we write. However, the fact that our
  s
   A  r acumen was to present a patchwork of curiosi-  work is read does not mean it is understood
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n ties very likely to be read by laypersons as a as we intend it to be. And this is where the
   R
 .   U
  u  y collection of assorted beliefs rather than as ex- problem arises. The meaning anthropologists
  n   b
  n
   A pressions of empirical knowledge. His cut-and- attribute to myth has very little or nothing at 
paste multiethnographic demonstration was in- all to do with its popular sense. In the latter,
tended to show that indigenous classifications
are mostly an intellectual endeavor not lim-
ited to merely pragmatic considerations. Ulti- 1 In an unpublished paper titled “Multinatural Perspec-
mately, however, L´  evi-Strauss did not distance tivism,” J.A. Kelly assembles a number of assorted short pas-
himself from L´  evy-Br ¨ 
uhl (1910) as much as he sagesfrom ethnographic workson the Yekuana in Venezuela,
claimed. Both induced the uninformed reader theMakuna in Colombia, and theYanomamiin Brazil. From
these unconnected passages, he concludes that such “frag-
to imagine indigenous worlds as turning around ments of indigenous discourse” (p. 1) provide “substantial ev-
mystical and mythical relationships, thus favor- idence of MP [multinatural perspectivism]as a phenomenon,
ing the exotic at the expense of the empirical. as a constitutive part of Amerindian’s socio-cosmological
regimes” (p. 11). At no point does the author justify hav-
In short, the “science of the concrete” has very  ing chosen those and not any other fragments out of the rich
little of the concrete and even less of science. ethnographic material he selected.

 484 Ramos 
 myth is very often a synonym of lie, pretense, then dub the Indians as savage predators? Is
falsehood, a way of thinking opposed to scien- it reasonable to imagine that anthropological
tific and logical thought. The Merriam-Webster  eloquence has the power to convince laypeople
Dictionary reinforces this notion by including to discard the overload of archetypes coming
among itsdefinitions of myth “a person or thing down the centuries about man-eating brutes,
having only an imaginary or unverifiable exis- primitive warmongers, and doomed heathens
tence” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/  (Ramos 1998, pp. 11–59)?
dictionary/myth ). Although some anthropol-  The issue of ethics and social responsibility 
ogists may not disagree with these meanings, came home to North American anthropologists
most would be uncomfortable as they witness  with the publication of  Darkness in El Dorado:
the Indians telling their fascinating narratives  How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the
that, perhaps with innocent license, they call  Amazon by US journalist Tierney (2000). The
myths. To do justice to the philosophical depth massive scandal it provoked is still in the pro-
  g
  r
  o
 .  . of these narratives, it would be more appropri- fession’s living memory and led to a number of 
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n ate to abandon the term myth, for it occupies a actions and events aimed mostly at minimizing
   i   o
  v  e niche in Western perception that has no corre- the harmful effects that ethnographic research
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l spondence with the indigenous narratives mis- and writing can have on the people studied
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o labeled as myths. (Borofsky 2005). An array of abusive reports in
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p If terms such as cosmology and myth can the mass media, allegedly based on Chagnon’s
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
potentially diminish the intellectual value of in-  work (1968, 1988), portrayed the Yanomami
  m   2
  o
  r   1 digenous thinking, what to say of cannibalism, as killers, warmongers, baboon-like, etc. This
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   / one of the favorite themes in perspectivist the- negative publicity provided the Brazilian
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l ory? “[T]he omnipresence of cannibalism [is] military in the late 1980s with arguments to
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
the ‘predicative’ horizon of all relations with dismember the Yanomami lands into “19 small
   D  e the other, be they matrimonial, alimentary or ‘islands’: being too violent, they have to be
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 bellicose” (Viveiros de Castro 1998, p. 480). separated in order to be ‘civilized,’ as the Mili-
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
Contributing to the pejorative connotations tary Chief of Staff, General Bayma Denys, [. . .]
  :   R
   1  o of this term, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary commented to journalists” (Albert & Ramos
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
provides as synonyms of cannibalism “savage 1989, p. 632). His source of ethnographic
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l cruelty; barbarism.” information was a series of newspaper articles
  o   F
  p  e  A companion to cannibalism, the concept  reproducing fragments of the 1988 Science
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
of predation is equally ubiquitous in the per- article by Chagnon (Ramos 1995, 1996).
  s
   A  r spectivist lexicon. Cannibalism-cum-predation  Apart from the real political risks that the
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n constitutes the medium of interaction between use of such vocabulary entails for the Indians,
   R
 .   U
  u  y humans and nonhumans, be they animals or the generalized perspectivist use of predation
  n   b
  n
   A spirits. Whether these terms make sense in the imputes characteristics to indigenous peoples
confined ambiance of academic theoretical de- that are often insufficiently established by solid
bates is a matter of intellectual frustration or ethnographic data and analyses. In many cases,
gratification. However, as mentioned above, rather than an empirical demonstration, this
our anthropological products canreach out, po- problematic term is no more than a discursive
tentially or actually, into the real world, and device.
 when that happens, the words we use are, we Frugality in humbleness and self-criticism,
may say, up for grabs. How can we expect the albeit often unconscious, can constrain anthro-
general reader, nonspecialist in the ethnogra- pologists in several ways. On the one hand, it 
phy of lowland South America, to be able or is quite uncomfortable to face the increasingly 
 willing to convert words such as predation and evident indigenous challenge regarding our
cannibalism into a metaphor, a figurative way  capacity to interpret their worlds. Lack of 
of speaking, rather than take them literally and self-criticism painfully exposes our analytical

