Interview: Michael Galaty

 

Alepotrypa Cave

Michael Galaty is Professor and Department Head of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures (AMEC) and Interim Director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. In 2013 he and Dr. Anastasia Papathanasiou of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture received an International Collaborative Research Grant to aid ‘The Diros Project: Greek-American Collaborative Archaeological Research & Training At Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave’ 

 

Tell us a little bit about the project that received Wenner-Gren funding.

For several years, my Greek and American colleagues and I have been working in and around a very large cave located in the Mani, Greece, called Alepotrypa (Fox Hole).  It is one of the largest caves in Greece and housed a Neolithic village, mortuary, and ritual complex prior to its collapse around 3100 BC.  We’ve surveyed the cave’s catchment zone, which encompasses the Bay of Diros, and conducted excavations at a large open-air site called Ksagounaki, located outside of and above the cave, and built with very large “megalithic” stones.  Like many Neolithic villages, the occupants of Ksagounaki buried their dead “intramurally,” i.e. in the village and under house floors.  In 2014, Wenner-Gren helped support additional survey work, including geophysical surveys, in Diros and excavation at Ksagounaki.  Alepotrypa and Ksagounaki are extremely important settlements, since they span various periods of the Neolithic, including the Final Neolithic, or Copper Age, which is very rare in Greece. It was during the Neolithic Age that farming arrived in Greece (circa 6000 BC), allowing increased sedentism and the appearance of village life, laying the groundwork for the later Greek Bronze Age, during which the first states in Europe formed, the so-called Mycenaean states.  In 2014, we also excavated a Mycenaean “ossuary” at Ksagounaki, an unexpected, unique feature, filled with human bone and various grave goods, including a bronze dagger, ivory hair pin, fine pottery, and exotic stone beads.  Because Alepotrypa and Ksagounaki were large, important places, still visible on the landscape 2000 years after their abandonment, we hypothesize that some kind of “cultural memory” drew the Mycenaeans back to Diros, to rebury important dead.

 

What importance did this project hold for anthropological education in Greece?

Thanks to the generosity of Wenner-Gren, in 2014 we were joined in the field by Prof. Georgia Phillipakis, from the University of Athens, and four of her students. Greek archaeology is a stand-alone discipline, strongly influenced by history, less so by anthropology and anthropological thinking.  The four University of Athens students who worked with us were given a “crash course” in anthropological archaeology. They worked both in the field and in the lab, with Greek and American faculty and graduate students, all of whom practice an anthropologically-informed brand of archaeology.  Students were given practical training in new survey and excavation methods, including geophysics, excavation, and artifact conservation and analysis.  Several times a week, in the cool of the evening, professors and graduate students would lecture on some aspect of their work with The Diros Project, highlighting both what they were doing and its anthropological significance.  These lectures built theoretical foundations for the methodological training gained by students during the long, hot southern Greek days.  Of her experience, Greek student Effrosyni Roditi wrote: “I would like to thank you all for the opportunity you gave me to participate in this project . I learned so many things in just a few weeks, I met wonderful people and I had a great time. Since this was my first excavation , I would like to say that this project  has  increased my desire to work as an archeologist. It was a unique and memorable experience.”  Our training program for Greek students would not have been possible without the help of the Wenner-Gren Foundation.

 

What were some challenges that arose during the course of the research, and how did you adapt?

Greece is currently suffering economically.  As a result, the government has slashed funds for archaeology and laid many archaeologists off.  This has made doing archaeology in Greece that much more difficult.  Costs are very high.  We American archaeologists continue to marvel at the tenacity and determination of our Greek colleagues, who are  committed to protecting and studying their cultural heritage, despite the tough times.  The economic and political troubles in Greece have slowed the permitting processes, making planning difficult.  In 2014, we arrived in Greece to begin work and were informed that our permit had been delayed.  Despite the stress this caused, our Greek colleagues sprang into action and our permit was delivered in a matter of days.  Learning to work under conditions of uncertainty took some adapting, but we pulled together as a project, got our permit, and had an incredible research season.

 

The “embracing” remains have generated quite a bit of press in the non-scholarly world. What are your thoughts on how the popular media has portrayed your findings and their possible implications?

the infamous "spooning" remains, Ksagounaki

In 2014 we uncovered at Ksagounaki the remains of a couple, a man and woman in their late 20s (based on DNA analysis), who were buried together, embracing.  While prehistoric double and multiple burials are not uncommon in Greece and worldwide, a 5800-year-old “spooning” burial is unique. We do not yet know how they died and exactly why they were buried together, but there must be some kind of personal story, a relationship, that prompted their shared internment.  This story captured the imagination of the popular press and for a few short days in February (the Greek government announced the find on Valentine’s Day), the Diros couple held the web public’s attention. Our opinion is that if archaeologists (and, more generally, anthropologists) are to make a difference in the world, we must do a much better job of accessing social media and shaping the public’s understanding of the human past.  If we do not do so, we cede that territory to those who would distort the past and use it, sometimes with malicious intent.  Finds like that of the Diros couple help us connect with a global public eager to know more about our shared humanity, which is ground in a shared archaeological past.

 

What are some next steps? What are you working on now?

In 2015 we will spend a month in Athens studying the artifacts collected over the course of five years by The Diros Project and excavated at Ksagounaki.  In the future we hope to continue excavation at Ksagounaki and to extend our survey work outside the immediate hinterland of Alepotrypa.  We assume that those who lived at Ksagounaki used a much wider territory, including the mountains.  Those buried in the cave may have come from distant communities.  And we have no idea where the Mycenaeans who built the Ksagounaki ossuary circa 1200 BC lived.  These questions can be best addressed through expanded regional survey work.

Meet Our 2014 Wadsworth Fellows: Tegenu Gossa

Better late than never! Our final report on the 2014 class of Wadsworth International Fellows – Ethiopia’s Tegenu Gossa.

