Position Paper for the Interdisciplinary Working Conference “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge, Endangered Environments.

University of California at Berkeley. ©1996 Luisa Maffi. All rights reserved.

This is an original work of authorship derived from the “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge, Endangered Environments Conference”, held in Berkeley, California, U.S.A., 25-27 October, 1996. First posted on the W.W.W. 1 November, 1996. Do not reproduce, cross-post or cite without first obtaining the permission of the author.

Aim and scope of the conference.

The working conference “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge, Endangered Environments” will be the first international joint meeting of linguists, anthropologists, ethnobiologists, cognitive psychologists, cultural geographers, economists, biologists, ecologists, natural resource conservationists and managers, and indigenous rights advocates to discuss the interrelated threats faced by the linguistic/cultural and biological diversity of the planet. The goal is to identify a common framework and to formulate integrated plans for systematic research, training, and action aimed at addressing urgent preservation and promotion needs in this biocultural sphere. A special focus will be on the role of traditional environmental knowledge — and of the languages in which it is encoded — in the continued viability of indigenous and minority groups, in the conservation of the world’s ecosystems, and in the maintenance of sustainable human-environment interactions.

Rationale and background for the conference.

In their respective fields, these various communities of researchers and advocates have called attention to the effects of rapidly occurring global processes of socioeconomic and ecological change on the very objects of their concerns: human cultural and linguistic groups and their traditional knowledge, biological species, and the world’s environments. An ever-growing body of literature on vanishing cultures; language endangerment, shift, and death; and biodiversity loss and environment destruction has been accumulating in recent years, attesting to the perceived gravity and urgency of such issues. Over several decades, ethnobiologists, human ecologists, and other social as well as biological scientists have been recording traditional peoples’ classification, knowledge and use of the natural world, their ecological concepts, and their resource management strategies, while also documenting the causes and consequences of local cultural and environmental disruption. Cognitive anthropologists and psychologists have devoted considerable attention to issues of human perception and categorization of natural kinds, biological learning and reasoning, environmental beliefs, and environmentally-relevant decision-making, as well as to the cognitive and social correlates of multilingualism and of orality vs. literacy. Political scientists and ecological economists have focused on the study of institutions and economic models from the point of view of their ecological sustainability.

This body of work clearly attests to a shared keen interest in the future of humanity and of life on earth. So does an abundance of related activities and structures such as specialized meetings, international conventions, large-scale research and training programs, international networks of research centers, professional societies’ initiatives and statements, advocacy groups, in addition to innumerable grassroots movements and local-level organizations. To cite only a recent few among many: the Linguistic Society of America’s initiation of a Committee on Endangered Languages and Their Preservation and institution of related sessions at its annual meetings (1991); its “Statement on Language Rights” (see LSA 1996); the Permanent International Committee of Linguists’ establishment of a U.N.E.S.C.O.-sponsored “Endangered Languages Project” (1992); three major meetings on endangered languages in 1995 (Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.J.; A.A.A.S. Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.); the creation of the International Society of Ethnobiology (1988) and its elaboration of a statement of mission (“Declaration of Belém”) aimed at the documentation, maintenance and promotion of traditional biological, ecological, and medical knowledge, and at the protection of indigenous human rights, including linguistic and cultural identity and resource rights; the development of an extensive international network of centers devoted to the documentation and application of indigenous ecological and agricultural knowledge (coordinated by the Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development [C.I.K.A.R.D.], founded at Iowa State University in 1987); the U.S.A.I.D./W.W.F./T.N.C./W.R.I.-sponsored Biodiversity Support Program (started in 1988); the U.N.E.S.C.O./W.W.F.-International/Kew Gardens-sponsored People and Plants Initiative on the Sustainable Use of Plant Resources (begun in 1992); the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (U.N.C.E.D., the “Earth Summit”, Rio de Janeiro, 1992), its establishment of the Convention on Biological Diversity and of the global action plan Agenda 21; the parallel N.G.O. “Earth Parliament” meeting; the formation of Systematics Agenda 2000, a consortium of international institutions devoted to biosystematics, with the stated mission of “charting the biosphere” (1994); the International Conference on Indigenous Peoples, Environment, and Development (Zurich, 1995); the ongoing Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity; and the recent initiation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Biodiversity Network, a world-wide association of indigenous peoples devoted to preserving biological diversity and to promoting awareness of the connections between biological and cultural diversity.

Such research and activities provide commanding evidence of the comparable magnitude and exponential increase of the threat faced by human linguistic and cultural diversity, on the one hand, and biological diversity, on the other. They also point to the complexity of human-environment relationships on earth, and suggest fundamental links between human languages and cultures, non-human species, and the earth’s ecosystems. In particular, evidence is emerging of remarkable overlaps between areas of greatest biological and greatest linguistic/cultural diversity around the world. These striking correlations require close examination and must be accounted for. Issues of human-environment coevolution may be involved, and if so, the foreseeable consequences of massive disruption of such long-standing interactions need to be addressed. From this perspective, linguistic and cultural diversity and the loss thereof — with its frequent corollary of loss of traditional ecological (and other) knowledge and practices — can be seen as an integral part of the overall ecological processes affecting biodiversity on earth.

Areas of biological megadiversity, such as the earth’s remaining rain forests, are both the most poorly known to science, and those in which biodiversity loss is most dramatic. These same areas host the world’s highest concentrations of linguistically and culturally diverse human groups, who have traditionally lived in close contact with their ecological niches. While there is a need for a systematic assessment of the circumstances of both positive and negative impacts of human activities on biodiversity and ecosystem health — in small-scale societies as well as with the rise of complex civilizations — there is a basic consensus that such peoples possess detailed and accurate knowledge of their environments, and that this knowledge represents an essential resource for efforts aiming at preserving biodiversity and promoting sustainability, both locally and globally. However, such knowledge is being rapidly lost as global socioeconomic factors disrupt traditional ways of life, causing poverty, population growth, and overexploitation of the environment by both local groups and outside forces. External pressures commonly promote tensions and conflicts over local peoples’ land rights and impinge on these peoples’ human rights (including linguistic, cultural, and resource rights). They also foster change in perceptions and attitudes on the part of local peoples, often leading to the disvaluing and abandonment of traditional knowledge and behaviors and of the languages that are the repositories and means of transmission of such knowledge. In whatever other ways biological and linguistic/cultural diversity may be related, their continued viability on earth is certainly being affected by the same global diversity-reducing, homogenizing phenomena.

In spite of the remarkable convergence among the various lines of thinking, research, and action that have been pursued on the threats faced by linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity, intercommunication across all of these intellectual communities has been lagging behind. Emerging evidence of the timeliness of this topic is found in a few recent initiatives, such as the meeting “Losing Species, Languages, and Stories: Linking Cultural and Environmental Change in the Binational Southwest” organized by Gary Nabhan (Tucson, AZ., April 1-3, 1996), and the creation of “Terralingua: Partnerships for Linguistic and Biological Diversity”, a nonprofit devoted to information and education on issues of linguistic diversity and its relationships with biodiversity. An increasingly sustained and broad-ranging exchange of information is now crucial among concerned scholars and advocates, and a common framework needs to be created to adequately meet these global challenges. The working conference “Endangered Languages, Endangered Knowledge, Endangered Environments” is intended to address this need. Selected representatives from the fields mentioned above will meet at the University of California at Berkeley for a three-day intensive workshop (25-27 October , 1996). The conference is funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation, U.C.B.’s Office for Research and College of Letters and Sciences, and the U.N.ES.C.O./W.W.F./Kew Gardens’ “People and Plants Initiative”. It is sponsored by U.C.B.’s Department of Integrative Biology and University Herbaria, as well as by Terralingua. Conference participants are among the major senior and junior experts in their respective domains, who have done work relevant to the issues in question in a variety of the areas of greatest linguistic/cultural and biological diversity — from the Americas to Oceania to Southeast Asia to Africa; several of them are natives of such areas. They will combine their intellectual resources to set forth common avenues for research, training, and action in this biocultural domain.

Topics to be discussed.

From the perspective outlined above, a series of broad interdisciplinary issues will be discussed at the conference. Among the questions to be addressed are the following:

  1. What solid evidence do we have of sustainable human-environment relationships among indigenous and minority groups around the world, and under what circumstances, currently and historically? What kinds of human activities, and in which institutional and economic settings, have resulted and result in the maintenance or disruption of such relationships?
  2. What role does the preservation or loss of traditional ecological knowledge have in the maintenance or disruption of such relationships?
  3. What role does language have in the acquisition, accumulation, maintenance, and transmission of this knowledge, and how does language loss affect these processes?
  4. What socioeconomic factors underlie processes of language/culture shift and changes in environmental knowledge and behavior?
  5. What are the cognitive underpinnings of attrition due to contact between different linguistic and cultural models, as well as different knowledge systems?
  6. How do these phenomena of change affect individual and societal choices and decision-making (with special reference to activities affecting the environment)?
  7. How can our understanding of these issues best inform systematic studies of ethnoecological knowledge change/loss as well as action aimed at biocultural diversity maintenance and promotion?
  8. How can this understanding best be made available to local communities as a tool for informed decision-making?
  9. How can it best be used to educate the general public on the global threats to linguistic and cultural diversity and their relationships to ecosystem endangerment?

(Additional questions that have been submitted for discussion by conference participants are found in the Appendix to this paper.)

A more general goal of the conference will be exploring a possible common theoretical framework for thinking of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. At this level, a suggestion for discussion is whether and how an evolutionary perspective may provide such a framework. The use of evolutionary theory to account for the emergence of human culture, as well as (more controversially) to correlate genetic trees of human populations with genetic trees of human languages, has been widespread in both anthropology and biology; so has the use of biological metaphors in linguistics. However, when the focus shifts toward understanding diversity as such, the more relevant questions have to do with the adaptive nature of variation in humans as well as other species, and with the role of culture and language as providers of diversity in humans (perhaps accounting for the lesser genetic diversity shown by Homo sapiens compared to the most closely related primates). Models of variation and selective retention, as applied to cultural evolution, then come to the fore. In this context, instead of taking for granted language/culture diversification as the consequence of human groups drifting apart in space and time, it becomes possible to focus specifically on that diversity and draw inferences from it, such as on population movements and human interactions in given bioregions. It also becomes possible to ask questions about diversity as such: questions about the possible adaptive functions of variation (biological or otherwise) in humans, and about the possible role of language and culture as providers of diversity in humans. It becomes possible to ask whether cultural and linguistic diversity and diversification share substantive (not merely metaphorical) characteristics with biological (including human) diversity and diversification — characteristics that ultimately are those of all life on earth. If this perspective is correct, then the question about the foreseeable consequences of the current rapid and drastic loss of linguistic and cultural diversity around the world can be asked not only in terms of ethics and social justice, or of maintaining the human heritage from the past. It can be asked also in the same evolutionary terms as questions about loss of biodiversity — that is, as a question about the future: as being related to the continuing viability of the human species in all of its variation. And issues of cultural and linguistic diversity preservation may be formulated in the same terms as for biodiversity: as a matter of “keeping options alive”.

Conference structure and dissemination of results.

Participants will ask what we know on these issues; what we need to know; how we may proceed to find out about what we need to know; and how this knowledge may be applied most fruitfully toward solving problems in biocultural diversity preservation. To foster fruitful interaction, a considerable amount of preparation was done prior to the conference to establish common ground among this interdisciplinary group of people. An initial set of presentations on the first day of the conference is meant to further accomplish this goal, by introducing some of the main issues and perspectives involved in each field and pointing to the emerging links. A series of case studies will be presented on the second day, while the third day will be devoted to a discussion of action strategies. The abstracts of all presentations were pre-circulated, along with the participants’ biographical sketches; participants were encouraged to interact with one another ahead of time based on presentation topics. A set of interdisciplinary background readings was compiled and distributed by the organizer. The conference will be geared toward debate, with ample question and discussion sessions. On the second day, work groups will be formed to elaborate recommendations for research, training, and action. A “white paper” will then be drafted jointly by these specialists, to be included in the publication that will result from the conference. Based on the experience derived from the conference, participants will also outline an interdisciplinary curriculum for later implementation in academic and other training contexts (of which curriculum the conference reader may become an element).

Conference presentations and discussions will be tape-recorded as a source of data for the later preparation of the resulting publication. The revised versions of the conference papers are meant to be published as an edited volume, preceded by an introduction written by the conference organizer, and followed by the text of the “white paper”. The volume is intended to reach a broad interdisciplinary readership of ethnobiologists, ecological anthropologists, cultural conservationists, linguists, biologists, ecologists, natural resource conservationists and managers, as well as native advocacy groups, N.G.O.s, international organizations, and policy-making bodies. Given the timeliness of the topic, all efforts will be made to publish the volume promptly. Initial contacts have been made with Island Press and Westview Press in view of submission of the volume. Further suggestions will be solicited from the participants. The “white paper” is also intended for publication as a separate document, to ensure its widest possible distribution, with a special focus on reaching the local level in countries around the world. An electronic version of the “white paper” will also be made available on the World Wide Web, at the site operated by Terralingua. Long-term information and education efforts along the lines of the conference’s theme will also be undertaken by Terralingua, according to its mission. In addition, conference participants will be encouraged to write reports of the event for the most widely distributed journals and professional newsletters in their respective disciplines, as well as for more popular publications. Finally, the broad geographic and institutional spread of conference participants is bound to ensure a far-reaching dissemination of the results.

It is also expected that this meeting will promote working relationships between the experts involved and others, as well as with students and other trainees, in both academic and non-academic settings — also thanks to the publications and training curriculum that will emerge from this event — thus spreading the conference’s perspective broadly. Above all, the conference will outline a common framework for dealing with some of the most urgent problems facing science and policy on the verge of the 21st. century: helping preserve biodiversity and maintain and develop the human wealth represented by indigenous languages and cultures and the environmental (and other) knowledge they embody, for the benefit of local linguistic/cultural communities, humanity at large, and the world’s ecosystems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Includes literature cited in the text as well as additional references provided by conference participants):

  • Adler, M.K. 1977. Welsh and the Other Dying Languages of Europe: a sociolinguistic study. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
  • Alatis, J.E. and J.J. Staczek 1985. Perspectives on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Alcorn, J.B. 1984. Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Alcorn, J.B. 1995. The scope and aims of ethnobotany in a developing world. In Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline, ed. by R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis. Pp. 23-39. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press.
  • Alcorn, J.B. 1996. Is biodiversity conserved by indigenous peoples? In Ethnobiology in Human Welfare, ed. by S.K. Jain. Pp. 234-238. New Delhi: Deep Publications.
  • Atran, S. 1985. The nature of folk-botanical life-forms. American Anthropologist 86: 298-315.
  • Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Atran, S. 1993. Itza Maya tropical agro-forestry. Current Anthropology 34:633-700.
  • Atran, S. 1994. Core domains versus scientific theories: Evidence from Itza Maya folkbiology and scientific systematics. In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by L. Hirschfeld and S. Gelman. Pp. 316-340. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Atran, S. 1995. Causal constraints on categories and categorical constraints on biological reasoning across cultures. In Sperber, Premack and Premack 1995. Pp. 205-233.
  • Atran, S. and D. Sperber 1990. Learning without teaching: Its place in culture. In Culture, Schooling and Psychological Development, ed. by L. Tolchinsky-Landsmann. Pp. 39-55. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Aumeeruddy, Y. 1994. Local Representations and Management of Agroforests on the Periphery of Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. People and Plants Working Paper no. 3, WWF/UNESCO/Kew Gardens People and Plants Initiative. Paris: UNESCO.
  • Balée, W. 1994. Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany-The Historical Ecology of Plant Utilization by an Amazonian People. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Balée, W. and D. Moore 1991. Similarity and variation in plant names in five Tupi-Guarani languages (eastern Amazonia). Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History and Biological Sciences 35: 209-262.
  • Barbier, E.B., J.C. Burgess, and C. Folke 1994. Paradise Lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan.
  • Barkow, J.H., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds.) 1992. The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Barnett, H. 1953. Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bateson, P. 1984. The biology of cooperation. New Society 31: 343-345.
  • Batibo, Herman 1992. The fate of ethnic languages in Tanzania. In Brenzinger 1992. Pp. 83-98.
  • Becker, C.D. and E. Ostrom 1995. Human ecology and resource sustainability: The importance of institutional diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 113-133.
  • Bellon, M. and S. Brush 1994. Keepers of maize in Chiapas. Economic Botany 48(2): 196-209.
  • Berlin, B. 1972. Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. Language in Society 1: 51-86.
  • Berlin, B. 1984. Contributions of Native American collectors to the ethnobotany of the neotropics. Advances in Economic Botany 1: 24-33.
  • Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Berlin, B. and E.A. Berlin 1983. Adaptation and ethnozoological classification: Theoretical implications of animal resources and diet of the Aguaruna and Huambisa. In Hames and Vickers 1983. Pp. 301-328.
  • Berlin, E.A. and B. Berlin 1996. Medical Ethnobiology of the Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico: The Gastrointestinal Diseases. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan Speaking Community in Highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press.
  • Berlin, B. et al. 1973. Lexical retention and cultural significance in Tzeltal-Tzotzil ethnobotany. In Meaning in Mayan Languages, ed. by M.S. Edmonson. Pp. 143-164. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Bernard, H.R. 1992. Preserving language diversity. Cultural Survival Quarterly 16(3): 15-18.
  • Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson (eds.) 1993. Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press.
  • Blount, B. and T. Gragson (submitted). Proceedings of the session “Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Resources and Rights”, 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 30 November-4 December 1994. Under consideration by Iowa University Press.
  • Bodley, J.H. (ed.) 1988. Tribal Peoples and Development Issues: A Global Overview. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
  • Bodley, J.H. 1990. Victims of Progress. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
  • Boom, B. M. 1989. Use of plant resources by the Chácobo. In Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies, ed. by D.A. Posey and W. Balée. Pp. 78-96. Advances in Economic Botany 7.
  • Boyd, R. and P.J. Richerson 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bray, D. and D. Irvine (eds.) 1993. Resource and Sanctuary: Indigenous People, Ancestral Rights, and the Forests of America. Cultural Survival Quarterly 17(1).
  • Brenzinger, M. (ed.) 1992. Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren, and O. Werner (eds.) 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
  • Brooks, D.R. and D.A. McLennan 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior: A Research Program in Comparative Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Brown, L.R. (ed.) 1991. The World Watch Reader on Global Environmental Issues. New York: Norton.
  • Brush, S. 1990. Crop development in centers of domestication: A case study of Andean potato agriculture. In Agroecology and Small Farm Development, ed. by M. Altieri and S. Hecht. Pp. 161-170. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  • Brush, S. 1991. A farmer-based approach to conserving crop germplasm. Economic Botany 45: 153-165.
  • Brush, S. 1993. Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist 95(3): 653-671.
  • Brush, S. et al. (in press). Potato diversity in the Andean center of crop domestication. Conservation Biology 9.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. 1967. Why is the cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands. Man (n.s.) 2(1): 5-25.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. 1970. Which came first first: The chicken or the egghead? In Echanges et Communications: Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi Strauss a l’ Occasion de Son 60ième Anniversaire, ed. by J. Pouillon and P. Miranda. Pp. 1069-1091. Paris: Mouton.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. 1974a. Folk biology in the New Guinea Highlands. Social Science Information 13: 9-28.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. 1974b. Memoirs of a small game hunter: On the track of unknown animal categories in New Guinea. Journal d’Agriculture Tropicale et de Botanique Appliquée 21(4-5-6): 79-100.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. 1982. Traditional conservation practices in Papua New Guinea. In Traditional Conservation in Papua New Guinea: Implications for Today, ed. by L. Morauta, J. Pernetta, and W. Heaney. Pp. 59-77. Bokoro, PNG: Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research.
  • Bulmer, R.N.H. and C. Healey 1993. Field methods in ethnozoology. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, ed. by N.M. Williams and G. Baines. Pp. 43-55. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.
  • Burger, J. 1987. Report from the Frontier: The State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. Atlantic Highlands: Zed Books.
  • Burger, J. et al. 1990. The Gaia Atlas of First Peoples. New York: Doubleday.
  • Bye, R. 1993. The role of humans in the diversification of plants in Mexico. In Biological Diversity of Mexico: Origins and Distribution, ed. by T.P. Ramamoorthy et al. Pp. 707-731. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Caballero, J. 1987. Etnobotánica y desarrollo: La búsqueda de nuevos recursos vegetales. In IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica: Simposio de Etnobotánica. Pp. 79-96. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior (ICFES).
  • Caballero, J. 1994. Use and Management of Sabal Palms Among the Maya of Yucatan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
  • Campbell, D.T. 1960. Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review 67(6): 380-400.
  • Campbell, D.T. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In Social Change in Developing Areas, ed. by H.R. Barringer,G.I. Blanksten, and R.W. Mack. Pp. 19-49. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.
  • Campbell, D.T. 1974. Evolutionary epistemology. In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, ed. by P.A. Schilpp. Pp. 413-463. Evanston, IL: Open Court Publishing.
  • Castilleja, G. et al. 1993. The Social Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation. Working Paper #1, Global Environment Facility, The World Bank.
  • Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1991. Genes, peoples, and languages. Scientific American 265 (5): 104-110.
  • Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and M. Feldman 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: a Quantitative Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Chafe, W. and D. Tannen 1987. The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 383-407.
  • Chaliand, G. (ed.) 1989. Minority Peoples in the Age of Nation-States. London: Pluto Press. Chapin, M. 1992. The co-existence of indigenous peoples and environments in Central America. Research and Exploration 8(2) [map].
  • Chernela, J. 1987. Endangered ideologies: Tukano fishing taboos. Cultural Survival Quarterly 11(2): 50-52.
  • Clay, J. 1988. Indigenous Peoples and Tropical Forests: Models of Land Use and Management from Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc.
  • Clay, J. 1990a. Indigenous peoples: The miner’s canary for the twentieth century. In Lessons of the Rainforest, ed. by S. Head and R. Heinzman. Pp. 106-117. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
  • Clay, J. 1990b. What’s a nation? Mother Jones 15(7): 28-30. Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas, and Biodiversity Conservation. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
  • Cole, M. and B. Means 1981. Comparative Studies of How People Think: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Cole, M. and S. Scribner 1974. Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. New York: Wiley.
  • Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universal and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Conklin, H.C. 1954. The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation thesis, Yale University.
  • Cooper, D. 1991. Genes for sustainable development: Overcoming the obstacles to a global agreement on conservation and sustainable use of biodeversity. In Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives, ed.by V. Shiva et al. Pp. 105-123. London/New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.
  • Corbett, G.G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cosmides, L., J. Tooby, and J.H. Barkow 1992. Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. In Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby 1992. Pp. 3-15.
  • Costanza, R., O Segura, and J. Marínez-Alier (eds.) 1996. Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Washington, D.C./Covelo, CA: Island Press.
  • Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.
  • Dasmann, R.F. 1991. The importance of cultural and biological diversity. In Oldfield and Alcorn 1991. Pp. 7-15.