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 485

 limitations. There are many ethnographic indigenous epistemologies, and to create the
scenarios where Indians have shown a clear conditions of possibility for the establishment 
mistrust of anthropologists’ work, which comes of a common cross-cultural field of intellectual
as no surprise if we consider that theoretically  debate. Still worse, this arrogance can intensify 
ambitious anthropologists have distinguished the potential for discrimination via discourses
themselves in their ability to take local precepts that obstruct the dissemination of knowledge
from around the world as raw material to about indigenous peoples and, hence, preclude
construct grand descriptive or explanatory  respect for them.
schemes. Each theory derived from fieldwork 
among indigenous peoples has transformed
research material into something different  OUT ON A LIMB
from the sum of its original parts, hence Proponents of perspectivism assert the impor-
reducing each native theory of knowledge to tance of “taking the Indians seriously” (Viveiros
  g
  r
  o
 .  . the anonymity of ethnographic data. de Castro 2002, p. 129; 2011, p. 5), a rather
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n  At different moments, concerned anthro- startling enterprise, considering that anthro-
   i   o
  v  e pologists have taken our discipline to task for
  e
  r   s
   l   u
pologists, of all people, should take it as a matter
  a   l having deprived the peoples we study of certain
  u  a
  n  n
ofcourse,asinequanonconditionforfieldwork 
  n  o  Western prerogatives. Fabian (1983) called our
 .   s
  a   r and subsequent analysis. Yet, this truism is sur-
  w  e
  p attention to the denial of coevalness in much
  w  r prisingly overlooked, beginning with Viveiros
  w   o
   F
 .
ethnographic writing. Perhaps unconsciously  de Castro. The oft-repeated quote extracted
  m   2
  o
  r   1 (which is not an excuse, instead quite the
   f   / from L´  evi-Strauss (1976) about the sixteenth-
   d   9
  e   0
   / opposite), anthropologists habitually write century episode in which the natives drowned
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l about their hosts in the past tense as if the  white people to see whether their bodies were
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
latter lived suspended in a fixed, unchanging real and capable of rotting away has taken up
   D  e time slot, usually bounded by the ethnog-
 .   n
  a
   4   J
an iconic status in perspectivism. Whereas the
   9 rapher’s sojourn among them. In so doing,
  -   e
   4 Spaniards busied themselveswith debates about 
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
anthropologists consign these “natives” to the  whether the Indians had souls (spirits), the In-
  :   R
   1  o past, thus depriving them of historicity and
   4
 .   d dians experimented with the corporeal real-
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
participation in present events. We should also ity of the Spaniards (Viveiros de Castro 2004,
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l recall Goody (2007) in his condemnation of  p. 8). This anecdote so excited Viveiros de
  o   F
  p  e the West for the theft of other peoples’ history. Castro’s imagination as to lead him to state
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
 When historians, perhaps absent mindedly, that it “encapsulates the anthropological situ-
  s
   A  r ignore achievements, such as inventions, orig-
 .   e
  v ation or event par excellence, expressing the
  v   i
  e   n inated in other milieus, they contribute to the
   R
 .   U
quintessence of what our discipline is all about”
  u  y  West’s self-aggrandizement. Anthropology,
  n   b
  n
(Viveiros de Castro 2004, p. 10).
   A as a Western artifact, often inadvertently, has  A critic of L´ 
evi-Strauss’s dualism between
added to this theft of histories, but its greatest  nature (as given) and culture (as variable),
responsibility lies in its contribution to the  Viveiros de Castro aspires to break away from
theft of native theories. it. Nevertheless, this breach is more apparent 
Furthermore, the intellectual arrogance than real, for what he proposes is a mere rever-
found in some academic quarters limits sal of the terms—culture (as given) and nature
anthropology’s potential to build a truly  (as variable). He then proceeds to demonstrate
theoretical ecumene2 (Ramos 2011), that is, this maxim by adding more ethnographic tid-
the coexistence on equal terms of academic and bits by means of the cut-and-paste technique, as

2 The term ecumene, from the ancient Greek Oikoumen ˆ  e,

has been used in anthropology at least since the mid-1940s. global recognition of distinct, legitimate voices (Hannerz
In its current anthropological use, it roughly refers to the 1996, Kroeber 1945).

 486 Ramos 
 did L´ 
evi-Strauss before him, and as does one of  an old anthropological habit that, as so many 
 Viveiros de Castro’s followers in a tenaciously  others, dies hard. No wonder V. Turner,
persistent way ( J.A. Kelly, unpublished infor- impatient with the elegance of formalism, used
mation). The selective choice of ethnographic a quote from poet Robert Browning—“On
passages picked out of their usually very com- earth the broken arcs, in heaven the perfect 
plexcontexts assures the possibility of achieving round”—to affirm the following:
a much-coveted elegance of analysis, by juxta-
posing statements that point in the direction of  Complex, urbanized societies have generated
the analyst’s choice. classes of literate specialists, intellectuals of 
Elegance, however, can be a sort of mer-  various kinds, including cultural anthropol-
maid’s song. Enticing as it is, its very allure can ogists, whose paid business . . . is to devise
disclose its shortcomings. Viveiros de Castro logical plans, order concepts into related
evokes the success Sahlins attained with his lav- series, establish taxonomic hierarchies, dena-
  g
  r
  o
 .  . ishly elegant analysis of the story about Captain ture ritual by theologizing it, freeze thought 
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n Cook’s fatal blunder in Hawai’i as he miscal- into philosophy . . . . Anthropologists have
   i   o
  v  e culated his luck as god Lono’s impersonator. A  assigned overmuch prestige to the models
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l native Hawaiian intellectual wasrequired to un- held up to them by these and similar profes-
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o ravel Sahlins’ elegant equivocation (a concept  sionals and imposed upon the living tissues
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p to which I return below). Hawaiian political of dynamic social reality in non-Western
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
scientist Silva (2004) describes the work of US cultures the branding irons of Western
  m   2
  o
  r   1 missionaries in nineteenth-century Hawaii. scholarly thought. (Turner 1975, p. 146)
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   / For the purpose of translating the Bible, these
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l missionaries opened schools and printing Drawing a parallel to his own interpretation
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
presses. In due time, the native peoples learned about bodies and spirits, Viveiros de Castro
   D  e to use them and began to write copiously about  (2004, p. 10), apparently oblivious of these crit-
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 their own history, literature, worldview, etc. icisms, incurs Sahlins’s aesthetic temptation.
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
Published in the indigenous language, these  Whereas the latter used European documents
  :   R
   1  o documents were only superficially understood as research material, the former singled out 
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
by the missionaries owing to the extensive use fragments collected in the field, in written
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l of figures of speech intended for Hawaiian ethnographies, or in personal communications
  o   F
  p  e readers only. These writings served as polit- (Viveiros de Castro 2002, pp. 132–40) to com-
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
ical tools in the Hawaiians’ struggle against  pile grandiose interpretations about indigenous
  s
   A  r US annexation of the archipelago. But they  souls, minds, and “natures.” “Since the soul is
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n also recorded quantities of narratives that  formally identical in all species, it can only see
   R
 .   U
  u  y account for the emergence and maintenance of  the same things everywhere—the difference
  n   b
  n
   A Hawaiian ethnic integrity. They contain a long is given in the specificity of bodies” (Viveiros
inventory of local divinities, of which Lono is de Castro 1998, p. 478). Such interpretations
but one, and a catalog of European explorers, often exceed ethnographic good sense (Turner
including Captain Cook. Had Sahlins read 2009) or lack significance in local contexts.
that literature and chosen to explore Hawaiian  This is clearly a syndrome of what Eco (1992)
 written history in the Hawaiian language, criticizes as overinterpretation. He shows,
 very likely his analyses (1981, 1985) would for example, the futility of finding signs of 
not display such trim and glittering elegance. occultism in works such as Dante’s Divina
 More often than not, cultural complexity gets Comedia, because, even if they were found—and
in the way of analyses that meet the criteria given the size and depth of the oeuvre, they 
of economy, parsimony, and elegance, as in may be found—they would contribute little or
canonical linguistics. The mismatch between nothing at all to the understanding of the text 
neat analyses and the complexities of life is and the author’s purpose. In short, it would

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 487

 be an idle exercise in “looking for hair on an Bateson’s“if” setsthe limits of cross-cultural
eggshell,” as the Brazilian saying goes. communication and spells out the inexorable
 A high point in Viveiros de Castro’s (2004) domain of equivocation. But even if that “if”
more recent work is his reflections on the  were eliminated, there would be no guaran-
concept of controlled equivocation. Akin to the tee of an adequate degree of intercommuni-
notion of equivocal compatibilities presented cation. If the desired grasp of a culture’s to-
by Portuguese anthropologist Pina Cabral tality falls short of utter transparency, what 
(2002), and to the familiar idea of productive can we say about the patchy cut-and-paste
misunderstanding, controlled equivocation method current among theoreticians such as
is, indeed, the quintessence of the ethno- L´ 
evi-Strauss, Viveiros de Castro, and many 
graphic m´  etier. If communication among others?
same-language speakers is a sort of gamble in  The methodological convenience of select-
 which the chances of being misunderstood are ing ethnographic fragments as building blocks
  g
  r
  o
 .  . considerable, what to say of the interaction of  for grand theories creates an illusion of uni-
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n people who live in different social worlds and  versalization. When put back in context, these
   i   o
  v  e speak different languages? To do ethnography  fragments lose much of their weight. One of 
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l is to translate and, as Viveiros de Castro (2004,  Viveiros de Castro’s most frequently evoked
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o p. 10) rightly points out, to “translate is to pre- indigenous people to prove that perspectivism
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p sume that an equivocation always exists; it is to is the antidote for anthropology’s “intellectual
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
communicate by differences, instead of silenc- narrowness” (Viveiros de Castro 2002, p. 135)
  m   2
  o
  r   1 ing the Other by presuming a univocality—the are the Makuna of Northwest Amazon, ac-
   f   /
   d   9 ˚
  e   0
   / essential similarity—between what the Other cording to  Arhem, one of their ethnographers
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l and We are saying.” We cannot overstate the (Viveiros de Castro 1998, pp. 469, 472, 475,
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
importance of this statement. Image-making 477).ViveirosdeCastro’suseofMakunaethno-
   D  e hinges upon it. Cross-cultural fairness depends graphic traits is not wrong, but it misses the
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 on it. Intercultural interaction is possible only if  point about what holds together the Makuna
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
the engaged parties are aware of it. The 12 cases logical system. Over and above the fact that 
  :   R
   1  o explored in the volume Pacificando o Branco  jaguars and humans exchange substances and
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
( Pacifying the Whiteman) (Albert & Ramos  viewpoints, the yurupary complex, which in-
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l 2000) are examples of the indigenous effort to cludes jaguars, humans, spirits, ritual objects,
  o   F
  p  e control equivocation in their encounters with as well as spaces and times both of origin and
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
non-Indians. Each case brings up representa- currently obtained (and a great deal more), is
  s
   A  r tions of interethnic contact, “true devices . . . for so pervasive that one has to resort to Western
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n the symbolic and ritual domestication of the high science as a mental aid to appreciate its full
   R
 .   U
  u  y  whites’ alterity and neutralization of their evil dimension. At one and the same time, yurupary 
  n   b
  n
   A powers (pestilence and violence)” (Albert 2000, is institution, ideology, theory, and practice. It 
p. 10). Bateson’s concern about the spreading is the power that movesthe world and the major
of exoticism by anthropology is another source of knowledge. In sum, it is at the basis, so
example: to speak, of the atomic constitution of Makuna
society. Like thought itself, it is anywhere and
If it were possible adequately to present the everywhere. Like the DNA of Western ge-
 whole of a culture, stressing every aspect ex- netics, yurupary is constitutive of both micro
actly as it is stressed in the culture itself, no and macro phenomena, making sense of ap-
single detail would appear bizarre or strange parently disparate elements, bringing together
or arbitrary to the reader, but rather the de- ideas and actions that, at first sight, seemed dis-
tails would allappear natural andreasonable as  jointed to the ethnographer’s eye (Cay on ´  2010).
they do to the natives who have lived all their It is, in other words, impervious to cutting and
lives within the culture. (Bateson 1958, p. 1) pasting.

 488 Ramos 
  THE LIMITS OF  generations, are reduced to a gluttonous gaping
GENERALIZATION  mouth!
 The yurupary case in the Makuna context  One cannot but wonder about the merit of 
demonstrates that it is not sound anthropology  grand theories as exemplified by perspectivism.
to assert that multinaturalism is universal  Although it has inspired—and continues to do
in the Amerindian world. What a people’s so—younger anthropologists, it entails a num-
 jaguar perceives is not what all peoples’ jaguars ber of risks, as V. Turner pointed out decades
perceive (a point stressed by Turner 2009), ago. First, it is open to vulgar replication, invit-
let alone the perception of the jaguars them- ing interpretative excesses. Second, it is easily 
selves! Each new text takes Viveiros de Castro replicated, leading to an implausible uniformity 
a notch up in extravagant statements that  of results and often taking the disquieting shape
become increasingly self-indulgent, verging on of a dogma. Third and foremost, by reduc-
irreverence. The following trying translation ing ethnographic complexity to a single model,
  g
  r
  o
 .  . effort provides an example: “a model we might  it virtually refuses to acknowledge indigenous
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n
label ‘quasi-ergative’ (or, who knows, ‘split  creativity. Moreover, such a reduced model, in-
   i   o
  v  e teresting as it may seem to perspectivists, is not 
  e
  r   s ergativity,’ if I knew what that is)” (Viveiros
   l   u
  a   l so for the Indians. By abdicating the central role
  u  a de Castro 2011, p. 4). The ease with which
  n  n
  n  o of ethnographic research as a means to arrive
 .   s
  a   r overstated generalizations are made in the
  w  e
  p at a deeper understanding of and respect for
  w  r name of an “Amerindian perspectivist cos-
  w   o
   F
 . mology” (Viveiros de Castro 2004, p. 11) can indigenous peoples, perspectivism fails to in-
  m   2
  o
  r   1 cite ethnographers to use their anthropological
   f   / astound seasoned anthropologists familiar with
   d   9
  e   0
   / imagination for new discoveries. Moreover, as
   d   1
  a   1 indigenous Amazonia. Carried away by his own
  o  n
   l eloquence, Viveiros de Castro has taken unwar- a theory, perspectivism is, at best, indifferent to
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i ranted liberties with indigenous ethnography. the historical and political predicament of in-
   D  e digenous life in the modern world. It may be
 .   n Consider the following passages: “Amerindian
  a
   4   J
   9 fair to say that the more extensive and deeper
  -   e
   4 thought can be described as a political on-
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4 tology of the senses, a radical materialist  ethnographic knowledgeis, the lessarrogant we
  :   R
   1  o become and the more clearly we perceive the
   4
 .   d pan-psychism.” It is a thought that conceives of 
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r “a dense universe,saturated with intentions that  folly of projecting our theoretical ambitions on
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l are avid for differences” in which all relations indigenous peoples. It is not without a shade of 
  o   F
  p  e nostalgia that we look back at Viveiros de Cas-
  o
  r   d are social. These relations “are schematized
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i by means of an oral-cannibal imagery, a topic tro’s superb “O M´  armore e a Murta” (“Marble
  s
   A  r and Myrtle”), a fine analysis of missionary work 
 .   e
  v obsessively trophic that inflects all conceivable
  v   i
  e   n in sixteenth-century Brazil (1992), and his con-
   R cases and voices of the verb to eat: tell me how,
 .   U
  u  y tribution to the Annual Review of Anthropology
  n   b  with whom and what you eat (and what you
  n
   A
eat with whom)—and I’ll tell you who you are. (1996) on images of nature and society in in-
One predicates through the mouth” (Viveiros digenous studies in the Amazon.
de Castro 2011, p. 3). Despite the numerous Perspectivism’s theoretical goal, rather
analyses of the ritual use of the human body  than a down-to-earth hermeneutical effort 
(Seeger 1975, Turner 2007), Viveiros de Castro (phenomenological, in Viveiros de Castro’s
goes out on a limb with gratuitous tirades such parlance) (see Viveiros de Castro 2011, p. 3),
as these. With sweeping flamboyance, entire attempts to arrive at the equivalence between
indigenous traditions, such as the highly valued native and academic epistemologies. It is
arts of oratory, ceremonial dialogues, shamanic interested in “anthropological knowledge
s´ 
eances, ritual singing and chanting, and other involving the fundamental presupposition that 
powerful verbal expressions, meticulously  the procedures which characterize research are
constructed and diversified through untold conceptually of the same order as those investi-
gated” (Viveiros de Castro 2002, pp. 116–17;

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 489

 see also Gordon n.d.; J.A. Kelly, unpublished doctoral degree in anthropology, states that 
information). As a philosophical proposition, it  now,
is a welcome change from the anthropological
inclination to dodge this issue. Nevertheless,
instead of a white subject studying Indian sub-
pretentious rhetoric and outlandish generaliza-
 jects as objects of knowledge, which allowed
tions are at odds with the ethnographic works
him [her] to claim an alleged objectivity and
singled out as material for building a “sym-
epistemic neutrality, a new situation emerges
metrical” anthropology (a cherished phrase as,
 where Indian subjects study themselves as
for instance, in Gordon n.d.). It is, after all, in
agents who think and produce knowledge,
the actual products of ethnographic research
and soon there will also be indigenous subjects
that theoretical changes are likely to occur and
studying whites, including anthropologists.
new anthropological patterns emerge, as some
(Luciano 2011, p. 105)
classical texts demonstrate. The great majority 
  g
  r
  o
 .  . of perspectivist products have yet to show 
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n convincingly that they are heading toward a  Auto-ethnographies as Luciano proposes, in
   i   o
  v  e “trans-epistemic” anthropology in the sense fact, should be regarded as the culmination of 
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l of taking indigenous systems of knowledge the political effort on the part of generations of 
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o on equal intellectual terms (Ramos 2010, Brazilian anthropologists who believe that aca-
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p pp. 40–42). Between theoretical propositions demic work and political engagement should
  w  r
  w   o
   F
 .
and empirical results there seems to be a go hand in hand (Ramos 1990). Nevertheless, it 
  m   2
  o
  r   1  vacillation that reveals the distance between is high time we evaluate disengagement as the
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   / the perspectivist philosophical postulation and ultimate result of engagement, as indigenous
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l its ethnographic practice. After all, cultural peoples progressively occupy political and
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
theories are tools to understand real cultures. academic spaces. Anthropologists should be
   D  e Let us not call this substantialism or essen- prepared to welcome them to center stage.
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 tialism, for labels are not good substitutes for Indeed, “[h]ow much more engaged can an
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
content. Why not hear the Indians first hand? anthropologist be in renouncing not only the
  :   R
   1  o It seems that many ideas generated in uni- status of ethnographic authority, but also the
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
 versity offices do not travel well to the fields of  decades-long role of nursing the wounds of 
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l research. Intellectual efforts notwithstanding, subjugated indigenous people?” (Ramos 2008,
  o   F
  p  e  we still find the old ethnographic division of  p. 481). Other roles await the committed
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
labor between those who know (the ethnogra- anthropologist, such as that of supporting
  s
   A  r phers) and those who let themselves be known actor in political arenas and responsive peer in
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n (the natives). This matter is much too complex intellectual endeavors.
   R
 .   U
  u  y to be resolved only with theoretical aspira- If perspectivism is an indigenous anthro-
  n   b
  n
   A tions. Indigenous intellectuals in Brazil begin pology, it is so only vicariously, through the
to follow on the steps of their counterparts ethnographers’ writings. This sort of ventril-
around the world (Alfred 2009, Churchill 1997, oquism [a concept Viveiros de Castro (2004,
Deloria Jr. 1988 [1969], D´ ıaz 2007, Fixico p. 12) evokes with a different key]—perhaps an
2003, Kowii 2007, Mamani Ram´ ırez 2005, inevitable feature of theory building—assures
 Mihesuan & Wilson 2004, Sampaio 2010, Sioui that the voice we hear is not indigenous, but an
1992, Smith 1999, and many more). A new po- alien verbalization, an ersatz native,a sort of hy-
litical scenario has brought out new challenges perreal Indian (Ramos 1994) that is much easier
to anthropology. One such challenge has to do to absorb than the real native. More appropri-
 with the indigenous rebellion against academic ate in the new Brazilian context of widespread
hegemony in ethnographic research. Luciano, indigenous higher education would be to extin-
a Baniwa Indian from the Uaup es ´  region in guish the ventriloquist and make room for the
Northwest Amazon who recently received his  voices of the Indians themselves, thus reducing

 490 Ramos 
 intermediacy and transforming the puppet into  The wisdom of seasoned scholars leads us
a cothinker and “symmetrical” interlocutor. to forecast the future of perspectivism as an all-
encompassing Amerindian theory. Overgrown
and oversaturated notions with this degree of 
CODA  generality are destined to either burst out into
oblivion or slim down to a proper size and
Once more, philosopher Langer, to whom
realistic dimension. Once the current enthusi-
Geertz (1973, p. 3) resorted in his critique of 
asm for “multinatural perspectivism” recedes,
grand ideas in anthropology, can help us eval-
it will probably enter the array of concepts that 
uate the just dimension of perspectivism as a
are helpful in certain contexts. It will likely 
theory. Overgrown concepts that seem om-
come to designate that which most, if not all,
nipresent, all-encompassing, and even manda-
ethnographers of indigenous life have known
tory while in their prime pass through the sieve
for a long time, namely, the constant and, in
  g
  r
of time with greater or less success, greater or
  o
 .  .  various degrees, intimate intercourse, both
  s   y
   l
less durability. In Langer’s lucid assessment, it 
  w
  e   n symbolic and practical, between humans and
   i   o
  v  e
“is the most natural andappropriate thing in the
  e
  r   s
nonhumans. The vast majority of indigenous
   l   u
  a   l
 world for a new problem or a new terminology 
  u  a ethnographies are brimming with examples
  n  n
  n  o
to have a vogue that crowds out everything else
 .   s
  a   r
of transformations, assimilations, associations,
  w  e
for a little while.” She continues, stating
  p
  w  r
communion and exchange of substances, and
  w   o
   F
 .
antagonisms between human beings, animals,
  m   2
  o
  r   1  we try it in every connection, for every pur- and supranatural entities, in short, the great 
   f   /
   d   9 pose, experiment with possible stretches of 
  e   0
   / reservoir of “facts” that has fed the perspectivist 
   d   1
  a   1 its strict meaning, with generalizations and
  o  n
   l imagination. This plethora of data, however,
  n  o derivatives. When we become familiar with
  w  o
  r
  o   i
does not lend itself automatically to theoretical
   D  e the new idea our expectations do not outrun experiments, let alone scholarly subtleties of 
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 its actual uses quite so far, and then its unbal-  vocabulary that can be misappropriated and
  -   e
   4
   1   d anced popularity is over. (Langer 1951, p. 31)
  o
   8   i
   4
misused, thereby putting the intellectual in-
  :   R
   1  o tegrity and cultural security of specific peoples
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
Eventually, the grande id´ 
ee “no longer has the at risk. It is hard to overstate the demand
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l grandiose, all-promising scope, the infinite ver- that, regardless of one’s theoretical persuasion,
  o   F
  p  e satility of apparent application, it once had” anthropologists must not renounce their role
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
(Geertz 1973, p. 4). as responsible political actors.
  s
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n
   R
 .   U
  u  y
  n   b
  n DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 
   A
 The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holding that might 
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues Wilson Trajano Filho and Luis Cay ´ 
on for their invaluable
comments.

LITERATURE CITED
 Albert B. 2000. Introduç ao:
˜  cosmologias do contato no Norte-Amaz ˆ 
onico. SeeAlbert & Ramos 2000, pp.9–21
 Albert B, Ramos A. 1989. Yanomami Indians and anthropological ethics. Science 244:632

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 491

  Albert B, Ramos A, eds. 2000. Pacificando o Branco: Cosmologias do Contato no Norte-Amazˆ  onico. S ˜ 
ao Paulo: Ed.
Unesp. 532 pp.
 Alfred T. 2009. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd. ed.
202 pp.
 Andrello G. 2006. Cidade do Indio: ´  Transforma瘠oes e Cotidiano em Iauaretˆ  e. S ˜ 
ao Paulo: Ed. Unesp. 447 pp.
 Austin JL. 1975. How To Do Things with Words . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 2nd. ed. 169 pp.
Bateson G. 1958. Naven: A Survey of the Problems Suggested by a Composite Picture of a Culture of a New Guinea
Tribe Drawn from Three Points of View. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. 343 pp.
Bird-David N. 1999. “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Curr.
 Anthropol. 40(S):S67–91
Borofsky R, ed. 2005. Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It . Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press. 391 pp.
Calavia S´ aez O. 2006. O Nome e o Tempo dos Yaminawa. S ˜  ao Paulo: Ed. Unesp. 479 pp.
Cardoso de Oliveira R. 1960. O Processo de Assimila瘠 ao dos Terena. Rio de Janeiro: Mus. Nac. 266 pp.
  g
  r
´ 
Cardoso de Oliveira R. 1964. O  Indio e o Mundo dos Brancos: A Situa瘠 ao dos Tukuna do Alto Solim˜  oes . S ˜ 
ao Paulo:
  o
 .  .
  s   y
   l Difus ˜ 
ao Eur. Livro. 143 pp.
  w   n
  e
   i   o Cardoso de Oliveira R. 1968. Urbaniza瘠 ao e Tribalismo: A Integra瘠 ´ 
ao dos  Indios Terena numa Sociedade de Classes .
  v  e
  e
  r   s
   l   u Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar. 237 pp.
  a   l
  u  a Cardoso de Oliveira R. 1972. A Sociologia do Brasil Ind´ ıgena. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro. 149 pp.
  n  n
  n  o
 .   s
  a   r Cardoso de Oliveira R. 1976. Identidade, Etnia e Estrutura Social . S ˜  ao Paulo: Pioneira. 118 pp.
  w  e
  p
  w  r Cay ´ 
on L. 2010. Penso, logo crio: a teoria Makuna do mundo . PhD thesis. Univ. Bras´ ılia. 409 pp.
  w   o
   F Cesarino PN. 2011. Oniska: Po etica ´  do Xamanismo na Amazˆ  onia. S ˜ 
ao Paulo: Perspectiva. 423 pp.
  m  .
  o   2 Chagnon N. 1968. Yanomam¨  o: The Fierce People. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 142 pp.
  r   1
   f   /
   d   9 Chagnon N. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239:985–92
  e   0
   /
   d   1
  a   1 Churchill W. 1997. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present . San
  o  n
   l
  n  o Francisco, CA: City Lights Books. 531 pp.
  w  o
  r
  o   i Deloria V Jr. 1988 [1969]. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto . Norman: Univ. Okla. Press. 278 pp.
   D  e
 .   n Descola P. 1996a. Constructing natures: symbolic ecology and social practice. In Nature and Society: Anthro-
  a
   4   J
   9
  -   e
   4  pological Perspectives , ed. P Descola, G P alsson,
´  pp. 82–102. London: Routledge. 310 pp.
   1   d
  o
   8   i Descola P. 1996b. In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
   4
  :   R
   1  o Press. 372 pp.
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a D´ ıaz F. 2007. Escrito: Comunalidad, Energ´ ıa Viva del Pensamiento Mixe. Mexico City: Univ. Auton. Mexico.
   0  r
  e
   2   d 437 pp.
 .   e
   l
  o   F Eco U. 1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 164 pp.
  p  e
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
Evans-Pritchard EE. 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon. 558 pp.
  n   i
  s
   A  r Fabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object . New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
 .   e
  v
  v   i 205 pp.
  e   n
   R
 .   U Fausto C. 2001. Inimigos Fi eis: ´  Hist´  oria, Guerra e Xamanismo na Amazˆ  onia. S ˜ 
ao Paulo: Edusp. 587 pp.
  u  y
  n   b FixicoDL.2003. TheAmerican Indian Mind in a LinearWorld: American Indian Studiesand TraditionalKnowledge.
  n
   A London: Routledge. 207 pp.
Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books. 470 pp.
Gonçalves MA. 2001. O Mundo Inacabado: A瘠 ao e Cria瘠
ao em uma Cosmologia Amazˆ  onica. Etnologia Pirah˜  a. Rio
de Janeiro: UFRJ. 421 pp.
Goody J. 2007. The Theft of History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 342 pp.
Gordon C. 2006. Economia Selvagem: Ritual e Mercadoria entre os  Indios ´  Xikrin-Mebˆ  okre. S ˜ 
engˆ  ao Paulo: Unesp.
452 pp.
Gordon F. n.d. “O sexo dos Carac´  oes para uma antropologia reversa, disparativa e contra o estado.
ois”: sugest˜ 
http://nansi.abaetenet.net/abaetextos/o-sexo-dos-carac%C3%B3is-sugest%C3%B5es-para-
uma-antropologia-reversa-disparativa-e-contra-o-estado-fl%C3%A1vio-gordon 
Hannerz U. 1996. Transnational Connections . London: Routledge. 201 pp.
Kowii A. 2007. Memoria, identidad e interculturalidad de los pueblos de Abya-Yala: el caso de los quichua
Otavalo. In Intelectuales Ind´ ıgenas Piensan Am´  erica Latina, ed. C Zapata, pp. 113–25. Quito: Abya-Yala.
340 pp.

 492 Ramos 
 Kroeber A. 1945. The ancient  oikoumenˆ e as an historic culture aggregate. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel.
75(1–2):9–20
Kuhn T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 2nd ed. 210 pp.
Lagrou E. 2007. A Fluidez da Forma: Arte, Alteridade e Agˆ  encia em uma Sociedade Amazˆ  onica ( Kaxinawa, Acre ).
Rio de Janeiro: Topbooks. 565 pp.
Langer SK. 1951. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art . New York: Mentor.
256 pp.
Lasmar C. 2005. De Volta ao Lago do Leite: Gˆ  enero e Transforma瘠 ao no Alto Rio Negro . S ˜ ao Paulo: Unesp.
285 pp.
Latour B. 2009. Perspectivism: a type or a bomb? Anthropol. Today 25(2):1–2
L´ 
evi-Strauss C. 1962. La Pens´  ee Sauvage. Paris: Plon. 395 pp.
L´ 
evi-Strauss C. 1976. Antropologia Estrutural Dois . Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro. 366 pp.
L´ 
evy-Br ¨ 
uhl L. 1910. How Natives Think. Transl. LA Clare, 1985. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
391 pp.
  g
  r
  o
 .  .
Lima TS. 2005. Um Peixe Olhou para Mim. S ˜  ao Paulo: Unesp. 399 pp.
  s   y
   l
  w   n Luciano GJS. 2011. Educa瘠 ao do mundo: entre a escola ideal e a escola real . PhD thesis.
ao para manejo e domestica¸c˜ 
  e
   i   o
  v  e Univ. Bras´ ılia. 387 pp.
  e
  r   s
   l   u  Mamani Ram´ ırez P. 2005. Geopol´ ıticas Ind´ ıgenas . El Alto, Qullasuyu: CADES. 129 pp.
  a   l
  u  a
  n  n  Mihesuan DA, Wilson AC, eds. 2004. Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering 
  n  o
 .   s
  a   r Communities . Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press. 245 pp.
  w  e
  p
  w  r Pina Cabral J. 2002. Between China and Europe: Person, Culture and Emotion in Macao. London: Continuum.
  w   o
   F
  m  . 256 pp.
  o   2
  r   1
   f   / ´ 
Pinto MT. 1997. Ieipari: Sacrif´ ıcio e Vida Social entre os  Indios Arara (Caribe). S ˜ 
ao Paulo: Hucitec. 413 pp.
   d   9
  e   0
   / Pissolato E. 2007. A Dura瘠ao da Pessoa: Mobilidade, Parentesco e Xamanismo Mbya (Guarani ). S ˜  ao Paulo: Unesp.
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l 445 pp.
  n  o
  w  o Ramos AR. 1990. Ethnology Brazilian style. Cult. Anthropol. 5(4):452–72
  r
  o   i
   D  e Ramos AR. 1994. The hyperreal Indian. Crit. Anthropol. 14(2):153–71
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9 Ramos AR. 1995. Sanum´  a Memories: Yanomami Ethnography in Times of Crisis . Madison: Univ. Wis. Press.
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o 346 pp.
   8   i
   4
  :   R
   1  o Ramos AR. 1996. O papel pol´ ıtico das epidemias: o caso Yanomami. In Ya no Hay Lugar para Cazadores: Proceso
   4
 .   d
   2   l de Extinci´ 
on y Transfiguraci´  on Cultural en Am´ erica Latina, ed. MA Bartolom e, ´  A Barabas, pp. 55–89. Quito:
   1  a
   0  r
  e  Abya Yala. 263 pp.
   2   d
 .   e
   l
  o   F Ramos AR. 2008. Disengaging anthropology. In A Companion to Latin American Anthropology, ed. D Poole,
  p  e
  o
  r   d pp. 466–84. Oxford: Blackwell. 544 pp.
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
  s Ramos AR. 2010. Revisitando a etnologia à brasileira. In Horizontes das Ciencias ˆ  Sociais. Antropologia, ed. LFD
   A  r
 .   e
  v Duarte, pp. 25–49. S ˜ ao Paulo: ANPOCS. 487 pp.
  v   i
  e   n
   R Ramos AR. 2011. Por una antropologia ecom enica. ´  In Antropolog´ ıa Ahora, ed. A Grimson, S Merenson,
 .   U
  u  y G Noel, pp. 97–124. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno. 175 pp.
  n   b
  n
   A Sahlins M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands 
 Kingdom. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press. 84 pp.
Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 180 pp.
´ 
Sampaio AF. 2010. Do´ ethiro:  Alvaro Tukano e os S´ eculos Ind´ ıgenas no Brasil . Porto Alegre: Karioka Multimed.
Prod. 174 pp.
Seeger A. 1975. The meaning of body ornaments: a Suy ´  a example. Ethnology 14(3):211–24
Silva NK. 2004. Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism . Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
Press. 261 pp.
Sioui GE. 1992. For an Amerindian Autohistory. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press. 160 pp.
Smith LT. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples . New York: Zed Books. 208 pp.
 Tierney P. 2000. Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon. New York:
Norton. 417 pp.
 Turner TS. 2007 [1980]. The social skin. In Beyond the Body Proper: Reading in the Anthropology of Material Life ,
ed. J Farquhar, M Lock, pp. 83–106. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press. 704 pp.

www.annualreviews.org  • The Politics of Perspectivism 493

  Turner TS. 2009. The crisis of late structuralism. Perspectivism and animism: rethinking culture, nature,
spirit, and bodiliness. Tipit´ ıJ. Soc. Anthropol. Lowl. S. Am. 7(1):1–42
 Turner V. 1975. Symbolic studies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 4:145–61
 Vilaça A. 1992. Comendo como Gente: Formas do Canibalismo Wari’  ( Pakaa Nova). Rio de Janeiro: ANPOCS.
363 pp.
 Vilaça A. 2006. Quem Somos N´  os: Os Wari’ Encontram os Brancos . Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ. 607 pp.
 Viveiros de Castro E. 1992. O m´  armore e a murta. Rev. Antropol. 35:21–74
 Viveiros de Castro E. 1996. Images of nature and society in Amazonian ethnology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
25:179–200
 Viveiros de Castro E. 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism.  J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 4(3):469–
88
 Viveiros de Castro E. 2002. O nativo relativo. Mana 8(1):113–48
 Viveiros de Castro E. 2004. Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipit´ ı J.
Soc. Anthropol. Lowl. S. Am. 2(1):3–22
  g
  r
  o  Viveiros de Castro E. 2011. “Transformaç ˜  ao” na antropologia, transformaç ˜ 
ao na “antropologia.” Sopro Panfleto
 .  .
  s   y
   l  Pol´ ıt.-Cult. 58: http://culturaebarbarie.org/sopro/outros/transformacoes.html
  w   n
  e
   i   o
  v  e
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p
  w  r
  w   o
   F
  m  .
  o   2
  r   1
   f   /
   d   9
  e   0
   /
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
   D  e
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i
   4
  :   R
   1  o
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l
  o   F
  p  e
  o
  r   d
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
  s
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n
   R
 .   U
  u  y
  n   b
  n
   A