I have a BA degree in History from Alemaya University in Eastern Ethiopia in July 2004. Some of the basic archaeology courses I have taken in my undergraduate study helped me to develop an initial interest in this field of study. Hence, I eventually took up the chance to study my graduate study in Archaeology in Addis Ababa University from 2010 to 2011. I have worked as a lecturer of Ancient History of Ethiopia in Arba Minch University in Southern Ethiopia between 2009 and 2011. I have also been lecturing Archaeology in the same university since 2011.

The research project for my graduate study focused on the analysis of MSA/LSA lithic artifacts excavated from the site of Aladi Springs in the Afar Rift. The research proved to be successful where the major findings of the research were published in an international journal (Gossa et al 2012). Besides, this study provided me with best opportunities to have continuous contact and communications with foreign and Ethiopian researchers working in the country and thereby participate in various paleoanthropological field projects organized by those international team of researchers. To this end, I have participated in the expedition to the Blue Nile Basin of northwestern Ethiopia in 2010, the Main Ethiopian Rift system (Gedamotta MSA site) in 2011 and 2012, and the Ledi-Grearu research project in the Afar Rift system in 2013.

Besides elevating my interest in the discipline, these field engagements also greatly shaped my future research interests. The research project I have proposed for my PhD training is going to be held in the newly discovered site of Melka-Wakena located at the headwaters of Wabe-Shebelle River found in South-central Ethiopia. This site appears to be one of the few highland hominin occupation sites at world scale with an elevation of about 2400 m.a.s.l.  In the exploratory survey we have conducted in the site in 2013 and 2014, we already identified numerous localities rich in Early Stone Age lithic artifacts and faunal remains along the banks of the river.  Hence, the research project is going to revolve around lithic analysis and Early Stone Age hominin foraging strategies. This relatively unique site is expected to produce important paleoanthropological and paleoecological data pertaining to the Lower and Middle Pleistocene hominin highland adaptations.

Institutional Development Grant Awarded to Baltic Universities

Dr. Aivita Putnina

The latest Institutional Development Grant brings together four Baltic-region universities, three of which have already entered into a collaborative framework for the implementation of tertiary level education through establishment of the Baltic Graduate School in 2008. The project will support the establishment of a separate doctoral program in anthropology within the framework of the Baltic Graduate School and thus will also contribute to strengthening the discipline of anthropology in the Baltics. Our Foundation Anthropologist for International Programs, Judy Kried, spoke to Dr. Aivita Putnina, chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Latvia, to learn more about the program, the grant, and anthropology in the Baltic region.

 

First can you tell us a bit about yourself and how you came to be interested in anthropology? Who have been the anthropologists that have most influential in your own personal formation and why?

I first met anthropology at Vytautus Magnus University in Lithuania where I went as a philology exchange student. I had studied general medicine before but soon realised that it offered a limited view. I switched to the humanities. I was so excited to find that there actually was something that I longed for and which encompassed both perspectives. Vytautus Magnus was a brand new university (re-)established by expatriate Lithuanians to help their newly-liberated country. Quite a few of them, including the acting rector Liucija Baskauskas, were anthropologists. I did not get a degree in Anthropology but in Sociology, which I did not study, simply because anthropology was not included in Lithuanian science nomenclature. I am grateful to my undergraduate teachers as they gave me good foundations in anthropology and inspired me to continue my studies. My further studies at the University of Cambridge were made possible by Soros and Chevening grants in 1995. The next year I received a William Wise studentship to continue my studies at doctoral level. Cambridge is an incredibly intense place where you literally can do so much. I cannot name here all the anthropologists – my professors and peers – that I met there. I received enormous support from Professor Marilyn Strathern. Her personality, her style of writing and speaking made her one of the most important teachers I have ever met in my life. In my doctoral research I focussed on childbirth practices in Latvia, capturing and theorising societal change at a family, health care and political level. However, I realised that my informants did not get as much from our encounters as I did. Thus, there was one more consequence of my Cambridge experience. I realised that a sterile academic environment does not attract me and since then I have tried to make anthropology public and engage with the field which I study. I am glad I could partly “repay” my informants in helping to establish home birthing or introducing cancer screening in Latvia based on my research data. This kind of engagement has gone along with the establishment of anthropology in Latvia.

 

Can you tell us a little about anthropology in the Baltic states of
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? What are the pressing questions and
concerns for the discipline there?

Dr. Lauren-Rhodes and Dr. Ieva Raubisko with a student.

The history of anthropology in the Baltics starts in 19th century when most of the area which now forms the Baltic states was part of the Russian Empire. The word ’anthropology’ itself was used mostly in the context of physical anthropology. Culture and society were mostly the domain of ethnologists and folklorists, either in the Volkskunde or Soviet traditions, depending on the era. Since the beginning of the 1990s social and cultural anthropology, informed mostly by the British and American schools, started to be taught across the Baltics as separate subjects, partly due to the influx of Western-educated local people.  Latvia now has one Bachelors program and two Masters programs and these have developed in the last eight years. Estonia has had a Bachelors and Masters program for about ten years. It is producing PhDs – although these have to be done in another program in Humanities. Lithuania has had some Anthropology courses since the 1990s and PhDs can be done, but in Sociology. Anthropology is not considered as a separate field of science and rigid science classification procedures inherited from the Soviet period influence both the opportunities and funding for the development of anthropology education and research here.  We will try to solve this frustrating issue with the establishment of the joint doctoral program.

 

Anthropology classes.

Is anthropology a subject that attracts students in the Baltic States?

Indeed, and increasingly so. As time as progressed we are now teaching people who have done both their Bachelors and Masters studies in anthropology, who wish to go further. This IDG comes at the right time to meet this need for doctoral students. However, at every level, anthropology attracts people because it offers interesting and alternative perspectives in changing societies. We try to be as publicly visible as possible, getting involved in debates within society at parliamentary, other political, media and general public engagement levels so this encourages students as they can see that what anthropology does can have some impact.

Dr. Ieva Raubisko working.

 

Can you tell us about your department, its specialties and how the
award will help your department as it moves forward?

The department at the University of Latvia is very keen to develop its public role, and has adopted public anthropology as its specialisation within our joint doctoral program as a result. We have staff who have researched in Latvia itself, but also in Germany, Russia, Norway, the UK on themes of morality, violence, gender, medical anthropology, economic anthropology, rhetoric culture, business anthropology among other things. Our partners in Latvia and the other Baltic states add greatly to our joint expertise. This is one of the main benefits of the grant for a doctoral program as students can receive supervision and training in many things, but geographically fairly closely. It also helps create a critical mass in anthropology in the broader region as we will become more visible and attractive to students at home and hopefully abroad. On that last note, it must be said that this is a problem for the Baltic states in general and not only for anthropology. The ‘brain drain’ towards Western Europe is only one aspect of the massive emigration all three countries have faced in the light of EU expansion and financial crises. We hope that more students from this region stay and study here and help to build up a beacon of anthropology in the Baltic states.

 

WGF Symposium #151: “New Media, New Publics?”

Front: Laurie Obbink, Joe Masco, Daniel Salas, Gabriella Coleman, Rosalind Morris, Mary Murrell, Maria José de Abreu, Patricia Spyer, Kajri Jain, Winnie Won Yin Wong, Rosa Norton Back: Christopher Kelty, Rebecca Stein, Charles Hirschkind, Zeynep Gürsel, Sha Xin Wei, Martin Zillinger, Alex Dent, Carlo Caduff, Leslie Aiello

The 151st(!) symposium of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, “New Media, New Publics” was held this past March 13-19 at Palácio de Seteais in Sintra, Portugal, organized by Charles Hirschkind (UC Berkeley), Maria José de Abreu (University of Amsterdam) and Carlo Caduff (King’s College London). Like all of our symposia, the work presented here will be featured in a future special open-access issue of Current Anthropology!

One thing that’s special about this symposium (and that we’re especially excited about) is that it is the first in WGF history to feature an audio-visual component with the participants themselves. In the coming weeks, expect to see a series of short videos with the organizers, participants and others outlining their particular projects, what the symposium means for the anthropological study of media, and the larger history of the Wenner-Gren symposium program. This is something of a new frontier for the Foundation and the program, so please let us know what you think once they go live!

Read the Organizer’s Statement below for a better grasp of the symposium’s theoretical concerns and goals.

» Read more..

Engaged Anthropology Grant: M. Kamari Clarke

M. Kamari Clarke is Professor of Anthropology at Yale University. In 2009 she received the Post-Ph.D. Research Grant to aid research on ‘Negotiating Justice: The International Criminal Court at the Intersection of Contests Over Sovereignty’. Last year, she received the Engaged Anthropology Grant to travel to Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia and home of the African Union Commission, to share her research on the ICC and international law in African contexts.

It is undisputed that African States have played, and continue to play, a crucial role in the development of international criminal justice. Over a decade after the adoption of the Rome treaty, Africa has continued to be a central player in the pursuit of international criminal justice. African countries comprise the largest single group of States Parties to the ICC and, through the African Union (AU), in June 2014 they also adopted a protocol to establish the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples Rights (African Court). This protocol sets the framework for the establishment of a regional court with both civil and criminal jurisdiction.  With a mandate that spans not only the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and – when in force – the crime of unconstitutional change of government, it also includes a range of transnational crimes including toxic dumping, mercenarism, drug trafficking, illicit exploitation of resources and piracy. Although Africa continues to be a key player in the fight against impunity, the reality is that both the ICC and the African Court are new institutions undergoing resistance, scrutiny, and amendments of its many articles.

A central goal of the African Geographies of Justice project was to highlight both the relevance and the limits of these courts as the basis for justice.  The African Geographies of Justice Engaged Anthropology project allowed me to travel with my collaborator to Addis Ababa where we worked with the African Union Court legal counsel to further develop the technical aspects of the treaty provisions of the new protocol of the African Court. During my time in Addis Ababa, I participated in a workshop that helped to set the foundation for what has been a larger collaborative research endeavor.

My colleague, Charles Jalloh and I were invited to develop, construct, organize and participate in an international criminal workshop entitled, African Geographies of Justice: African Court and Heads of State Immunities. The goal of the workshop was to examine the African Court and Heads of state immunities question in relation to Africa’s emerging African peace and security landscape and its political history. By providing historical, political and legal analyses of the African court heads of state immunities debate participants were able to fully assess the prospects of justice in Africa in its complexities.

The workshop took place over a three-day period from November 19th to 21st 2014 at the Hilton Hotel in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the planning for the event leading up to workshop took place over a twelve day period. For the workshop itself we began with a reception on the opening day and the sessions followed on day two and three with plenaries and panels on select themes.   The themes ranged from the historical and political context of heads of state immunities and the historical application of universal jurisdiction and extradition in international customary law to sessions on the relevance of international criminal law in Africa to discussions about the expansion of the African court with criminal jurisdiction, core and transnational crimes, issues of complementarity, and matters related to the obstacles and possibilities for pursuing justice in African regional and sub-regional courts.  The sessions also provided detailed legal and political analysis for understanding the challenges of effective regional justice mechanisms in Africa. Over the course of the three-day period I shared my research findings and solicited input and feedback.  I also offered feedback to others engaged in analytic and policy work with the African Union.

According to our sign-in records, a total of sixty-two people attended the workshop over the three-day period. The majority of participants were from the diplomatic and research/academic communities in Addis Ababa.  There was also a range of civil society representatives and members of the African and European Unions in attendance. Various embassy representatives, from countries in Africa and Europe, attended with great interest in being more fully involved next year.  Experts involved in the training included the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor, the Pan African Lawyer’s Union drafter of the Malabo Protocol, Academics in international law, social and political science academics, lawyers at the UN legal office, a judge from the ECOWAS court in Abuja and former and current defense attorneys at the ICC and various ad hoc tribunals in Africa, and an ISS researchers involved in Peace and Security issues at the African Union.

The Geographies of Justice workshop was a great success. The feedback that we received from the participants suggested that it provided them with rich contexts for understanding the place of social science and legal research in such international and regional sites of decision-making. Many told us that they appreciated the presentation of the various sides of the immunities for heads of state debates, and that they learned a tremendous amount about the challenges and possibilities ahead for the institutionalization of international criminal justice in Africa and beyond.

The generous support of the Wenner-Gren Engaged Anthropology Grant has provided me with the opportunity to begin to develop a longer-term African Court Project in collaboration with the Pan-African Lawyers Union (PALU) and the Open Society Initiative—West Africa. As a result of the funding received from Wenner-Gren to conduct a research study and present my findings I have been engaged in the writing of Opinion Editorials for the New York Times. Very recently I published a New York Times op-ed piece entitled, “Justice Can’t Prevail in a Vacuum”, which was included in the Room for Debate on A Global Court’s Effectiveness. I also contributed an article entitled, “Accountability and the Expansion of the Criminal Jurisdiction of the African Court” to the second Arguendo Roundtable, which is an online discussion among experts on the future of the African Union and International Criminal Court.

The Wenner-Gren grant was an important success paved the way for me to share my findings with my interlocutors and to develop longer lasting collaborations with a range of informants in my fieldsite.

NYAS @ WGF: Anna Tsing and “Life in Past and Coming Ruins: On living in the Anthropocene”

Tonight we have a special treat for fans of the NYAS Anthropology Section lecture series at Wenner-Gren and anthropologist Anna Tsing, as the University of California – Santa Cruz joins us to present her talk “Life in Past and Coming Ruins: On Living in the Anthropocene” at 7:00 PM at our offices at 470 Park Avenue South.

Farming, fishing, and other human livelihoods have depended on the ability of forests, wetlands, oceans, and other multispecies ecosystems to rebuild themselves amidst repeated disturbances. I call such rebuilding “resurgence,” and I argue that humans as well as other species depend upon it. Yet industrial processes caninterfere with this kind of resurgence. This talk explores biological capacities brought into being by industrial processes—but outside human control. Think, for example, of industrially empowered pests and pathogens, from the virulent E. coli that emerged from beef-cattle feedlots to the algal blooms of sewage-saturated waterways. Thinking through fungi, my talk explores how industry sets loose feral forms that get in the way of the resurgence on which both humans and nonhumans depend.

Might it be useful to consider the forms of resurgence upon which we have historically depended “Holocene” forms now under threat from Anthropocene processes? Such Holocene resurgence is not over—but suddenly we have to fight for it. Furthermore, anthropological skills are needed. The threats I describe are neither universal nor limited to a single place; they travel. Anthropologists, I argue, are needed to investigate nonhuman as well as human Anthropocene travel, as this empowers still-mysterious feral biologies that are simultaneously local and global.

A dinner reception precedes the lecture at 6:00 PM. Registration is not required, and please DO NOT contact the New York Academy of Sciences or the Wenner-Gren Foundation regarding registration.

 

Engaged Anthropology Grant: Yu Huang

 

satellite view of Leizhou peninsula in southern China. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Yu Huang is Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her involvement with the Wenner-Gren Foundation goes back to 2007, when she received a Dissertation Fieldwork Grant as a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington, Seattle to aid research on ‘Cultivating ‘Science-Savvy’ Citizens: Empowerment and Risk in Shrimp Aquaculture Development in China,’ supervised by Dr. Ann Anagnost. The Engaged Anthropology Grant allowed her to return to her field site in southern China’s shrimping industry and share her research with her collaborators. 

Since 2006, I have been conducting research on the science extension network of shrimp aquaculture in Leizhou, Guangdong Province, China. Through my own experimental farming experience, as well as interviews and participation observation with shrimp farmers, extension officials, and marine biologists, I have tried to understand the two vicious cycles that shrimp farmers fall into. The drive to overproduction has lured farmers to increase stocking intensity, leading to both ecological and economic crises. Ecologically, high-intensity farming has deteriorated the pond environment and made shrimp more stressful, rendering them more vulnerable to disease attacks. Economically, overproduction depreciates the value of shrimp, making it difficult for farmers to get out of poverty. Moreover, as shrimp prices drop, a lot of farmers have to stock more shrimp juveniles to balance high input costs, incubating new risks of diseases. If few farmers benefit from the treadmill of overproduction, who gains? As farmers are enticed to become “science-savvy” farmers, they have adopted various kinds of “inputs” and equipments to boost yield, changing their mode of production from polyculture with fish and crab to monoculture of shrimp. The plight of farmers has formed stark contrast with the dramatic growth of agribusinesses that monopolizes the upstream sector of credits and inputs for shrimp juveniles, compound feed, aeration machines, and shrimp pharmaceuticals, and the downstream sector of processing, marketing, and sales.

After I received the Wenner-Gren Engaged Anthropology Grant in August 2012, I started to think about the issue on how I could disseminate my findings to the community of shrimp farmers. The problem is not so much that farmers are unaware of their dilemmas, but they do not know how to get out of the treadmill of overproduction. As petty commodity producers, the slogan “work more, gain more” failed to come true. While they see their income squeezed away by agribusinesses, they have to bear the risks of shrimp diseases and market fluctuation. Rather than just telling farmers the cause of their plight, I thought that I needed to do something to help them. The idea of organizing a co-operative came to mind.

The re-cooperatization movement in China sprouted at the turn of the century when family farms collaborated together to shield themselves the full costs of market relations and to capture a higher portion of the added value of the agro-food products in the commodity chain. After the Law on Specialized Farmer Cooperatives was passed in July 2007, farmers’ cooperatives mushroomed. The registered cooperatives totaled about 100,000 in 2008, grew to 689,000 by the end of 2012, and was projected to reach 900,000 by 2015.

However, the cooperative movement has not spread to Leizhou, which is located at the south end of mainland China. I decided to do some mobilization work to make farmers understand how a cooperative might help them. In summer 2013, I organized focus groups and household visits to introduce to farmers the concept of cooperative. Here are the potential benefits:

1)     Uniting together, farmers can regain the pricing power by directly negotiating with hatcheries, feed manufacturers and processing factories. When the cooperatives grow bigger, farmers can even set up their own hatchery to supply quality shrimp juveniles to its members. In the downstream, farmers can develop CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) to exchange with consumers directly without the extortion of the middlemen and processers.

2)     The cooperative makes decisions democratically. The mode of operation, profit distribution, and administrations are based on democratic consensus of all cooperative members. “Two heads are better than one” – yet the key is to maintain the cooperative as an organization for all, not serving only a couple of big households.

3)     Cooperative members are encouraged to share farming technologies and consult others for advice in disease control. The co-op also encourages experiments on ecological aquaculture and polyculture that minimize inputs. If there are 100 ponds in the cooperative, ten can be used for fish-shrimp or shrimp-crab polyculture trials.

 

Soon two co-operatives were established in two villages with about ten household members each. The co-operative in one village were composed of young farmers at the age of 30s, while the co-op in the next village had mostly elderly farmers over 50 years old. At my suggestion, both co-ops agreed that their first business would be bulk purchase of shrimp feed.  We did a quick calculation. In summer 2013, farmers usually ordered shrimp feed from an agent who asked for 150 yuan for a bag of 20kg (1 US$=6 RMB). The cooperative could order from the feed mill directly to save RMB20 per bag (or RMB1 per kg). Given that the average size of a pond is 5 mu (1 mu about 667 m3) and yield per mu is 750kg, a pond can produce 3,750kg of shrimps (and save RMB3,750) per crop. If RMB3,750 is saved from each harvest, RMB7,500 can be saved for a year of two crops. RMB7,500 will be split evenly between the household and the cooperative. This means that the cooperative can establish a common fund both for expanding production and cushioning farmers’ loss from shrimp disease attack.

To help farmers better understand the operation of a cooperative, I took some members from each cooperative to Yongji, Shanxi to join a training workshop organized by an NGO that works on rural development. “Puhan Rural Community” was originally formed in 1998 as a cooperative that provided technology extension service to less than ten households. Now the Community has grown to incorporate 6,520 household members in 35 villagers, covering an area of 260 km2. There are 40 specialized cooperatives that offer a whole range of services for the production and marketing of wheat, cotton, peanuts, sweet potatoes, fruit trees, and farmed animals. The Community is reputed as a comprehensive community that integrates economic, cultural, and social functions in a democratic manner. In August 2013, we stayed in the Community for one week to learn how to run the different services of a cooperative, including administrative planning, member mobilization, agricultural science extension, input supply & product sales, financial management, and even social service provision, including elderly care and women empowerment. The Community’s recent plan is to promote organic agriculture by offering members standardized services in soil test, fertilizer use, pest control, seed selection, and sales. We have found that the secret of their success lies in their large team of community coordinators (fudaoyuan) that maintain a close relation with household members. Each month, a coordinator needs to visit a household at least once to learn their needs and assess the service provided. In the spirit of “from the masses, to the masses,” the Community seeks to serve the needs of members rather than profiting from them, a widespread problem that has dampened the potential for cooperatives to bring prosperity to poor farmers.

By now, the shrimp farming cooperatives that I helped establish have been running for over one year and members are delighted not only for the economic benefits, but more importantly, the spirit of solidarity that binds them together. The Wenner-Gren Engaged Anthropology Grant has inspired me to think about how anthropologists can apply our knowledge for social change as I move forward in my next ethnographic study on action research, rural co-operatives, and food sovereignty in China.

Next NYAS Lecture: Living in the Anthropocene

Join us in the Wenner-Gren Foundation offices on Monday, March 23rd at 7pm for the next installment of New York Academy of Science, Anthropology Section’s lecture series, when we welcome Dr. Sophia Perdikaris (Brooklyn College-City University of New York) presenting “Living in the Anthropocene: Long-Term Human Ecodynamics in Barbuda, West Indies,” with Dr. Pam Crabtree (New York University) serving as lecture discussant.

The island of Barbuda, on the outskirts of the Leeward Islands of the Caribbean, served in Colonial times as a provisioning island rather than a site of sugar cane agriculture. As a result, many archaeological sites on low-lying areas occupied by pre-Columbian populations have remained relatively undisturbed. Traditional archaeological studies in the Caribbean focus on pottery, stone tools and bones, all of which are frequently encountered on Barbuda, yet provide limited understanding of past people’s daily lives. Highly integrated archaeological projects using cross-disciplinary methodologies and techniques have been developed as an effective analysis model in mostly temperate latitudes, including Iceland, Greenland, the British Isles and Scandinavia, but they have rarely been applied in the Caribbean. For the last 4 years, cross-disciplinary teams combining archaeology and paleoecology have been working in Barbuda examining the people/environment interactions from peopling (ca. 6000 BCE) to modern day. Extensive research in Barbuda finds that Barbudans perceive environmental changes in less urgent ways than those found in western society. As sea levels rise and a new government pushes for economic development, many archaeological sites are threatened and some have already been destroyed.