  • Davis, Sh.H. 1977. Victims of the Miracle: Development and the Indians of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Davis, Sh.H. (ed.) 1993. Indigenous Views of Land and the Environment. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 188. Washington DC: The World Bank.
  • Dearden, Ph. 1995. Development and biocultural diversity in northern Thailand. Applied Geography 15(4): 325-340.
  • de Avila B., A. 1989. Herbs, flowers, quelites and woods: Mixtec plant nomenclature. Paper presented at the XII Annual Conference of the Society of Ethnobiology, University of California at Riverside.
  • de Avila B., A. and G.J. Martin 1990. Estudios etnobotánicos en Oaxaca. In Recursos naturales, técnicos, y cultura: Estudios y experiencia para el desarrollo alternativo, ed. by E. Leff et al. México, D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Humanidades, UNAM.
  • De Klemm, C. 1985. Culture and conservation: Some thoughts for the future. In Culture and Conservation, ed. by J. McNeely and D. Pitt. Pp. 239-58. London/Sydney: Croom Helm.
  • Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3): 369-385.
  • Denslow, J.S. and C. Padoch (eds.) 1988. People of the Tropical Rain Forest. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Diamond, J. 1987. The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover May 1987: 64-66.
  • Diamond, J. 1991. The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. New York: Harper & Collins.
  • Diamond, J. 1993. Speaking with a single tongue. Discover 14(2): 78-85.
  • Dorian, N. (ed.) 1989. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dorian, N. 1993. A response to Ladefoged’s other view of endangered languages. Language 69(3): 575-579.
  • Dougherty, J.W.D. 1978. Salience and relativity in classification. American Ethnologist 5: 66-80.
  • Dougherty, J.W.D. 1979. Learning names for plants and plants for names. Anthropological Linguistics 21(6): 298-315.
  • Dressler, W. and R. Wodak-Leodolter (eds.) 1977. Language Death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Durham, W.H. 1990. Advances in evolutionary culture theory. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 187-210.
  • Durham, W.H. 1991a. Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Durham, W.H. 1991b. Applications of culture evolutionary theory. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 331-355.
  • Durning, A.T. 1992. Guardians of the Land: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth. Worldwatch Paper no. 112. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
  • Durning, A.T. 1993. Supporting indigenous peoples. In State of the World 1993: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. Pp. 80-100. New York: Norton & Co.
  • Dutton, T. 1995. Language contact and change in Melanesia. In The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. by P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox, and D. Tryon. Pp. 192-213. Canberra: National Australian University, Department of Anthropology.
  • Eggleton, P. and R.I. Vane-Wright (eds.) 1994. Phylogenetics and Ecology. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Ehrenfeld, D. 1986. Thirty million cheers for diversity. New Scientist 110(1512): 38-43.
  • Ehrenfeld, D. (ed.) 1995. To Preserve Biodiversity: An Overview. Readings from Conservation Biology. Cambridge, MA: Society for Conservation Biology and Blackwell Science, Inc.
  • Ehrlich, P.R. 1988. The loss of diversity: causes and consequences. In Biodiversity, ed. by E.O. Wilson. Pp. 21-27. Washington: National Academy Press.
  • Ehrlich, P.R. and A.H. Ehrlich 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York: Random House.
  • Ehrlich, P.R. and A.H. Ehrlich 1992. The value of biodiversity. Ambio 21(3): 219-226.
  • Ehrlich, P.R., A.H. Ehrlich and J. Holdren 1977. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: Freeman.
  • Ellen, R. 1994. Rhetoric, practice and incentive in the face of changing times: A study in Nuaulu attitudes to conservation and deforestation. In Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, ed. by K. Milton. Pp. 127-143. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Fase, W., K. Jaspaert, and S. Kroon 1992. Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B. McCay, and J.M. Acheson 1990. The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1-19.
  • Fishman, J.A. 1978. Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Fishman, J.A. 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: Ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset. Language in Society 11: 1-14.
  • Fishman, J.A. 1989. Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  • Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift : Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  • Florey, M. 1993. The reinterpretation of knowledge and its role in the process of language obsolescence. Oceanic Linguistics 32(2): 295-309.
  • Frake, Ch.O. 1983. Did literacy cause the great cognitive divide? American Ethnologist 10(2): 368-371.
  • Futuyma, D.J. and M. Slatkin (eds.) 1983. Coevolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  • Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.
  • Gärling, T. and G.W. Evans (eds.) 1991. Environment, Cognition, and Action: An Integrated Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gilbert, L.E. and P.H. Raven (eds.) 1980. Coevolution of Animals and Plants. Rev. ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  • Goehring, B. 1993. Indigenous Peoples of the World: An Introduction to Their Past, Present, and Future. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing.
  • Goody, J. (ed.) 1968. Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goody, J. 1987. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gray, A. 1991a. Between the Spice of Life and the Melting Pot: Biodiversity Conservation and Its Impact on Indigenous Peoples. IWGIA Document no. 70. Copenhagen, Denmark: IWGIA.
  • Gray, A. 1991b. The impact of biodiversity conservation on indigenous peoples. In Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives, ed.by V. Shiva et al. Pp. 59-76. London and New Jersey: Zed Books Lts.
  • Groombridge, B. (ed.) 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. London: Chapman & Hall.
  • Grinde, D.A. and B.E. Johansen 1995. Ecocide of Native America. Santa Fe: Clear Light.
  • Hale, K. 1992. On the human value of languages. Paper presented at the plenary session on Endangered Languages, 15th International Congress of Linguists, Université Laval, Quebec.
  • Hale, K. et al. 1992. Endangered languages. Language 68(1): 1-42.
  • Hamel, R.E. 1993. Derechos lingüísticos. Nueva Antropología 12(44): 71-102
  • . Hamel, R.E. 1995. Language, discourse, and cultural models: Three levels of language shift and maintenance. Paper presented at the Symposium on Language Loss and Public Policy, Albuquerque, NM, June 30-July 2, 1995.
  • Hames, R.B. 1991. Wildlife conservation in tribal societies. In Oldfield and Alcorn 1991. Pp. 172-199.
  • Hames, R.B. and W.T. Vickers 1983. Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians. New York: Academic Press.
  • Handwerker, W.P. 1989. The origins and evolution of culture. American Anthropologist 91(2): 313-326.
  • Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
  • Harmon, D. 1995a. The status of the world’s languages as reported in the Ethnologue. Paper presented at the Symposium on Language Loss and Public Policy, Albuquerque, NM, June 30-July 2, 1995.
  • Harmon, D. 1995b. Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and linguistic diversity. Paper presented at the Symposium on Language Loss and Public Policy, Albuquerque, NM, June 30-July 2, 1995.
  • Harris, D.R. 1989. An evolutionary continuum of people-plant interaction. In Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, ed. by D.R. Harris and G.C. Hillman. Pp. 11-26. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Harris, D.R. and G.C. Hillman (eds.) 1989. Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Heath, Sh.B. 1977. La política del lenguaje en México: De la colonia a la nación. Mexico City: INI.
  • Hill, J.H. 1995. The loss of structural differentiation in obsolescent languages. Paper presented at the symposium “Endangered Languages”, AAAS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 18 February 1995.
  • Hill, J.H. and K.C. Hill 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  • Hinton, L. 1994. Flutes of Fire: Essays on California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
  • Hinton, L. 1995. Current problems affecting language loss and language survival in California. Paper presented at the Symposium on Language Loss and Public Policy, Albuquerque, NM, June 30-July 2, 1995.
  • Hoenigswald, H.M. and L.F. Wiener 1987. Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification.: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Homewood, K.M. and W.A. Rodgers (eds.) 1991. Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and Wildlife. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hunn, E.S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. New York: Academic Press.
  • Hunn, E.S. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84: 830-847.
  • Hunn, E.S. 1990. Nchi’-Wana, The Big River: Mid-Columbia Indians and Their Land. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  • Hunn, E.S. 1994. Place-names, population density, and the magic number 500. Current Anthropology 35(1): 81-85.
  • Irvine, D. 1987. Resource Management by the Runa Indians of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, Stanford University. University Microfilm DA8720400.
  • Irvine, D., J. Kosek, and J. Olson 1993. Indigenous forestry in the Americas: A roster. Cultural Survival Quarterly 17(1): 60-63.
  • Johnson, A. 1989. How the Machiguenga manage resources: Conservation or exploitation of nature? In Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies, ed. by D.A. Posey and W. Balée. Pp. 213-222. Advances in Economic Botany Vol. 7. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden.
  • Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan (eds.) 1978. Humanscape: Environments for People. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
  • Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York: Praeger.
  • Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  • Kelly, K.M. 1994. On the magic number 500: An expostulation. Current Anthropology 35(4): 435-438.
  • Kempton, W., J.S. Boster, and J.A. Hartley 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • King, L. 1994. Roots of Identity. Language and Literacy in Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Klopfer, P.H. 1988. Reseeding the commons. In Evolution of Social Behavior and Integrative Levels, ed. by G. Greenberg and E. Tobach. Pp. 115-121. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
  • Krattinger, A.F. et al. (eds.) 1994. Widening Perspectives on Biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, and Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of the Environment.
  • Krauss, M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. In Hale et al. 1992. Pp. 4-10.
  • Krishnan, R., J.M. Harris, and N.R. Goodwin 1995. A Survey of Ecological Economics. Washington, D.C./Covelo, CA: Island Press.
  • Kulick, D. 1992. Language shift as cultural reproduction. In Culture Change, Language Change: Case Studies from Melanesia, ed. by T. Dutton. Pp. 7-26. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-120.
  • Ladefoged, P. 1992. Another view of endangered languages. Language 68(4): 809-811.
  • Lambert, W.E. 1972. Language, Psychology, and Culture: Essays by Wallace E.
  • Lambert. Selected and introduced by A.S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Lélé, S. and R. Norgaard 1996. Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. Conservation Biology 10(2): 354-365.
