Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4622909?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comment
Tribal synthesis or
ethnogenesis?
Campbell's interpretationof Haley
and Wilcoxon
Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.) 13,219-222
@RoyalAnthropological Institute2007
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 COMMENT
judge current traditions (Haley & Wilcoxon 1999: 215, 231); and (3) we explicitly chal-
lenge the 'real/fake'identitydistinction(Haley2005; Haley& Wilcoxon2005). Camp-
bell characterizesdebates over the authenticity of an identity as 'internal' to the
indigenous ethnic group (2006: 298, 305). Yet we demonstrated in the neo-Chumash
case that well-meaningbut poorlyinformedanthropologistsglossed encroachmentby
non-nativeoutsiderson nativecommunitiesas internal'factionalism',therebyadding
to pressures on native communities to accept outsiders whose advances they
have already rebuffed (Erlandsonet al. 1998: 504; Haley & Wilcoxon 2005; see also
Johnson 2003).
In another crucial misrepresentation,Campbell states that 'Haley and Wilcoxon
(2005) ... view "neo-Chumash" culture as an example of "ethnogenesis", a neo-
primitivist"inventionof tradition"with no legitimate roots in aboriginalChumash
ancestry' (2006: 296). Actually, we defined ethnogenesis as 'the emergence of new
groups and identities- to describe community fission and coalescence', making no
mention of primitivismor tradition,nor restrictingthe definitionto indigenous, native,
or tribal groups (Haley & Wilcoxon 2005: 432). Our definition of ethnogenesis, in fact,
encompasses Campbell'stribalsynthesis, which he promotes as an alternativeposi-
tion. He defines tribalsynthesis as 'the combining of two or more [NativeAmerican]
entities into a single or unified, or putatively unified, one' (2006: 298). Apart from his
singularemphasis on NativeAmericangroups, which our work does not share, there
is no differencehere between our ethnogenesis and his tribalsynthesis. Indeed, since
we have not focused exclusivelyon tribal, indigenous, or native groups in defining
ethnogenesis, or defined ethnogenesis in reference to culture, I am surprised that
Campbellaccuses us of 'expecting NativeAmericansto meet puristculturalcriteriaand
standards of ethnic identification that the mainstream cannot meet either' (2006: 296).
Thisstrikesme as unfair.
Perhaps Campbell's repeated conflating of different phenomena in our writings
causes his difficulty.Our1997and 1999 articlesdo describeprimitivistinfluencesin the
productionof culture,but our 2005 articleaddresses how social relationsshape iden-
tities(see also Haley2005). Cultureand identityare interrelated,but are not precisely
the same things. For example, not all neo-Chumashdescribed in our 2005 articles
embrace the cultureof ChumashTraditionalismaddressedin our earlierwritings,and
not all who embracethis cultureare neo-Chumash,although the correlationis strong.
Similarly,although beliefs about ancestry are centralto identity,it is not unusual for
researchersto find that identity and actual ancestry do not correspond. So while
Campbellclaims otherwise, we have actuallywritten that neo-Chumashculturedoes
have some roots in Chumash culture (Haley & Wilcoxon 1997; 1999) even though
neo-Chumash- who self-identifyas Chumash- lack Chumash ancestry(Haley2005;
Haley & Wilcoxon 2005). Campbell also conflates self-identificationwith analytical
typology, such as placing Chumashidentityon equal terms with the type 'Stone Age
hunter-gatherers' (2006: 298). Certainly, analytical typology and self-identification can
merge, as we have illustrated(Haley& Wilcoxon1997:767-8). It is never clear to me
which type or types of phenomena Campbell refersto with his use of indigenous,
native,and tribal.Perhapswe, too, have been less than clearon these distinctions.Our
use of Chumash in 1997 was not clear enough, so we corrected that in 200oo5by
introducingthe term 'neo-Chumash'as an analyticaltype.
Campbell's use of 'legitimacy'does injusticeto the way this term is used in our
work. We have asserted, following Barth(1969), that identity reflects self-ascription
Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.)13,219-222
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENT221
REFERENCES
BARTH, F. 1969. Introduction.In Ethnicgroupsand boundaries:the socialorganizationof cultural
difference(ed.) F. Barth,9-38. Boston:Little,Brown.
CAMPBELL, H.2006. Tribalsynthesis:Piros,Mansos,and Tiwasthroughhistory.Journalof the Royal
AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 12, 293-311.
ERLANDSON, J.,C. KING,L.ROBLES,
E.RUYLE,D.D.WILSON, R.WINTHROP,
C. WOOD,B. HALEY & L.
WILCOXON 1998. CA Forumon Anthropologyin Public:the making of Chumash tradition:
Repliesto Haleyand Wilcoxon.CurrentAnthropology
39, 477-510.
FIELD,L. 1999. Complicities and collaborations. CurrentAnthropology40, 193-209.
J. 1999. Indigenous struggles and the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie. Journalof
FRIEDMAN,
World-SystemsResearch5, 391-411.
B. 2002. Going deeper: Chumashidentity,scholars,and spaceports in Radic'and else-
HALEY,
where. ActaAmericanalo, 113-23.
2005. The case of the three Baltazars:indigenizationand the vicissitudesof the written
word. Southern CaliforniaQuarterly87,
397-410o.
-& L.WILCOXON
1997.Anthropologyand the makingof Chumashtradition.Current
Anthro-
pology 38, 761-94.
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 COMMENT
& 1999. Point Conception and the Chumash land of the dead: revisionsfrom
Harrington's notes. Journalof Californiaand Great Basin Anthropology 21, 213-35.
& - 2000. On complicities and collaborations. CurrentAnthropology41, 272-3.
& 2005. How Spaniardsbecame Chumash and other tales of ethnogenesis.
AmericanAnthropologist107, 432-45.
HANDLER, R. & J. LINNEKIN
1984. Tradition, genuine or spurious. Journal of American Folklore97,
273-90.
HILL, power,and identity:ethnogenesisin the Americas,1492-1992. IowaCity:
J.(ed.) 1996. History,
Universityof Iowa Press.
E. & T. RANGER1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: University Press.
HOBSBAWM
JOHNSON,J.2003. Willthe 'real'Chumashplease stand up? The context for a Radic'alperception
of Chumashidentity.ActaAmericana11,70-2.
of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,219-222
Institute
? RoyalAnthropological 2007
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions