Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Maffi Linguistic Cultural Biological Diversity PDF
Maffi Linguistic Cultural Biological Diversity PDF
Linguistic, Cultural,
and Biological Diversity
Luisa Maffi
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
599
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
600 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
would say ecosystems or ecological niches) long been in the making. Recent interest in
of the North American continent, finding the links between language and the environ-
significant geographical correlations between ment has arisen in part from the work carried
the two (Kroeber 1963). Whereas several of out over the past few decades by ethnobiolo-
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Kroeber’s students (including Julian Steward) gists and ethnoecologists studying indigenous
later developed a focus on cultural ecology, knowledge and use of local flora, fauna, and
Kroeber’s specific approach in this classic ecosystems, as well as by researchers inter-
work did not directly result in an established ested in indigenous place naming. In part, this
research tradition on the links of cultures interest also stems from research in linguistics
(and/or languages) and biogeography. Rather, on the notion of “linguistic ecologies,” seen as
the idea of such correlations tended to be un- networks of human relationships that encom-
popular among scholars, as it was also before pass not only the linguistic and social envi-
Kroeber’s work, because it evoked romantic ronment, but also the physical environment,
nationalist theories of geographic and biolog- as interrelated parts of a whole (Mühlhäusler
ical determinism. 1996). Investigation of these topics has led to
This unpopularity is somewhat of a para- increasing recognition of the value of the eco-
dox in light of Kroeber’s conviction that this logical knowledge and practices of indigenous
area of inquiry offered a special opportunity and other local peoples, and of the significant
for “a modern, nonsimplistic environmental extent to which such knowledge and prac-
study which would almost certainly stimu- tices are developed, encoded, and transmitted
late analogous research elsewhere” (Kroeber through language.
1928, quoted in Heizer 1963) and that his More specifically, a focus on the relation-
work in no way represented “a relapse to- ships between linguistic, cultural, and biologi-
ward the old environmentalism which be- cal diversity, their global overlapping distribu-
lieved it could find the causes of culture in tions, and the common threats they are facing
environment” (Kroeber 1963, p. 1). Kroeber emerged in the mid-1990s in the wake of an
made it clear that “[w]hile it is true that cul- alarming and thought-provoking observation:
tures are rooted in nature, and can therefore that the ongoing worldwide loss of biodiver-
never be completely understood except with sity is paralleled by and seems interrelated
reference to that piece of nature in which to the “extinction crisis” affecting linguistic
they occur,. . .[t]he immediate causes of cul- and cultural diversity (Krauss 1992; Harmon
tural phenomena are other cultural phenom- 1996, 2002; Nabhan 1997; Posey 1999; Maffi
ena. . . .[T]his does not prevent the recogni- 2001c).
tion of relations between nature and culture, In the early 1990s, linguists started call-
nor the importance of these relations to the ing attention to a worrisome trend that was
endeavors undertaken by biologists to stem 1996 with the specific purpose to promote
this loss (Krauss 1992). knowledge and protection of biocultural di-
This clarion call did not go unnoticed by versity through research, education, policy
nonlinguists, soon reaching a small but active development, and on-the-ground action.
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
contingent of social scientists and conserva- As a result of the confluence of these and
tionists who had independently been point- other related endeavors, a multifaceted field
ing to the links between and the common of inquiry on linguistic, cultural, and biolog-
threats to cultural and biological diversity ical diversity, with both a theoretical and an
(Dasmann 1991, Harmon 1992, Nietschmann applied side, has begun to develop—an inter-
1992, Clay 1993, Durning 1993; see also the esting case of a new domain of interlinked in-
Declaration of Belém issued in 1988 by the vestigation and practice arising from a per-
International Society of Ethnobiology, which ceived urgent need in the real world, similar
affirmed the existence of an “inextricable link” to the prior development of conservation bi-
between cultural and biological diversity). It ology in response to the biodiversity extinc-
was increasingly apparent that the variety of tion crisis. At this point, a picture of language-
cultural knowledges, beliefs, and practices de- environment interrelations is taking shape at
veloped by human societies, as well as the lan- various degrees of resolution, from a global
guages that embody them, are being placed at to a local scale. The following sections re-
risk by the socioeconomic and political pro- view some of the key aspects of this emerging
cesses threatening the integrity and the very picture through the recent literature. First,
survival of indigenous and local cultures and though, it may be useful to touch on some of
of the environments in which they live—and the philosophical and ethical underpinnings
that this massive and rapid change has pro- of this new field, as they have been explored
found implications for the maintenance of life in some of this literature.
on earth. It became clear that an interdisci-
plinary effort was needed to bring together
these different threads and begin to portray an PHILOSOPHICAL AND
integrated picture of the state of the diversity ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS
of life in all its forms—biological, cultural, and Harmon has offered the as yet most thorough
linguistic—the pressures it is undergoing, and and thoughtful approach to the philosophi-
the possible actions to ensure its perpetuation cal and ethical foundations for the field of
(Harmon 1995, 1996; Krauss 1996). biocultural diversity. In his work, he has pro-
Among the events that catalyzed such vided the first comprehensive review of the
an interdisciplinary effort was the interna- state of linguistic diversity and the geographi-
tional working conference “Endangered Lan- cal overlaps between linguistic and biological
602 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
diversity pointing to the “converging extinc- best gained through a diversity of languages.”
tion crises” of these diversities (Harmon 1995, (And see Fishman 1982 for an early, mas-
1996; see next section for details). With ap- terful treatment of this topic from a Whor-
Language richness:
propriate caveats, he takes linguistic diver- fian perspective.) Along similar lines, Krauss the total number of
sity to be a major indicator for cultural di- (1996) has proposed that global linguistic di- distinct languages
versity and the loss of “language richness” as versity as such constitutes an intellectual web found in a given
a proxy for the loss of “cultural richness.” On of life, or “logosphere,” that envelops the region or country or
worldwide, as a
this basis, he addresses a fundamental question planet and is as essential to human survival
measure of linguistic
(Harmon 2002): If the world’s diversity in na- as the biosphere—a concept of course remi- diversity
ture and culture is indeed rapidly diminishing, niscent of Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere”
Logosphere: the
why should we care? and of the classical notion of the Logos. symbolic planetary
His answer stems from an examination Further, from both a psychological and an web of the “logos,”
of philosophical, biological, psychological, ethical perspective, Harmon (2001, 2002) pin-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
or spoken word,
and linguistic literature from the Enlighten- points the enduring fallacy of equating unity represented by the
global network of
ment to the present. Through this excursus, with uniformity (which underlies all efforts to
human languages
he shows the interwoven (and possibly coe- promote homogenization, whether by nation-
volved) diversity in nature and culture to be states or by the forces of economic globaliza-
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
the “preeminent fact of existence,” the basic tion). Rather, he argues that the perception of
condition of life on earth. The continued de- diversity is the basic condition for the func-
crease of biocultural diversity, he concludes, tioning of human consciousness (through the
would “staunch the historical flow of being it- distilling of sameness from difference) so that
self, the evolutionary processes through which if consciousness is what defines us as humans,
the vitality of all life has come down to us then diversity makes us human. From this, he
through the ages” (Harmon 2002, p. xiii). derives a “moral imperative” to preserve di-
Others have similarly stressed the evolu- versity and to strive not for uniformity but for
tionary significance of diversity not only in unity in diversity.
nature but also in culture and language as Wollock (2001) reaches analogous conclu-
a way of “keeping options alive” for the fu- sions through a critique of Western linguistic
ture of humanity and the earth (Maffi 1998, science. He suggests that, if this scholarly tra-
2001a). Bernard (1992, p. 82) has suggested dition has largely been silent about linguis-
that “[l]inguistic diversity. . . is at least the tic diversity and has ignored or even denied
correlate of (though not the cause of) diver- any connection between language and the real
sity of adaptational ideas” and that therefore world, it is because it was born of the nomi-
“any reduction of language diversity dimin- nalist philosophical tradition that has taken
ishes the adaptational strength of our species hold in the history of Western thought. Nom-
because it lowers the pool of knowledge inalism treats all universal concepts (includ-
from which we can draw.” Mühlhäusler (1995, ing “nature” and “community”) as arbitrary
p. 160) has argued that convergence toward social constructs with no connection to the
majority cultural models increases the like- real world. Within this tradition, language
lihood that more and more people will en- itself is seen as an arbitrary system of signs
counter the same “cultural blind spots”— that bears little or no relation to the extralin-
undetected instances in which the prevailing guistic world (on this point, see also Pawley
cultural model fails to provide adequate so- 2001). Such a conception of language, Wol-
lutions to societal problems. Instead, he pro- lock argues, is by definition incapable of ad-
poses,”[i]t is by pooling the resources of many dressing the relationship between language
understandings that more reliable knowledge and the environment or with the ways in
can arise”; and “access to these perspectives is which language may orient the mind in
604 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
countries for biodiversity [as defined by guistic, and biological diversity, see also Hunn
IUCN—The World Conservation Union; 2001, Maffi 2001b, Smith 2001.)