  • Linden, E. 1991 Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge. Time 138(12): 32-40. Linguistic Society of America 1996. Statement on language rights. LSA Bulletin 151, March 1996 [insert].
  • Lizarralde, M. 1994. Index of the ethno-linguistic Indian groups of South America. In Cultures of South America, ed. by J. Wilbert. Encyclopedia of the Cultures of the World. New Haven, CN: HRAF.
  • Lizarralde, M. 1995. Etnobotánica barí de la Sierra de Perijá: Conocimiento y uso de los recursos forestales para la protección de la cultura y biodiversidad. Paper presented at the Coloquio Venezolano-Francés Sobre el Estado Actual de la Antropología, Escuela de Antropología, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, October 2, 1995.
  • Loewenstein, G. and J. Elster 1992. Choice Over Time. New York: Sage.
  • Lugo, A.E. 1988. Estimating reductions in the diversity of tropical forest species. In Biodiversity, ed. by E.O. Wilson. Pp. 58-70. Washington: National Academy Press.
  • Lumsden, C. and E.O. Wilson. Genes, Mind, and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Maffi, L. 1995. Domesticated land, warm and cold: Linguistic and historical evidence on Tzeltal Maya ethnoecology. In Blount and Gragson (submitted).
  • Majnep, I.S. and R.N.H. Bulmer 1977. Birds of My Kalam Country. Auckland: Auckland and Oxford University Presses.
  • Majnep, I.S., A. Pawley, and R.N.H. Bulmer in prep. Kalam Plant Lore.
  • Malt, B.C. 1995. Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology 29: 85-148.
  • Marks, J. 1995. Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and Culture. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Martin, G.J. 1987 El papel de la etnobotánica en el rescate ecológico y cultural de América Latina. In IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica: Simposio de Etnobotánica. Pp. 67-77. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior (ICFES).
  • Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. London: Chapman & Hall.
  • Martínez-Alier, J. with K. Schüppmann 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Society. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.
  • Mascie-Taylor, C.G.N. and B. Bogin (eds.) 1995. Human Variability and Plasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • May, R.M. 1988. How many species are there on Earth? Science 241(4872): 1441-1449.
  • McNeely, J.A. 1995. The interaction between biological diversity and cultural diversity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Indigenous Peoples, Environment and Development, Zurich, 15-18 May 1995.
  • McNeely, J.A. and D. Pitt (eds.) 1985a. Culture and Conservation: The Human Dimension in Environmental Planning. London: Croom Helm.
  • McNeely, J.A. and D. Pitt 1985b. Culture: The missing element in conservation and development. In Culture and Conservation: The Human Dimension in Environmental Planning, ed. by J. McNeely and D. Pitt. Pp. 1-9. London: Croom Helm.
  • McNeely, J.A. et al. 1990. Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, and Washington, D.C.: WRI/CI/WWF-US/The World Bank.
  • Medin, D.L. 1989. Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist 44(12): 1469-1481.
  • Miller, M.S. (ed.) 1993. State of the Peoples. A Global Human Rights Report on Societies in Danger. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Milton, K. 1984. Protein and carbohydrate resources of the Maku Indians of Northwestern Amazonia. American Anthropologist 86: 7-27.
  • Milton, K. 1991. Comparative aspects of diet in Amazonian forest dwellers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B. 334: 253-263.
  • Milton, K. 1992. Civilization and its discontents. Natural History, March 1992, pp. 36-45.
  • Mishler, B. 1995. Plant systematics and conservation: Science and society. Madroño 42(2): 103-113.
  • Morauta, L., J. Pernetta, and W. Heaney (eds.) 1982. Traditional Conservation in Papua New Guinea: Implications for Today. Bokoro, PNG: Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research.
  • Mühlhäusler, P. (1995). The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. In The Politics of Multiculturalism in the Asia/Pacific, ed. by D. Myers. Pp. 154-161. Darwin, Australia: Northern Territory University Press.
  • Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and their species: Going, going…? In Biodiversity, ed.by E.O. Wilson. Pp. 28-35. Washington: National Academy Press.
  • Nabhan, G.P. 1989. Enduring Seeds: Native American Agriculture and Wild Plant Conservation. San Francisco: North Point Press.
  • Nabhan, G.P. and S. St. Antoine 1993. The loss of floral and faunal story: The extinction of experience. In Kellert and Wilson 1993. Pp. 229-250.
  • Nabhan, G.P. and S. Trimble1994. The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild Places. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Nations, J. and R. Nigh 1980. The evolutionary potential of Lacandon Maya sustained-yield tropical forest agriculture. Journal of Anthropological Research 36: 1-30.
  • Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nietschmann, B.Q. 1987. The third World War. Cultural Survival Quarterly 11(3): 1-16.
  • Nietschmann, B.Q. 1992. The Interdependence of Biological and Cultural Diversity. Occasional Paper #21, Center for World Indigenous Studies, December 1992.
  • Nietschmann, B.Q. 1994. The Fourth World: Nations versus states. In: Reordering the World: Geopolitical Perspectives on the Twenty-First Century, ed. by G.J. Demko and W. Wood. Pp. 225-242. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Nitecki, M.H. (ed.) 1983. Coevolution.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Norgaard, R.B. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Norton, B.G. (ed.) 1986. The Preservation of Species : The Value of Biological Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Norton, B.G. 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Oldfield, M.L. and J.B. Alcorn 1991. Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation, and Ecodevelopment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Painter, M. and W.H. Durham (eds.) 1995. The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Pawley, A. 1991. Man and a Half: Essays in Pacific Anthropology and Ethnobiology in Honour of Ralph Bulmer. Auckland: Polynesian Society.
  • Peluso, N.L. 1992. Rich Forest, Poor People: Resource Control Resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Perrings, C.A. et al. 1994. Biodiversity Conservation: Problems and Policies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
  • Plotkin, M. 1988. Ethnobotany and conservation in the Guianas: The Indians of Southern Suriname. In Tropical Rainforest: Diversity and Conservation, ed.by F. Almeda and C. Pringle. Pp. 87-109. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.
  • Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 1990. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press.
  • Ponting, C. (1991). A Green History of the World. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.
  • Poole, P. 1995. Indigenous Peoples, Mapping and Biodiversity Conservation. BSP People and Forests Program Discussion Paper Series. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.
  • Posey, D.A. and W. Balée (eds.) 1989. Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies. Advances in Economic Botany no. 7. Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden.
  • Posey, D.A. and G. Dutfield 1996. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
  • Posey, D.A. et al. 1990. Ethnobiology: Implications and Applications. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Ethnobiology, Belém, 1988. Vols. 1 &2.
  • Potter, C.S., J.I. Cohen, and D. Janczewski (eds.) 1993. Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case Studies of Genetic Resource Conservation and Development. Washington, D.C.: AAAS Press.
  • Prance, G.T. 1977 Floristic inventory of the tropics: where do we stand? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 64: 659-684.
  • Prance, G.T. et al. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1(4):296-310.
  • Raven, P.H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forests. In Biodiversity, ed. by E.O.Wilson. Pp. 119-122. Washington: National Academy Press.
  • Raven, P.H. 1993. A plea to the citizens of the world: Live as if Earth matters. Diversity 9(3): 49-51.
  • Redford, K.H. and C. Padoch (eds.) 1992. Conservation in Neotropical Forests: Working from Traditional Resources Use. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Reid, W.V. and K.R. Miller 1993. Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
  • Robins Hunter, Ph. 1994. Language extinction and the status of North American Indian Languages. Studies in Technology and Social Change 23. Ames, IA: Technology and Social Change Program, Iowa State University.
  • Robins, R.H. and E.M. Uhlenbeck (eds.) 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford: Berg.
  • Rojas, M. 1995. The species problem and conservation: What are we protecting? In To Preserve Biodiversity: An Overview. Readings from Conservation Biology, ed. by D. Ehrenfeld. Pp. 35-43. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science/The Society for Conservation Biology.
  • Rosch, E. 1977. Human categorization. In Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed. by N. Warren. Vol.1, pp. 1-49. London: Academic Press.
  • Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by E. Rosch and B. Lloyd. Pp. 28-49. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
  • Rosch, E. et al. 1975. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382-439.
  • Rosenberg, M. 1990. The mother of invention: Evolutionary theory, territoriality, and the origins of agriculture. American Anthropologist 92(2): 399-415.
  • Sandlund, O.T., K. Hindar, and A.H.D. Brown (eds.) 1992. Conservation of Biodiversity for Sustainable Development. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
  • Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyirbal. An Example of Language Death from Australia. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schultes, R.E. 1994. Burning the library of Amazonia. The Sciences March/April 1994: 24-30.
  • Scribner, S. and M. Cole 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Shiva, V. 1991. Biodiversity, biotechnology and profits. In Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives, ed. by V. Shiva et al. Pp. 43-58. London and New Jersey: Zed Books Lts.
  • Shiva, V. et al. 1991. Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives. London: Zed Books.
  • Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and R. Phillipson (eds.) 1994. Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Smith, E.A. and B. Winterhalder 1992. Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Solbrig, O.T., H.M. van Emden, and P.G.W.G. van Oordt (eds.) 1994. Biodiversity and Global Change. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, and Paris: International Union of Biological Sciences.
  • Soulé, M.E. (ed.) 1986. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  • Sperber, D., D. Premack, and A. James Premack 1995. Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stone, A.R. and D.L. Hawksworth (eds.) 1986. Coevolution and Systematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Stross, B. 1973. Acquisition of botanical terminology by Tzeltal children. In Meaning in Mayan Languages, ed. by M.S. Edmonson. Pp. 107-141. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Stross, B. 1975. Variation and natural selection as factors in linguistic and cultural change. In Linguistics and Anthropology: In Honor of C.F. Voegelin, ed. by M.D. Kinkade et al. Pp. 607-632. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.

Symons, D. 1992. On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby 1992. Pp. 137-159. Systematics Agenda 2000 1994. Systematics Agenda 2000: Charting the Biosphere. Technical Report. New York: Systematics Agenda 2000. Taylor, A.R. (ed.) 1992. Language Obsolescence, Shift, and Death in Several Native American Communities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 93. The Hague: Mouton. Thieberger, N. L. 1990. Language maintenance: Why bother? Multilingua 9(4): 333-358. Thompson, J.N. 1982. Interaction and Coevolution. New York: Wiley. Thompson, J.N. 1994. The Coevolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Toledo, V.M. 1982. La etnobotánica hoy: Reversión del conocimiento, lucha indígena y proyecto nacional. Biótica 7(2)141-150. Toledo, V. M. 1987. La etnobotánica en Latinoamérica: Vicisitudes, contextos, desafíos. In IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica: Simposio de Etnobotánica. Pp. 13-34. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior (ICFES). Toledo, V.M. 1988. The Floristic Richness of Latin America and the Caribbean as Indicated by the Botanical Inventories. The Nature Conservancy and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Toledo, V.M. 1992. What is ethnoecology? Origins, scope and implications of a rising discipline. Etnoecológica 1(1): 5-21. Toledo, V.M. 1994. Biodiversity and cultural diversity in Mexico. Different Drummer 1(3): 16-19. Toledo, V.M. 1995. New paradigms for a new ethnobotany: Reflections on the case of Mexico. In Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline, ed. by R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis. Pp. 75-88. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides 1992. The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby 1992. Pp. 19-136. Warren, D.M. 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agriculture Development. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 127. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.) 1995. The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Webster, J. 1994. Conserving Biodiversity in Africa. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Group/WWF-US. Wester, L. and S. Yongvanit 1995. Biological diversity and community lore in notheastern Thailand. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1): 71-87. Western, D., R.M. Wright, and Sh. Strum (eds.) 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Wilkins, D. 1993. Linguistic evidence in support of a holistic approach to traditional ecological knowledge. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, ed. by N.M. Williams and G. Baines. Pp. 71-93. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University. Wilcox, B.A. and K.N. Duin 1995. Indigenous cultural and biological diversity: Overlapping values of Latin American ecoregions. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 49-53. Williams, N.M. and G. Baines 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, National Australian University. Williams, N.M. and E.S. Hunn 1982. Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. AAAS Selected symposium no. 67. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Williams, P.H., C.J. Humphries, and K.J. Gaston 1994. Centers of seed-plant diversity: The family way. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256: 67-70. Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. 1978. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. (ed.) 1988a. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Wilson, E.O. 1988b. The current state of biological diversity. In Biodiversity, ed. by E.O. Wilson. Pp. 3-20. Washington: National Academy Press. Wilson, E.O. 1989. Threats to biodiversity. Scientific American September 1989: 108-116. Wilson, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In The Biophilia Hypothesis, S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson. Pp. 31-41. Washington, DC: Island Press. Winterhalder, B. and E.A. Smith 1981. Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archeological Analyses. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Woodbury, A.C. 1993. A defense of the proposition, “When a language dies, a culture dies”. Texas Linguistic Forum 33: 101-129. WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Wurm, S.A. 1991. Language death and disappearance: Causes and circumstances. In Endangered Languages, ed. by R.H. Robins and E.M. Uhlenbeck. Pp. 1-18. Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers. Zent, S. 1995. The quandary of conserving ethnoecological knowledge: A Piaroa example. In Blount and Gragson (submitted).

APPENDIX Additional questions and issues submitted for discussion at the conference. (H. Batibo) – How do we assure countries — especially the numerous multilingual and multiethnic countries of the Third World who believe that the only key to national unity is the enforcement of monlingualism and monoculturalism — that recognizing minority languages and cultures could, in fact, be the only way to bring about mutual trust in a nation, and therefore unity? (S. Brush) – How strong is the relationship between linguistic diversity and biological diversity? – Is linguistic diversity a pragmatic or a moral good? – How do languages persist in a world where human populations are at or above 8 billion and where spatial (market and political) integration is the norm? – Can we define minimal criteria for language survival as we have for species survival? – Must small languages depend on state or international support and/or protection to survive? (M. Florey) – What methodological questions are involved in researching cross-disciplinary issues of linguistic and biological diversity? – How can we better train ourselves and our students to undertake cross-disciplinary research in a more adequate and more effective way? – How can we increase indigenous collaboration and improve the training of local people in this work? – Can we discuss and/or promote indigenous rights in settings such as Indonesia in which the interests of the state may conflict (sometimes violently) with the interests of local groups? (J. Hill) – To what degree is specific environmental knowledge necessarily encoded in indigenous languages, or to what degree is it extractable from those languages and available through other codes? (G. Martin) – How do we return results of research to communities as a way of increasing resilience to culture/linguistic change? – What are the comparative rates and nature of linguistic/cultural/environmental change according to the political, social and economic context of different countries? (R. Norgaard) – At the end of the 20th. century, many people in Western culture perceive a loss of wholeness and of power because of a sense that decisions are made by impersonal, distant experts. How can we transform this dissaffection into a new system of empowerment which is not only more equalitarian and respectful of experiential knowledge within Western culture but protects the knowledge systems of other cultures as well? Some good can come from working through existing top-down, expert systems such as the World Bank, etc. to protect cultural and biological diversity. But we also need to work with and facilitate a new social order that respects experiential knowledge across cultures, including especially people within our own culture as well as recently Westernized peoples. (A. Pawley) – How do we find money to be able to properly plan and complete long-term “endangered …” projects? For example, most of us have to contend with the fact that funding agencies tend to give modest grants for fieldwork but won’t pay for subsequent writing up or analysis time. In the nature of things these sorts of projects involve a lot of tedious analysis and documentation. U.N.E.S.C.O. sometimes gives my Department funds for very short term research, but nothing long term or major can get planned or supported that way. Also, people working on Australian Aboriginal languages are uniquely advantaged in having a federal government with a guilty conscience that has handsomely supported pedagogical and pure research programs since 1972. But then able people like Saem Majnep, outside the university system, don’t have ready access to any research funds except in partnership with an academic. (E. Smith) – Given the seemingly inevitable incorporation or entanglement of local social and ecological systems into national and global systems, what if anything can be done to preserve cultural diversity? – What if indigenous or local communities do not wish to preserve biodiversity or cultural diversity? What if they see socioeconomic linkages to global capitalism as more desirable than autonomy and conservation? (S. Zent) – Significance of ethnoecological loss/change as a research topic: urgent need for detailed, systematic descriptive and comparative case studies. – Problems of measuring traditional knowledge loss and ethnodiversity change. – Global/national/regional/local links relevant to an understanding of changes in local environmental knowledge and behavior. – Environmental knowledge acquisition: formal and informal, intrusive and traditional. – Strategies of cultural conservation.

Comments are closed.