 494 Ramos 
  Annual Review of 
 Anthropology 

Contents  Volume 41, 2012

Prefatory Chapter 

  g
  r
 Ancient Mesopotamian Urbanism and Blurred Disciplinary Boundaries
  o
 .  .
  s   y
   l
 Robert McC. Adams  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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
  w   n
  e
   i   o
  v  e
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l  Archaeology 
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o
 .   s
  a   r  The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect 
  w  e
  p
  w  r
  o
Sarah Tarlow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
  w   F
  m  .
  o   2  The Archaeology of Money 
  r   1
   f   /
   d   9 Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
  e   0
   /
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l
  n  o Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology 
  w  o
  r
  o   i
   D  e  Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
 .   n
  a
   4   J
   9
  -   e
   4 Paleolithic Archaeology in China
   1   d
  o
   8   i Ofer Bar-Yosef and Youping Wang  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319
   4
  :   R
   1  o
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a  Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
   0  r
  e
   2   d  The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic
 .   e
   l
  o   F
  p  e
  o and Paleoenvironmental Archive
  r   d
  a
   h
   t   d
  n   i
  s
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean
  e   n
   R
 .   U  Peter van Dommelen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
  u  y
  n   b
  n
   A
 Archaeometallurgy: The Study of Preindustrial Mining and Metallurgy 
David Killick and Thomas Fenn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 559
Rescue Archaeology: A European View 
 Jean-Paul Demoule p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 611

Biological Anthropology 
Energetics, Locomotion, and Female Reproduction:
Implications for Human Evolution
Cara M. Wall-Scheffler  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71

vii 
 Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the
Human-Primate Interface
 Agustin Fuentes  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Human Evolution and the Chimpanzee Referential Doctrine
 Ken Sayers, Mary Ann Raghanti, and C. Owen Lovejoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119
Chimpanzees and the Behavior of  Ardipithecus ramidus 
Craig B. Stanford  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory 
 Richard Potts  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Primate Feeding and Foraging: Integrating Studies
  g
  r
  o
 .  .
of Behavior and Morphology 
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n W. Scott McGraw and David J. Daegling  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
   i   o
  v  e
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l
 Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
  u  a
  n  n and Will Happen Next 
  n  o
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p  Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
  w  r
  w   o
   F
  m  .
   2
 Maternal Prenatal Nutrition and Health in Grandchildren
  o
  r   1
   f   / and Subsequent Generations
   d   9
  e   0
   /
   d   1  E. Susser, J.B. Kirkbride, B.T. Heijmans, J.K. Kresovich, L.H. Lumey,
  a   1
  o  n
   l
  n  o
  w  o
and A.D. Stein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577
  r
  o   i
   D  e
 .   n
  a
   4   J Linguistics and Communicative Practices
   9
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i  Media and Religious Diversity 
   4
  :   R
   1  o
   4
 .   d
   2   l
 Patrick Eisenlohr  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
   1  a
   0  r
  e
   2   d  Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning
 .   e
   l
  o   F
  p  e
  o in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation
  r   d
  a
   h
   t   d
  n   i
  s
 Penelope Eckert  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i Documents and Bureaucracy 
  e   n
   R
 .   U  Matthew S. Hull  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
  u  y
  n   b
  n
   A
 The Semiotics of Collective Memories
Brigittine M. French p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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
Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism
Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
 Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures
and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
 Music, Language, and Texts: Sound and Semiotic Ethnography 
 Paja Faudree p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519

viii Contents 
 International Anthropology and Regional Studies
Contemporary Anthropologies of Indigenous Australia
Tess Lea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
 The Politics of Perspectivism
 Alcida Rita Ramos  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
 Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies
 Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 537

Sociocultural Anthropology 
Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
  g
  r
  o
 .  .
 Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
  s   y
   l
  w   n
  e
   i   o
  v  e
 The Politics of the Anthropogenic
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l
 Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p
  w  r  Elizabeth Edwards  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
  w   o
   F
  m  .
  o
  r
   2
   1
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
   f   /
   d   9  Heather Lazrus  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
  e   0
   /
   d   1
  a   1
  o  n
   l
  n  o Enculturating Cells: The Anthropology, Substance, and Science
  w  o
  r
  o   i of Stem Cells
   D  e
 .   n
  a
   4   J  Aditya Bharadwaj  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 303
   9
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
   8   i Diabetes and Culture
   4
  :   R
   1  o
   4
 .   d Steve Ferzacca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 411
   2   l
   1  a
   0  r
  e
   2   d
 .   e
   l
 Toward an Ecology of Materials
  o   F
  p  e
  o
Tim Ingold  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
  r   d
  a
   h
   t   d
  n   i
  s Sport, Modernity, and the Body 
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i
  e   n  Niko Besnier and Susan Brownell  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443
   R
 .   U
  u  y
  n   b
  n  Theme I: Materiality 
   A

Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image

 Elizabeth Edwards  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
 The Archaeology of Money 
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Documents and Bureaucracy 
 Matthew S. Hull  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology 
 Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269

Con te nt s ix  
 Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism
Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
 Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
 Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent 
Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461

 Theme II: Climate Change

Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
  g
  r
 Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
  o
 .  .
  s   y
   l
  w
  e   n  The Politics of the Anthropogenic
   i   o
  v  e  Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
  e
  r   s
   l   u
  a   l
  u  a
  n  n
  n  o Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the
 .   s
  a   r
  w  e
  p Human-Primate Interface
  w  r
  w   o
   F  Agustin Fuentes  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
  m  .
  o   2
  r   1
   f   /
   d   9
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory 
  e   0
   /
   d   1
  a   1  Richard Potts  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
  o  n
   l
  n  o
  w  o
  r
  o   i
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
   D  e
 .   n
  a
   4   J
 Heather Lazrus  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
   9
  -   e
   4
   1   d
  o
 Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
   8   i
   4
  :   R
   1  o  The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and
   4
 .   d
   2   l
   1  a Paleoenvironmental Archive
   0  r
  e
   2   d Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
 .   e
   l
  o   F
  p  e
  o
  r   d  Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
   h   a
   t   d
  n   i
  s and Will Happen Next 
   A  r
 .   e
  v
  v   i  Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard  p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
  e   n
   R
 .   U
  u  y
  n   b
  n
   A Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 631

Errata

 An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at 
http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

 x Contents