This event will take place at the Wenner-Gren Foundation Building, 470 Park Avenue South, 8th Floor, New York (at 32nd Street). A dinner and wine reception (free to students) will precede the talk at 6pm, with the lecture beginning promptly at 7pm.

Interivew: Andrew Curley and The Changing Nature of Navajo Tribal Sovereignty in an Era of Climate Change

Monument Valley, near Curley's fieldsite in Arizona, USA.

Andrew Curley is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Development Sociology at Cornell University. In 2012 he received a Dissertation Fieldwork Grant to aid research on ‘The Changing Nature of Navajo Tribal Sovereignty in an Era of Climate Change,’ supervised by Dr. Wendy Wolford.

 

Briefly summarize the project that received Wenner-Gren funding.

The project I received funding for examined the attitudes of Navajo coal workers, environmentalists, and government officials about the future of the Navajo coal economy in this era of climate change. I entered the field site knowing that environmental regulation linked to process of climate change were on everyone’s minds, whether you supported coal or not. It was an inquiry to see what these attitudes suggest about the legacy and continued importance of the Navajo coal economy for the tribe and its people.

 

What initially drew you to this idea?

I initially became interested in the issue of coal in the Navajo Nation when I worked for a year as a research assistant at the Diné Policy Institute at Diné College in Tsaile, AZ. I had returned from a project I did in undergrad looking at fair trade labeling initiatives in Tanzania and Ghana and developed an appreciation at that time for how a single, exportable commodity like coffee, cocoa, or as I discovered in the case of the Navajo Nation–coal–could deeply embed itself into the politics and political system of a place. As I did work at a “policy” organization, which in actual fact was more of a hybrid between policy work, original research, and application of traditional concepts, I gained an appreciation for how prevalent coal was in the Navajo Nation. It was not that I wasn’t aware of the Navajo coal economy before this point. I was used to seeing draglines, hauling trucks, and most distinctly the monstrous power lines that crisscross across the reservation. It wasn’t a new fact so much as I gained a new appreciation for it when I stopped to consider the social movements who worked in many different ways to oppose coal development or propose alternative development projects in the place of coal. I think when I collaborated with my colleagues at the time on a report for the Speaker of the Navajo Nation Council about government reform, I tried to incorporate as much as I could the perspectives of members of environmental organizations who felt that the decisions of the Navajo tribal government didn’t reflect their thinking, their interest, or what they thought was the larger interest of the Navajo Nation.

Chapter House Meeting in Piñon, AZ

It was a first crude attempt to think about what some might call civil society within tribal politics. I liked Michael Feher’s term “nongovernmental politics” at the time to describe people and groups who want to affect politics but “not govern,” or not seek formal political office. Thinking through the way members of Navajo environmental groups thought about development and politics revealed a lot about tribal governance in a larger sense. It wasn’t only me but anthropologist Dana Powell who was thinking through these questions at the time. This was late 2007, early 2008 when we worked together on a project to highlight some of these voices. We had similar but different projects at the time and we found there was room for collaboration. I left the Diné Policy Institute and went to graduate school in a sociology program to figure out a way to explain the persistence of the Navajo coal economy that I felt was not well understood or described at the time. I didn’t know what was missing but I felt that dialectical accounts of pro-coal development or anti-coal development missed some larger, structural condition. Again, reflecting on the research in fair trade, the particular commodity like “coffee” and the particular “crisis,” such as the “coffee crisis,” tells us very little about the people and places we often gloss over in description. This is the advantage of ethnography, the kind of research Wenner-Gren funds, it gets to the relational meaning of people, places and their politics (both formal and informal). I don’t think I could get the kind of perspective on coal I did without an embedded approach.

 

What preconceptions did you bring about coal to the field, and how did your work alter those views?

A preconception I had going in was that coal workers and large energy interests had the same agenda. It was kind of a silly assumption in retrospect. Anyone who thought about class conflict would have thought differently. But I don’t think there has been enough attention on questions of class and class stratification in reservation communities and this is in part a consequence of thinking of Native people as a homogenous group. In fact all political actors involved in questions of coal and development in the Navajo Nation will at one point or another try to speak on behalf of all Navajos, especially when talking about traditional understandings of things. But as I’ve learned through my research and the research of others, “tradition” is not simply contextual it is also actively political. It responds to the political questions at the time.

Another preconception I had was the idea of the environment and how Navajo people thought about the land and their resources. It’s not to say that I was totally mistaken on this. But I didn’t know to the extent that understanding of the land, water, even coal is fixed to anthropocentric ideas of survival and livelihood. This is probably true of coal workers and environmentalists, but especially for Navajo people the issues of nature and the environment and how to best appreciate these are linked to appeal to long-term survival. This is not always the case and in some instances a new ethic related to appreciating human impact on other species and larger environmental process, like the cycles of the planet impacted by climate change, has emerged.

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) at a meeting with the Navajo Nation and Hopi governments in Tuba City to persuade both tribes to settle their water claims with Arizona.

Perhaps the largest surprise was the overwhelming question of water. In fact I approached the topic of coal and development largely unaware about how water looms large over it. But as I dug into the history and witnessed the popular rejection of a proposed water settlement between the Navajo Nation and the State of Arizona I realized that water is directly tied to coal. This also is not new. And in the case of the former Black Mesa Mine we know that the use of pristine aquifer water for over thirty years to slurry coal was a major motivation for many to challenge the industry. But this is not the water that looms large over coal, it’s the water of the Colorado River that does. So to put it more accurately, water doesn’t serve coal, coal serves water.  I went to the field with a limited scope of the meanings of coal and development in the Navajo Nation. But digging into the history and immediate politics of the question, the need to power water from the Colorado River to central Arizona bore the most impact on the region and on the Navajo Nation. A professor in my department Phil McMichael coined a phrase “incorporated comparison” to think about how the development of one place impacts another. In this case, paraphrasing him and others who have used this method, you can’t understand the Navajo Nation today and its reliance on coal as a large source of jobs and revenue without knowing the history of the Central Arizona Project and efforts to bring water to Phoenix. They are integrally linked. I only realized this during my research.

 

Could you explain the Navajo concept of t’áá hwó ají t’éego and its relevance to coal? How did you first encounter it in the field?

There’s a lot to say about the meaning of t’áá hwó ají t’éego and although I’m Navajo, because I don’t speak the language fluently, I’ve had to rely on the way others have described its meaning to get a sense of what it means and importantly how it’s used to mean what it means.  In fact in this sense I think not speaking Navajo fluently was an advantage because it has forced me to stop and ask many different people coming from different backgrounds their understanding of the phrase in order to put it into use in my analysis. If I were a fluent speaker I might just give you my meaning of it and not represent its variegated meaning, which I am trying to do in the process of writing my dissertation right now actually. In short, it means, “Do it yourself,” or you are responsible for accomplishing what you want and or need to get done. It’s a historical concept with contemporary meaning. I argue that it’s rooted in subsistence logic, when Navajo people lived under harsher conditions and had to provide for family and ourselves with the resources around us. It’s important to remember that the climate and landscape for the reservation varies from place to place, so Navajo people had to be resourceful and adaptive. We also developed much of this resourcefulness while surrounded by enemies, from Spanish colonialists to today’s border town communities like Farmington and Flagstaff. The concept is rooted in this history of self-sufficiency and survival and continues to carry these meanings. It’s just understood to work in different circumstances today. For many Navajo coal workers, survival and self-sufficiency is working on a dragline, or driving a truck used for hauling, or working as an electrician at the mine. We might disagree with the work for environmental reasons, but we have to respect the work as meaningful for those who participate in it. They see it as providing for the family, paying for their children’s education, or helping out relatives who don’t have work in live under hardship.

coal worker rally outside of the Navajo Nation Council chambers.

I encountered the phrase interviewing a coal worker who used it to describe his motivation for work. It wasn’t something scripted and fed to me, it came out almost accidentally as he pleaded for me to understand why this work was important for him and others at the mine. He only used the phrase once and it was used in service to a longer, more detailed explanation as to why coal work was important to him. It was almost like happenstance, he just blurted out “like our grand parents told us, t’áá hwó ají t’éego or you have to do it yourself,” paraphrasing here, but this is the gist of what he said.

 

What were some challenges or difficulties that arose during the course of fieldwork? How did you adapt?

I think the greatest challenge was getting anyone to trust me. It was a politically sensitive project. I have family who participate in politics and take certain stances on issues. At times I agree with them. I think some didn’t know if I would disagree with them on how they thought about the issue, or if I would use the material in a way to discredit their work. I could understand their concern even if it frustrated me at times. There are people who write about this same topic and who clearly take a position that supports one group’s arguments over the other’s. I don’t want to insinuate that research should be apolitical or anything like that. But it did cause me difficulty throughout the project. Especially when I moved to Kayenta, Arizona—perhaps the Navajo community most in support of continued coalmining in the reservation. There I was outsider. I didn’t have family or really know anyone from there. When I asked questions publicly like, “should the Navajo Nation extend the lease of the Navajo Generating Station,” the main power plant that purchased Navajo coal and was negotiating a lease extension with that Navajo Nation at the time, some interpreted this question as threatening. I had one coal worker refuse to fill out the survey. But he told me he was a member of the union and took a copy of my survey with him that he said he would show to company officials. Another informant told me that a non-Native reporter from the State of Washington visited the town the year before I arrived, did they same kind of interviewing, but wrote a largely critical piece on the Navajo coal economy that he interpreted as a betrayal of sorts. Now, how do you manage a situation like that?

protestors at McCain's meeting with Navajo and Hopi authorities.

You ask people to spare their time and let you know how they think about issues related to coalmining, a politically divisive issue. But you are expected to write something positive or lose their trust. I told them what my study was about and tried to say that it wasn’t a simply pro-coal or anti-coal report. It was to understand the complexity of the question and the issue. On the other hand, I don’t think members of the Navajo environmental community trusted my research completely because I based a substantial amount of it talking to coal workers. To put it simply, each side’s face scowled when I told them I was interviewing people on the other side of the issue. Now, someone who has a lot of experience in journalism in the area told me, in the context of newswriting, that angering opposite sides of an issue for different reasons doesn’t mean that you got the right story. I think there is some truth to this for sure. On the other hand I think it’s inevitable that people won’t like a story that doesn’t conform to frameworks they have long established and put into practice. So if my point is to move out of these frameworks, I think it’s hard not to write anything that wouldn’t be satisfying for the informants. This is probably the single longest shadow that hangs over anthropology, writing about people in a way that they don’t agree with. At first it was done brazenly, but now much more sensitively and subtlety, but maybe it’s still not right. Perhaps the concerns my informants had about my project were concerns that can be directed at most ethnographers (or journalists for that matter).

I tried to overcome it through honesty and openness. This is what “science” requires: transparency, logic and rigor to methods, but probably most importantly honesty and openness to new approaches and understandings of the situation. I had to get permission from community members who participated in the local chapter house to do my research. I had to tell them what my project was about. I had to tell my informants how they controlled the data they were about to provide.  As I listen to the audio recordings now I can hear how people wanted me to skip over it and just get into asking them questions. But it’s important to let them know the difference between a research project like the one I conducted and other kinds of interview they might give. We will see how well I did when I finish the dissertation. I plan to go back to Arizona and present my findings to members of the community. I am sure at that time people will both agree with me on some points but also disagree with me on others. I am looking forward to getting this feedback.

 

What’s next for this project? How could you see it expanding or continuing?

I would like to further develop this concept and relate it to some economic anthropology and economic surveys done in the region. That would be the immediate follow up to the project. It would be cool if I could do something with Navajo students in the region. I would like to help develop research in these communities. Obviously I think I would work in the Navajo Nation, but it might be illustrative of these issues to do similar projects in other reservations. The tension between minerals, development, the environment, and livelihood exists in many different tribal reservations. It speaks to the particular legal predicament tribes face within ongoing settler-colonialism that is largely indifferent to indigenous concerns. To build capacity we need to know and solve our own problems. We also need to renew internal intellectual interest in these issues. I think the tribal colleges are a good starting point. Regional universities could do more to connect Native students with research in their communities. I have to first finish this analysis and figure out what might be the best follow up steps to it.

Engaged Anthropology Grant: Maureen E. Marshall

Marshall shows participants an example of osteoarthritis of the elbow, Tsaghkahovit

Maureen E. Marshall received her Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Chicago. In 2010 she received a Dissertation Fieldwork Grant to aid research on ‘Political Subjects: Movement, Mobility, and Emplacement in Late Bronze Age (1500-1250 BC) Societies in Armenia,’ supervised by Dr. Adam Thomas Smith. Last year, she received the Engaged Anthropology Grant, which allowed her to make a return trip to Armenia in order to engage with the host community who supported her original research.

When I returned to Armenia this summer for the first time in several years, I was confident that I would meet two out of my three goals.  I had proposed a project titled, “Articulating Ancient Lives,” in which I would engage academic and public communities in Armenia through an academic presentation of the results of my research at the Institute for Archaeology and Ethnography, collaborating on co-authored articles with colleagues who contributed information to the original dissertation research project, and a public workshop in the town Tsaghkahovit. It was this last component of community engagement that worried me.

Despite my trepidation, the public talk turned out to be productive and engaging for both local residents and archaeologists.  Over the past 16 years, local residents from this community have been indispensable participants in archaeological investigations at the nearby site of Tsaghkahovit, a site in central Armenia’s Aragatsotn province that hosted substantial human occupation in the Late Bronze and Late Iron ages (ca. 1500-1150 BC and 640-350 BC).With the organizational assistance of the mayor of Tsaghkahovit and the assistance of an Armenian translator, the public event was held in the community center at the Tsaghkahovit on July 25th, 2014. I was joined by two other members of Project ArAGATS, Dr. Lori Khatchadourian and Dr. Ian Lindsay, who also discussed the findings of their research at Tsaghkahovit. My goals were to share what we have learned about the ancient Late Bronze Age (LBA) community that once occupied their neighborhoods and in doing so to connect the past and present for community members by comparing their own experiences to the diets, diseases, and violence that people lived through in the past.  With this goal in mind, I decided to conduct a “hands on” learning experience by showing examples of arthritis, healed broken bones, cavities etc. on an individual excavated from the Late Bronze Age Tsaghkahovit cemetery.  Given the possible sensitivity to human remains, I was unsure how participants would react.  Yet, as soon as I started unpacking the bones and laying them out in anatomical position people walked up to the table and examined what I was doing.  It wasn’t long before the table was completely surrounded by young students asking questions and taking photos of each skeletal feature that I pointed out and avidly asking questions about everything from pathologies to determining the sex of a skeleton to preservation. In the formal presentation, I briefly discussed the human skeleton, bone chemistry, and what we can learn about societies from ancient human remains. While people related to the topics of dental disease and aging, how the individual was interred and traumatic injuries generated the most interest and prompted a discussion of how we might distinguish injuries sustained in an activity like boxing from those related to warfare or raiding. The workshop not only met, but exceeded my expectations, opening up a dialogue with the students about how they could get involved in our archaeological projects, while giving a teacher the opportunity to relate his own experience discouraging students from digging into the tombs themselves. The public forum thus gave community members a chance to communicate to the archaeologists some of their own feelings and interests in the ancient sites that neighbor their homes. We hope to build on this model with public outreach activities such as a community day and continuing discussions of how our research can contribute to local development and archaeological tourism.

the presentation at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in Yerevan

The second part of the project consisted of an academic presentation coordinated by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography (IAE) in Yerevan and the American Research Institute of the South Caucasus (ARISC) on July 29th, 2014 at the IAE. I presented the results of my Wenner Gren funded project on the biogeochemical analysis of human remains from Late Bronze Age and Iron I Period tombs excavated in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Shirak Plain, and Sevan Basin in Armenia. The results of these analyses were used to reconstruct diet, specifically to distinguish types of plants (C3 versus C4 photosynthetic pathway) and animals (terrestrial versus marine) consumed, sources of the energy and protein portions of the diet, and tendencies toward herbivore or carnivore diets. In addition, movement was assessed based on the analysis of δ18O and 87Sr/86Sr. In the presentation I gave examples of how I have combined this information on movement and diet was combined with other osteological analyses such as disease, age, and sex to build rich biographies of individuals living in the LBA. While the issues of diet and mobility are central to LBA archaeology, the majority of comments that I received from the audience had to do with the potential of the bioarchaeological approach and biogeochemical analysis in the archaeology of Armenia.  The director of the Institute pointed out that this type of research on human remains had never been conducted in Armenia before and that he hoped not only that such research would continue but also stressed the need for Armenian students to learn from bioarchaeologists such as myself.

Through this combined engagement with both academic and public communities in Armenia, I was able to share the results of the first biogeochemical archaeological research in Armenia with the people who made the first stages of research possible and foster international collaborative relationships.  By demonstrating what can be learned about how people lived in the past from the bioarchaeological approach, I believe that an important first step was taken in creating an engaged community who is informed about and interested in human remains and their role in anthropological research.