McNeely et al. 1990] also figure among the In contrast, Mühlhäusler (1996) called at-
IUCN: The World
top 25 most linguistically diverse countries. tention to the fact that linguistic and cul- Conservation Union
His global cross-mapping of languages and tural distinctiveness can develop also in the
Sympatric
higher vertebrate species (see Maffi 1998 absence of mutual isolation: for example, linguistic boundary
for the earliest printed version of this map) among human groups belonging to the same formation: the
(Figure 1) brought out a remarkable over- broadly defined cultural area, or whose lan- development of
lap between linguistic and biological diver- guages are considered to be historically re- linguistic
distinctiveness
sity throughout the world, with the high- lated or to have undergone extensive mutual
between human
est concentration of bioculturally megadi- contact, and who occupy the same or contigu- communities in the
verse countries in Central and South Amer- ous ecological niches. Such circumstances— absence of
ica, central Africa, South and Southeast Asia, high concentrations of linguistically distinct
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
geographic
and the Pacific. Similar results emerged communities coexisting in the same areas and discontinuity
from a global comparison of languages and communicating through complex networks Lineage density:
flowering plant species. These correlations, of multilingualism—have occurred frequently the ratio of distinct
linguistic lineages to
Harmon argued, suggest that both biological throughout human history (Hill 1997) and
areas within a
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
and linguistic diversity in such countries are still do today in many parts of the world, continent or other
especially vulnerable to the effects of adverse the Pacific being a prime example. This phe- well-defined region
political, economic, and social processes and nomenon of “sympatric” linguistic boundary Spread zone:
policies. formation points to the role of sociocultural geographic area
Harmon (1996) also pointed to several factors, along with biogeographic factors, in characterized by
large-scale biogeographic factors that could the development of linguistic diversity. rapid spread of
languages or
account for these correlations because they Other research conducted by linguists and
language families
might comparably affect the development of anthropologists during the 1990s also sought and presenting low
both biological and linguistic diversity (such to correlate the global distribution of lin- genetic linguistic
as extensive land masses with a variety of ter- guistic diversity with both environmental and diversity
rains, climates, and ecosystems; island territo- social factors. Nichols (1990, 1992) devel-
ries, especially with internal geophysical bar- oped a theory of linguistic diversity in space
riers; or tropical climates, fostering higher and time in her work on linguistic typology.
numbers and densities of species). In addition, She identifies biogeographic factors similar to
he hypothesized a process of coevolution of Harmon’s, which affect the worldwide distri-
small human groups with their local ecosys- bution of lineage density. She lists features
tems, through which, over time, humans in- such as low latitude, coastlines, high rain-
teracted closely with the environment, mod- fall, and mountains among the factors posi-
ifying it as they adapted to it and developing tively correlated with high lineage diversity.
specialized knowledge of it, as well as special- To these, she adds historical and economic
ized ways of talking about it. Thus the local factors such as scale of economy—large-scale
languages, through which this knowledge was economies historically bring about both eco-
encoded and transmitted, would in turn have nomic and linguistic spread and thus lower di-
become molded by and specifically adapted versity. This, she shows, has been the case es-
to their socioecological environments. Along pecially in the Old World (Africa and Eurasia),
the same lines, Mühlhäusler (1995, p. 155) whereas early human colonization of the New
notes, “Life in a particular human environ- World and the Pacific brought about very
ment is dependent on people’s ability to talk high lineage density. On this basis, she distin-
about it.” (On the evolutionary dimensions of guishes spread zones, characterized by rapid
human-environment relationships and the is- spread of languages or language families and
sue of the possible coevolution of cultural, lin- with low genetic linguistic diversity, from
residual zones with high genetic diversity and generalizability of his otherwise significant
no appreciable spread of languages or lan- findings.]
guage families. Early work on the links between bio-
Residual zone:
geographic area In a study on density of human languages diversity and linguistic and cultural diver-
characterized by in North America, Mace & Pagel (1995) hy- sity soon attracted the attention of conser-
high genetic pothesized that group boundary formation in vation organizations and other international
linguistic diversity human societies may be an active process cor- agencies concerned with implementing the
and presenting no
related with competition over resources and mandate of sustainable development issued
appreciable spread of
languages or that this process in turn may lead to language by the Rio Summit of 1992, and particu-
language families diversification. On a smaller scale, Hill (1996) larly with the call for protection and pro-
Ecological risk: the reported comparable findings in a study of motion of the “innovations and practices of
level of risk that dialectal variation in Tohono O’odham (a indigenous and local communities embody-
Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Arizona, in ing traditional lifestyles relevant for the con-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
ecological factors
such as climate and the United States), where the differential servation and sustainable use of biological
rainfall pose for a
sociolinguistic characteristics of two dialect diversity” (Convention on Biological Diver-
population’s
subsistence communities of Tohono O’odham (a localist sity, Article 8j; CBD 1992). The United Na-
versus a distributed stance) correlate with the tions Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Or-
UNESCO: United
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Nations Educational, extent to which each community can make se- ganization (UNESCO), the United Nations
Scientific, and cure claims over vital resources such as water. Environment Program (UNEP), the World
Cultural On similar grounds, Nettle (1998, 1999) Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Society
Organization aimed to develop a theory of linguistic diver- for Conservation Biology, and IUCN all com-
UNEP: United sity and its global distribution by correlating missioned and published articles and studies
Nations this distribution with ecological and socioe- on biocultural diversity (Borrini-Feyerabend
Environment
conomic factors. He identified seasonal ver- et al. 2004, Harmon & Maffi 2002, Maffi
Program
sus nonseasonal climates, with the attendant 1998, Maffi et al. 1999, Oviedo et al. 2000,
WWF: World Wide
patterns of rainfall, as the key factors affecting Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), propelling this
Fund for Nature
the distribution of linguistic diversity world- work into the domain of policy.
Ecoregion:
wide. He subsumes these factors under the In particular, Oviedo et al. (2000) under-
relatively large land
or water unit concept of ecological risk. His data show that took the further development of Harmon’s
containing a set of areas with lower rainfall and shorter growing initial work on the global overlaps between
natural communities seasons, where people are at higher subsis- biological and cultural diversity through the
that share most of tence risk, tend to correlate with geograph- use of GIS. Again with due caveats, the distri-
their species,
ically more extended ethnolinguistic groups bution of the world’s languages (based on the
dynamics, and
environmental and fewer different languages, whereas areas GIS database elaborated by SIL International,
conditions with higher rainfall and longer or constant the makers of Ethnologue, the as yet most com-
growing seasons (such as in tropical and equa- plete catalog of the world’s languages; Grimes
torial regions) correlate with higher num- 2000) was taken as a convenient proxy for cul-
bers of smaller-scale ethnolinguistic groups tural diversity at large and plotted against the
and thus higher linguistic diversity. He at- distribution of the world’s ecoregions (as iden-
tributes this difference to the fact that in the tified by WWF), with special reference to the
former case people need to establish larger ∼200 ecoregions chosen by WWF as priori-
networks of exchange to mitigate their eco- ties for conservation, to determine the extent
logical risk, whereas in the latter case peo- to which cultural diversity abounds in those
ple can be more self-sufficient in their local- biodiversity-rich and threatened ecoregions.
ized ecological niches. [See Harmon (2002) A map of the global overlapping distributions
and Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon (2002) for of ecoregions and languages was produced for
some of the theoretical and methodological inclusion in the publication. An initial analy-
shortcomings of Nettle’s work that limit the sis of the results of this mapping showed that
606 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
the highest concentration of ethnolinguistic mote a more sustainable and equitable use
groups occurs in tropical forest ecosystems, of natural resources” (CEESP 2004). UN-
whereas lower densities are found in arctic and ESCO’s recent Universal Declaration on Cul-
CEESP: IUCN’s
desert environments (a finding that coincides tural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), although Commission on
with Nettle’s, reviewed above, and for which not recognizing an explicit link between cul- Environmental,
Oviedo et al. similarly provide an explanation tural and biological diversity, emphasizes cul- Economic, and
in terms of subsistence strategies). tural diversity as the “wellspring of creativity” Social Policy
The applied goal of this project was to pro- (Article 7) and affirms that “cultural diversity
mote an integrated biocultural approach to is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity
the conservation of WWF’s priority ecore- is for nature” (Article 1).
gions and of biodiversity at large, through The topic of global biocultural correla-
mutually beneficial partnerships with indige- tions has continued to stimulate both fur-
nous and traditional peoples living in those ther research and critiques in the academic
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
regions and the promotion of their land and environment as well, contributing to the de-
traditional resource rights and linguistic and velopment of theory, methodology, and data
cultural rights. At this level, the project drew sets for this field of study and to the refine-
some criticism from observers (e.g., McIntosh ment of research hypotheses and parameters.
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
2001) concerned that WWF’s shift from a lo- Apparently unaware of some of the previ-
cal to an ecoregional (thus often transnational) ous research on the same topic (particularly
scale in their conservation efforts may actu- Harmon’s), Sutherland, an ecologist, com-
ally purport a move away from the greater pares both the global distribution and the
accountability involved in community-based extinction risk of languages and species
conservation, particularly in regards to in- (Sutherland 2003), reaching conclusions that
digenous counterparts. (Concerns of this na- are largely in line with earlier findings and
ture are part of a larger ongoing debate about forecastings. In particular, by applying to
the goals and modus operandi of conservation both species and languages the internation-
organizations and the successes and failures ally agreed criteria for classifiying extinction
of the sustainable development paradigm; see risk in species, he finds that languages (as per
Chapin 2004, Maffi 2004 for reviews.) the Ethnologue catalog) are at far greater risk
At the same time, these critics saluted than are species (specifically birds and mam-
the key finding that emerged from this map- mals, which he chooses for comparison). His
ping exercise, that is, the strong correlations quantifications confirm the conjectures found
between biodiversity and cultural diversity, early on in the current literature on language
pointing out that this finding stresses the cen- endangerment (e.g., Krauss 1992). With some
tral role of indigenous peoples in the global discrepancies (perhaps due to different meth-
conservation initiative. The significance of ods of analysis), Sutherland also confirms a
this issue, and more generally of the role of number of biogeographic correlations in the
culture in conservation, has in fact continued distribution of languages and species, high di-
to work its way into conservation organiza- versity in both cases being positively associ-
tions, particularly IUCN, whose Commission ated in his data with area, low latitude, forest
on Environmental, Economic, and Social Pol- cover, and altitude, but not with rainfall. In his
icy (CEESP) now includes, among the pri- calculations, he also finds period since settle-
orities for its 2005–2008 mandate, the “im- ment to have little effect on language diversity.
proved understanding of the synergy between Because of the high visibility of its pub-
cultural diversity and biological diversity and lisher (the journal Nature), Sutherland (2003)
on how this may be harnessed and applied triggered several media stories, including a
towards shared values, tools, mechanisms and scathing essay by Berreby in the New York
processes that enhance conservation and pro- Times (Berreby 2003), in which the author
inveighed (mostly on ideological grounds) the random effect of historical factors, but re-
against the validity of species-languages com- flects both the length of population history in
parisons and of efforts to maintain or re- a given location and the constraints and po-
vitalize endangered languages. Several let- tential carrying capacity of the environment.
ters from the public later published by In this context, while calling for more studies
the Times vigorously countered Berreby’s of the behavioral and cultural factors leading
arguments. to boundary formation, they argue that “social
Collard & Foley (2002) follow the lines of boundary formation, which in turn reflects
earlier studies such as Mace & Pagel (1995) social behavior and interaction between resi-
and Nettle (1998) in exploring biogeograph- dential units, is responsive to environmental
ical correlates and possible determinants of and resource factors” (Collard & Foley 2002,
human cultural diversity. In this case, instead p. 379). Another significant point Collard &
of using languages as proxies for the world’s Foley make is that, although the distribution
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
cultures, they derive the distribution of cul- of cultural diversity shows clear global pat-
tural diversity from Atlas of World Cultures terns, analysis at higher resolution and smaller
(Price 1990). The article contains a concise scale also reveals significant differences from
but very useful discussion of some of the main region to region. This discrepancy between
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
caveats in the use of such global comparative global and sub-global patterns leads them to
databases on cultures, as well as of the no- call for smaller-scale analyses that will be more
tion of culture itself as an analytical unit— sensitive to the role of local, especially his-
caveats that mirror those about languages torical, factors in altering patterns of global
noted by other researchers (e.g., Harmon diversity.
1996, 2002; Oviedo et al. 2000). The authors This point is widely shared among re-
also point to historical factors (such as state searchers on biocultural diversity. Stepp et al.
expansion) that may have reduced cultural di- (2004) explicitly stress the need for developing
versity and masked the impact and visibility of studies on a regional scale that will allow in-
older ecological factors. They stress, though, vestigators to better identify the correlations
the importance of separating out the issue of and mutual influences and perhaps even dis-
“how easy it is to define any particular cultural cern causal factors in the development, main-
unit from the issue of whether such units ex- tenance, and loss of biocultural diversity. At
ist” (Collard & Foley 2002, p. 374) and con- the same time, these authors make a major
sider this unit as valid both temporally and contribution to the refinement of global bio-
spatially for their analytical purposes. On this cultural analyses by bringing greater sophisti-
basis, they map out the distribution of world cation to the use of GIS in such studies. Their
cultures according to latitude, which shows a work, still at a preliminary stage, marks a shift
pattern fully consistent with that of the distri- in the intended use of GIS: from employ-
bution of languages in earlier studies: Cultural ing this technology mostly as a demonstra-
diversity is higher in tropical areas and lower tion tool to illustrate the patterns of biolog-
at higher latitudes, in both the northern and ical and linguistic (and cultural) diversity, to
the southern hemisphere, and in both evo- using it for the in-depth exploration of factors
lutionarily “older” continents such as Africa that may correlate with observed patterns and
and “newer” ones such as the Americas, with of explanatory hypotheses about these pat-
Europe showing the lowest diversity, a likely terns. This research is also beginning to ex-
reflection of empire formation there. The au- pand the roster of data used to explore the
thors also find positive correlations of cul- links between biological and linguistic diver-
tural diversity with temperature and rainfall. sity (the latter again being taken as a proxy for
These findings suggest to them that the pat- cultural diversity, with data from Ethnologue).
tern of human cultural diversity is not simply One significant advance is the adoption of a
608 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
GIS database of global biodiversity (specifi- 2002a,b). All these data variously help focus
cally, vascular plant diversity) organized not attention on the theoretical and methodolog-
by countries or ecoregions as in previous stud- ical requirements and on the kinds of data and
Diversity zones:
ies but by diversity zones (standardized units integration thereof needed for in-depth stud- units of area (10,000
of area), which allows for comparable diver- ies at a subglobal level. Especially highlighted sq. km.) that
sity categories on a global scale (database de- is the need for historical perspective both categorize the
veloped by Wilhelm Barthlott and coworkers on processes of environmental change and world’s biodiversity
on the basis of the
at the University of Bonn). A GIS mapping of on human population movements and expan-
number of vascular
the two data sets shows a high geographical sions and other social, economic, and politi- plant species per unit
correlation between linguistic diversity and cal factors that may have affected the location
biodiversity, particularly in Mesoamerica, the and numbers of human populations and their
Andes, West Africa, the Himalayas, and South relationships with and effects on the environ-
Asia/Pacific (Figure 2). As in previous re- ment. The importance of a better understand-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
search, the observed correlation is strongest in ing of how environmental factors may sim-
the tropics. Another significant pattern noted ilarly or differentially affect cultural groups
by Stepp et al. is a correlation between low and species, as well as issues of scale and de-
population density and high biocultural di- gree of resolution of the analyses, is also in the
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
interaction and of higher levels of diversity of itor the state of the natural world. Harmon
linguistic and cultural traits.] set out to identify indicators that might al-
Manne also compares degrees of threat for low for gauging the state of cultural diver-
IBCD: Index of
Biocultural Diversity species and languages, adapting to languages, sity in relation to the state of biodiversity,
as did Sutherland, the internationally recog- and thus for determining whether cultural di-
nized threat categories for species. Her find- versity is indeed diminishing and whether it
ing here is that even at a coarse scale the dis- is diminishing in tandem with biodiversity.
tributions of threatened languages and species He proposed a number of potential indica-
do not tend to coincide in Central and South tors: from language, ethnicity, and religion to
America. She points to some possible histor- diet, crops, land management practices, med-
ical as well as data availability factors that ical practices, social organization, and forms
might account for this finding, but from both of artistic expression.
this result and her data on distribution of lan- In later work, Harmon’s choice of cultural
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
guage and species richness she concludes that indicators has focused on the first three
“we should not generally expect spatial con- indicators listed above owing to the ready
gruence in distribution of richness or of en- availability of global data sets on languages
dangerment between biological and cultural (Grimes 2000) and ethnicity and religion
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
diversity” (Manne 2003, p. 526). Interestingly, (Barrett et al. 2001). In a collaborative effort,
a global map of threatened ecosystems and Harmon and Loh have developed a frame-
languages (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), al- work for an Index of Biocultural Diversity
though showing a similarly limited correla- (IBCD) (Harmon & Loh 2004, Loh &
tion in South America, presents a significant Harmon 2005), which is meant to measure
correlation in Mexico and Central America, the condition and trends in biocultural diver-
as well as parts of North America, Equato- sity on a country-to-country basis (the level at
rial Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific. This which the available data sets are organized) by
finding suggests that establishing the extent aggregating data on the three cultural indi-
to which Manne’s statement may indeed be cators with data on diversity of bird/mammal
generalizable to analyses at a subglobal level species and plant species as indicators for
depends on the future availability of a greater biodiversity (also selected on the basis of
number of such studies and on more standard- data availability). The IBCD features three
ized and therefore comparable methodologies components: a biocultural diversity richness
and data sets. component, which is the sheer aggregated
measure of a country’s richness in cultural
and biological diversity; an areal component,
MEASURING AND ASSESSING which adjusts the indicators for a country’s
BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY land area and thus measures biocultural
The issue of standardization and compara- diversity relative to the country’s physical
bility is also central to another aspect of the extent; and a population component, which
field of biocultural diversity, that is, work con- adjusts the indicators for a country’s human
cerned with the joint measurement and assess- population and thus measures biocultural
ment of the global conditions and trends of diversity in relation to a country’s population
biodiversity and cultural diversity. The ear- size. For each country, the overall IBCD
liest efforts in this connection go back to then aggregates the figures for these three
Harmon (1992) in the context of affirming components, yielding a global picture of the
the relevance of cultural diversity for pro- state of biocultural diversity in which three
tected area conservation. Indicators of biodi- areas emerge as core regions of exceptionally
versity were by then commonly used to mon- high biocultural diversity: the Amazon Basin,
610 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
Central Africa, and Indomalaysia/Melanesia. (2002), Zarger & Stepp (2004), Zent & Zent
This largely confirms the geographical corre- (2004), and others are contributing to the de-
lations found in other work reviewed above, velopment of quantitative methods for the in-
TEK: traditional
in which either languages or ethnicities were vestigation of the acquisition and transmis- ecological knowledge
used as proxies for cultural diversity. sion of ethnobotanical and ethnoecological
Harmon and Loh point to a number of lim- knowledge and for the identification of fac-
itations of the IBCD and caveats concerning tors (such as age, formal education, bilingual
its use, making it clear that this index, like ability, length of residency, change in subsis-
any index, should be used only to measure tence practice, etc.) that may affect the main-
general conditions and trends and should not tenance or loss of TEK. As more of these
be expected to provide an in-depth analysis studies become available, they will likely con-
of the phenomenon at hand, particularly as stitute an increasingly significant source of
concerns within-country variation in biocul- data for the elaboration of more refined in-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
tural diversity. They also point out that, in its dicators of the conditions and trends of cul-
current version, the IBCD only portrays the tural diversity in support of a better under-
state of biocultural diversity at the beginning standing of the state of biocultural diversity
of the twenty-first century, whereas data on and of the development of appropriate
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
612 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
ethics, and human rights. No doubt, at the plinary teams, and thus to the elaboration of a
present stage this field needs an opportu- new synthesis about the connections between
nity to better define its theoretical and philo- linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. A
sophical assumptions, its research questions, transdisciplinary approach should also make
its methodologies, and its overall goals. The research more sensitive to real world needs
increasing focus on the topic of biocultural and research findings more relevant for policy
diversity in academic settings promises to and other applications. Above all, a transdis-
bring to this field the benefit of scientific rigor ciplinary study of biocultural diversity should
and critical analysis. We can also hope that the contribute to our understanding that, as
adoption of biocultural diversity as a domain Harmon (2002) puts it, diversity in nature and
for academic inquiry will foster a transdisci- culture makes us human. In this resides the
plinary turn in academe, leading to greater hope that greater respect for and stewardship
communication and exchanges among disci- over our shared natural and cultural heritage
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Research relevant to the preparation of this article was conducted with support from two grants
awarded by The Christensen Fund to Terralingua (2003–2004, 2005). This support is gratefully
acknowledged. I am also grateful to Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Dave Harmon for their careful
reading of and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
LITERATURE CITED
Barrett DB, Kurian GT, Johnson TN. 2001. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey
of Churches and Religions in the Modern World. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
Bernard R. 1992. Preserving language diversity. Hum. Organ. 51:82–89
Berreby D. 2003. Fading species and dying tongues: when the two part ways. New York Times,
May 27, p. F-3
Blythe J, McKenna Brown R, eds. 2003. Maintaining the Links. Language, Identity and the
Land. Proc. Conf. Found. Endanger. Lang., 7th, Broome, Aust. Bath, UK: Found. Endanger.
Lang.
Boas F. 1911. The Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 1. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 40, Part
1. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Borrini Feyerabend G, MacDonald K, Maffi L, eds. 2004. History, Culture and Conservation.
Policy Matters 13:1–308 (Spec. issue)
CBD 1992. Approved by the contracting parties at the United Nations Conf. Environ. Dev. Rio de
Janeiro, 5 June. Available at http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp
CEESP. 2004. Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Mandate 2005–
2008. Gland, Switz.: IUCN—The World Conservation Union
Chapin M. 1992. The co-existence of indigenous peoples and environments in Central America.
Res. Explor. 8(2):map
Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Nov./Dec.:17–31
Clay JW. 1993. Looking back to go forward: predicting and preventing human rights violations.
In State of the Peoples: A Global Human Rights Report on Societies in Danger, ed. MS Miller,
pp. 64–71. Boston: Beacon
Collard IF, Foley RA. 2002. Latitudinal patterns and environmental determinants of recent
human cultural diversity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:371–
83
Language 68:1–42
Harmon D. 1992. Indicators of the world’s cultural diversity. Presented at World Congr. Natl.
Parks and Protected Areas, 4th, Caracas, Venezuela
Harmon D. 1995. The status of the world’s languages as reported in Ethnologue. Southwest J.
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Ling. 14:1–33
Harmon D. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and lin-
guistic diversity. Southwest J. Ling. 15:89–108
Harmon D. 2001. On the meaning and moral imperative of diversity. See Maffi 2001c, pp.
53–70
Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us
Human. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Harmon D, Loh J. 2004. The IBCD: a measure of the world’s biocultural diversity. See Borrini-
Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 271–80
Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract.
3(1):26–27
Heizer RF. 1963. Foreword. See Kroeber 1963, pp. v–ix
Hill JH. 1996. Languages of the land: toward an anthropological dialectology. Presented at
David Skomp Disting. Lect. Ser. Anthropol., Indiana Univ., Dept. Anthropol., 21 March
Hill JH. 1997. The meaning of linguistic diversity: knowable or unknowable? Anthropol. Newsl.
38(1):9–10
Hill JH. 2001. Dimensions of attrition in language death. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 175–89
Hunn ES. 2001. Prospects for the persistence of “endemic” cultural systems of traditional
environmental knowledge: a Zapotec example. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 118–32
Krauss M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68:4–10
Kroeber AL. 1928. Native culture of the Southwest. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol.
23:375–98
Kroeber AL. 1963 [1939]. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press (originally published in Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. Vol. 38)
Lizarralde M. 2001. Biodiversity and loss of indigenous languages and knowledge in South
America. See Maffi 2001a, pp. 265–81
Loh J, Harmon D. 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5(3):231–41
Mace R, Pagel M. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in North
America. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:117–21
Maffi L. 1998. Language: a resource for nature. Nature Resour. UNESCO J. Environ. Nat. Resour.
Res. 34(4):12–21
614 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
Maffi L. 2001a. Language, knowledge, and indigenous heritage rights. See Maffi 2001c, pp.
412–32
Maffi L. 2001b. Linking language and environment: a co-evolutionary perspective. In New Di-
rections in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, ed. CL Crumley, pp. 24–48. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira
Maffi L, ed. 2001c. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Maffi L. 2004. Conservation and the “two cultures”: bridging the gap. See Borrini-Feyerabend
et al. 2004, pp. 256–66
Maffi L, Skutnabb-Kangas T, Andrianarivo J. 1999. Linguistic diversity. See Posey 1999, pp.
21–57
Manne LL. 2003. Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and threatened levels of biological
diversity. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:517–27
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
Martin L. 1986. “Eskimo words for snow”: a case study in the genesis and decay of an anthro-
pological example. Am. Anthropol. 88:418–23
McIntosh IS. 2001. Plan A and plan B partnerships for cultural survival. Cult. Surv. Q. 1(2):4–6
McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeyer RA, Werner TB. 1990. Conserving the World’s
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Biological Diversity. Gland, Switz./Washington, DC: IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, The
World Bank
Moore JL, Manne L, Brooks T, Burgess ND, Davies R, et al. 2002. The distribution of cultural
and biological diversity in Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1645–53
Mufwene SS. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mühlhäusler P. 1995. The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. In The Politics
of Multiculturalism in the Asia/Pacific, ed. D Myers, pp. 154–61. Darwin, Aust.: North.
Territory Univ. Press
Mühlhäusler P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific
Rim. London: Routledge
Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Habitat. Washington, DC: Counterpoint
Nabhan GP, Joe T, Maffi L, Pynes P, Seibert D, et al. 2002a. Safeguarding the Uniqueness of
the Colorado Plateau: An Ecoregional Assessment of Biocultural Diversity. Flagstaff, AZ: Cent.
Sustainable Environ., Terralingua, Grand Canyon Wildlands Counc.
Nabhan GP, Pynes P, Joe T. 2002b. Safeguarding species, languages, and cultures in the time
of diversity loss: from the Colorado Plateau to global hotspots. Ann. Mo. Bot. Garden
89:164–75
Nettle D. 1996. Language diversity in West Africa: an ecological approach. J. Anthropol. Ar-
chaeol. 15:403–38
Nettle D. 1998. Explaining global patterns of linguistic diversity. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 17:354–
74
Nettle D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Nettle D, Romaine S. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Nichols J. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language
66:475–521
Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
Nietschmann BQ. 1992. The interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. Occas. Pap.
21, Cent. World Indig. Stud., Olympia, WA
Oviedo G, Maffi L, Larsen PB. 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecore-
gion Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural
Diversity. Gland, Switz.: WWF-Int., Terralingua
Pawley A. 2001. Some problems of describing linguistic and ecological knowledge. See Maffi
2001c, pp. 228–47
Posey DA, ed. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London/Nairobi: Intermed.
Technol. Publ., UNEP
Posey DA. 2001. Biological and cultural diversity: the inextricable, linked by language and
politics. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 379–96
Price D. 1990. Atlas of World Cultures. London: Sage
Pullum GK. 1989. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Nat. Lang. Ling. Theory 7:275–81
Robins RH, Uhlenbeck EM, eds. 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford: Berg
Ross N. 2002. Cognitive aspects of intergenerational change: mental models, cultural change,
and environmental behavior among the Lacandon Maya of southern Mexico. Hum. Organ.
61:125–38
Sapir E. 1912. Language and environment. Am. Anthropol. 14:226–42
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
Schleicher A. 1863. Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Boehlau H.
Skutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education—Or Worldwide Diversity and Human
Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Skutnabb-Kangas T, Harmon D. 2002. Review of Daniel Nettle, “Linguistic Diversity.” Lang.
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Policy 1:175–82
Skutnabb-Kangas T, Maffi L, Harmon D. 2003. Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s
Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity and companion map The World’s Biocultural
Diversity: People, Languages, and Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO
Smith EA. 2001. On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. See Maffi
2001c, pp. 95–117
Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. 2000. Transdisciplinarity: ReCreating Integrated Knowledge. Oxford:
EOLLS
Stepp JR, Cervone S, Castaneda H, Lasseter A, Stocks G, et al. 2004. Development of a GIS
for global biocultural diversity. See Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 267–70
Suckling K. 2000. A house on fire: linking the biological and linguistic diversity crises. Anim.
Law 6:193–202
Sutherland WJ. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species.
Nature 423:276–79
Toledo VM. 1994. Biodiversity and cultural diversity in Mexico. Differ. Drummer 1(3):16–19
Turner NJ, Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty N. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural
edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Hum. Ecol. 31:439–61
UNESCO. 2001. Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Approved by UNESCO’s Gen.
Conf., 31st Session, Paris. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271
/127160m.pdf
UNESCO. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Int. Expert Meet. UNESCO Intan-
gible Cult. Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert Group Endanger. Lang. Paris-Fontenoy,10–12
March. Document approved by the participants on 31 March 2003, available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file download.php/1a41d53cf46e10710298d31
4450b97dfLanguage+Vitality.doc
Whorf BL. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technol. Rev. (MIT) 42:229–31, 247–48
Wilcox BA, Duin KN. 1995. Indigenous cultural and biological diversity: overlapping values
of Latin American ecoregions. Cult. Surv. Q. 18(4):49–53
Wollock J. 2001. Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: some implications for the language
sciences. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 248–62
Zarger RK, Stepp JR. 2004. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children.
Curr. Anthropol. 45(3):413–18
616 Maffi
AR254-AN34-29 ARI 7 September 2005 21:35
www.annualreviews.org
•
Figure 1
World map showing overlap of endemism in languages and higher vertebrates. Original work by D. Harmon, based on Harmon 1996. First
published in Maffi 1998. Reproduced with permission.
C-2
HI-RES-AN34-29-Maffi.qxd
Maffi
9/8/05
5:31 PM
Page C-2
Figure 2
Plant diversity and language distribution. From Stepp et al. 2004. Used with permission.
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents
Frontispiece
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
Prefatory Chapter
by 142.173.101.138 on 10/09/05. For personal use only.
Archaeology
Biological Anthropology
vii
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29
Sociocultural Anthropology
viii Contents
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29
Contents ix
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29
x Contents
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29
Indexes
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:599-617. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
Errata
Contents xi