Annual Review of Anthropology - Volume 48, 2019

We focus on the anthropology of art from the mid-1980s to the present, a period of disturbance and significant transformation in the field of anthropology. The field can be understood to be responding to the destabilization of the category of “art” itself. Inaugural moments lie in the reaction to the Museum of Modern Art's 1984 exhibition “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art, the increasing crisis of representation, the influence of “postmodernism,” and the rising tide of decolonization and globalization, marked by the 1984 Te Maori exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Changes involve boundaries being negotiated, violated, and refigured, and not simply the boundaries between the so-called “West” and “the rest” but also those of “high” and “low,” leading to a re-evaluation of public culture. In this review, we pursue the influence of changing theories of art and engagements with what had been noncanonical art in the mainstream art world, tracing multiple intersections between art and anthropology in the contemporary moment.

That the meanings and value of things can be transformed through their circulation was brought to the foreground of anthropological studies more than 30 years ago with the publication of The Social Life of Things (Appadurai 1986b). The last decade, however, has seen a move away from “object biographies” in favor of frameworks that better account for objects’ complex entanglements. Recent work on object itineraries extends and challenges many elements of the biography approach and represents an intersection with critical interventions regarding materiality and agency, networks and circulation, and heritage discourses. This review evaluates the legacy of The Social Life of Things in the context of anthropological studies of the material world and suggests that thinking about itineraries rather than biographies allows us to collapse the distinctions between past and present (and future) and, thus, fully consider objects’ present entanglements as central to their story.

Human societies show a deep concern with how people know things and how relationships to knowledge are constructed and portrayed in talk. The term evidentiality refers to particular linguistic resources for talking about knowledge and especially to grammaticalized markers that indicate knowledge sources. Evidential marking is found in diverse languages around the world. This review discusses cross-linguistic evidential meanings and examines research on evidentials in practice, with a focus on their interpretation as stance markers and deictic elements. Evidentiality is a fascinating accomplishment in language structure, meaning, and use and can tell us about shared and disparate visions of knowledge and sociality across cultures.

The Amazon basin is accepted as an independent center of plant domestication in the world. A variety of important plants were domesticated in the Amazon and its surroundings; however, the majority of plants cultivated today in the Amazon are not domesticated, if this descriptor is understood to convey substantial genetic and phenotypic divergence from wild varieties or species. Rather, many domesticates are trees and tubers that occupy an intermediate stage between wild and domesticated, which seems to be a prevailing pattern since at least the middle Holocene, 6,000 years ago. Likewise, basin-wide inventories of trees show a remarkable pattern where a few species, called hyperdominant, are overrepresented in the record, including many varieties that are economically and symbolically important to traditional societies. Cultivation practices among indigenous groups in the Amazon are embedded in other dimensions of meaning that go beyond subsistence, and such entanglement between nature and culture has long been noticed at the conceptual level by anthropologists. This principle manifests itself in ancient and dynamic practices of landscape construction and transformation, which are seriously threatened today by the risks posed by economic development and climate change to Amazonian traditional societies and biomes.

This article considers the ongoing importance of studying writing practices within and beyond anthropology. The works included here concentrate on scholarship that has appeared since the productive yet divisive debates that established literacy as a plural phenomenon that is best studied ethnographically. It focuses on research that surveys the multiplicity of graphic forms, the changing notions of literacies, and the ways that literacy is implicated in and constitutive of sites of power. In addition, the cited works engage with the linguistic and semiotic ideologies that inform such literacy practices, the various aesthetic sensibilities that shape writing, and the physicality/materiality of inscriptive practices. Considering the effects of previously theorizing writing as a single, uniform phenomenon and the shift to research that characterizes inscriptive practices as multiple makes possible an argument for moving beyond multiplicity to question what writing is and can be, looking to works on “inscriptive practices” and “graphic pluralism.”

The anthropology of water is a self-declared relational field that attempts to transcend nature/culture distinctions by attending to the fact that the social and ecological aspects of water are separated only by convention. Despite its recent coming of age, the anthropology of water is incredibly expansive. It attends to molecular, embodied, ecosystemic, and planetary issues. I provide an overview of that breadth in four thematic clusters: (in)sufficiency, bodies and beings, knowledge, and ownership. These clusters highlight issues of materiality, ontological politics, and political economy. They are the grounds on which questions of water justice are elucidated. Furthermore, I show how water is always more than itself; its force and material presence constantly frame people's efforts to address the fundamental question of what it means to live life collectively in a world that is always more than human. I close with two directions for research: the denaturalization of water's materiality and the diversification of the moral undertones of our analytic vocabularies.

Armed conflict regularly presents extremely adverse circumstances not only for combatants, but also for civilians. In fact, estimates from various wars over the past 70 years suggest that noncombatants comprise the majority of casualties. For survivors, war's effects are often embodied, leaving long-term effects on health and biology. Some of these effects, such as injuries and psychological trauma, are well known. Yet other effects may be subtle and may be elucidated by a developmental biological perspective. In early life, when growth rates are highest, conditions of war may have their greatest impact. Depending on local circumstances, a developing embryo, infant, or child growing in a place embroiled in armed conflict is likely to face—directly or indirectly—various stressors, including malnutrition, infectious disease, and/or psychological stress. Thus, the conditions of war and forced displacement may become embodied, getting under the skin for fundamental biological reasons.