Annotated Bibliography

yylea

Engelke2019AnthropologyofDeath.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Annotated Bibliography

O ur

T N

(I C

O ):

17 98

06 * 1 7 9 8 0 6 *

ip V

ia :

A rt

ic le

E xc

ha ng

Received via: OCLC

ILL #: 204078805 *204078805* Call #: electronic Location: ISSN: 1545-4290 0084-6570 Journal/Book: Annual review of anthropology. Volume: 48 Issue: Month/Year: October 2019 Pages: 29-44 Article/Chapter Author: Matthew Engelke Article/Chapter Title: The Anthropology of Death Revisited

Borrower Information: ILO TN: 0 *0* Patron: Shipping Priority:

1. Odyssey:

2. Email: [email protected]

3. Fax: 312-899-1851

4. Mail / ILDS: School of the Art Institute of Chicago ILDS - SAI

Lender Information: OCLC: ICO Docline: ILUFEU

Illinois Wesleyan University The Ames Library PO Box 2899 Bloomington IL 61702-2899 Phone: (309) 556-1040 Odyssey: 198.178.132.29 Fax: (309) 556-3018 Email: [email protected]

NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW(TITLE 17, U.S. CODE)

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Annual Review of Anthropology

The Anthropology of Death Revisited Matthew Engelke Department of Religion, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2019. 48:29–44

First published as a Review in Advance on May 21, 2019

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218- 011420

Keywords death, the corpse, funerals, materiality, Hertz

Abstract This article brings together classic work in the anthropology of death, much of which focused on funerary rites, with more recent studies, some of which continue with the classic focus and some of which introduce distinct views and problematics. The anthropology of death has become a capacious field, linking to broader debates on violence, suffering,medicine, subjectivity, race, gender, faith,modernity, and secularity (among others). Inmuch of this work, though, we find common concerns with, and recurrent considerations of, certain themes. This review focuses on two of the most important: the sym- bolic imaginaries of how life conquers death; and, even more centrally, the materiality of death. A range of topics are addressed, including putrescence, burial, bones, commemorations, debts, care, sovereignty, and personal loss.

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

INTRODUCTION It has been 35 years since the Annual Review of Anthropology published an article on the anthro- pology of death in the sociocultural section of the volume (Palgi & Abramovitch 1984). Other subfields have more recent assessments (Arnold & Jeske 2014, Crossland 2013), and several so- ciocultural reviews do incorporate parts of the literature within different frames (see especially Kaufman & Morgan 2005; see also Caduff 2014, Das 2008). But the time is ripe for another con- sideration for two reasons. First, work in a number of areas, including, but not limited to, medical anthropology, science and technology studies, critical secular studies, and the anthropology of vio- lence, has broadened the anthropology of death beyond the traditional focus on funerary rites and mourning, while continuing to address aspects of its main interests. This is reflected in important edited volumes (Das & Han 2016, Robben 2018b), but it is also evident in articles (Fisch 2013, Cagüeñas 2018) and collections (Sluka 1999, Franklin & Lock 2005) in which there is little to no explicit engagement with “the anthropology of death” per se. Second, the analysis of funerals and other mortuary rites has remained fruitful, pushing beyond, yet still drawing from, Hertz’s (1960) foundational analysis of 1907 and its 1980s renaissance (Bloch & Parry 1982a, Metcalf & Huntington 1991). We are still finding new ways to think critically with Hertz (Christensen & Willerslev 2016, Kwon 2008, Lomnitz 2005, Mueggler 2018).

The anthropology of death, per se and perforce, is often framed by two main interests, each crystallized in particularly influential ways by Hertz (1960). The first is an interest in how life persists. The literature on funerals and mortuary rituals explores the variety of ways in which death can be conquered, asserting the continuity of life in general in the face of loss in particular. Related literature on grief and mourning considers the emotional work needed to make a death good, whether for an individual or for a community. It is from Hertz (1960) that most subsequent analysts have developed arguments about the social significance of funerary rites and, in particular, the observation that such rites symbolically conquer death through the assertion of social conti- nuities. “The last word must remain with life: the deceased will rise from the grip of death and will return, in one form or another, to the peace of human association” (Hertz 1960, p. 78). Let us consider the phrase “in one form or another”: We have a large catalog of how this is understood, from reincarnation (Mills & Slobodin 1994, Obeyesekere 2002), rebirth (Parry 1994), and eternal life (Klaits 2010, Simpson & Douglas-Jones 2017), to the cultivation of memory (Cannell 2011, Kwon 2007)—and forgetting (Astuti 2007,Mueggler 2018, Taylor 1993)—to technoscientific ad- vances (Bernstein 2019, Farman 2013), new digital horizons (Ghannam 2015, Huberman 2018) and evenmortuary tourism and zombification (Adams 2018,Volkman 1987).While Hertz focused on double burials and secondary funerals, the theme of “death and the regeneration of life” (Bloch & Parry 1982a) is evident in a range of other approaches to mortality. When Scheper-Hughes (1993), for instance, writes of how women in Brazil understood some infants as wishing to perish so that others may live, she is tracing out a logic of sacrifice-through-death in which a central theme is life’s regeneration.

The second main interest is in the brute stuff of death itself—above all, as I explore, the corpse and its iconical and indexical forms (from statues, to organs, to shrunken heads).Once again Hertz (1960) is a major point of departure. Death is simultaneously an “organic event” and “a complex mass of beliefs, emotions and activities” (p. 27). Hertz tells us much about various practices and traditions.He also catalogs a full spectrum of feelings and emphasizes their centrality to his theses. All the same, it is the fate of the body, its organic eventfulness, that undergirds his essay and secures its purchase. It is the body that matters. Here, though, we should also consider precarious lives— the “dead alive, dead outside” (Biehl 2005, p. 8)—in which the body is devalued to the point of social death. What we encounter across the literature, widely framed, is not only Hertz’s “grip

30 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

of death,” but more the grip of the dead, “this thing that is always more than a thing” (Laqueur 2015, p. xiv; cf. Schwarz 2015, Verdery 1999). These works are animated by such concerns as the corpse’s putrescence; victims of war, illegal border crossing, and the disappeared; the proper form of commemoration; the dryness of bones; pregnancy loss; and the decrepit state of barely living bodies (Bjerregaard et al. 2016, Crossland 2009, De León 2015, Hallam et al. 1999, Layne 2003, Newby &Toulson 2018, Stepputat 2014a).What we can take fromHertz is that the anthropology of death always begins and ends with the stuff of death, above all the materiality of the corpse, but more generally speaking the things that matter to making death good.

In what follows I chart these two key interests in the ever-broadening anthropology of death. I address the literature by grouping it under four headings, paying particular attention to the centrality of a concern with materiality. While these four groupings cannot account for all the topics or problematics in play, they do provide a sense of perennial and emerging interests.

THE CORPSE The issue is putrescence, rotting away. What other anthropological literature is dependent on such a term? Even blood, which has its own special materiality, long ago ceased to be a necessary consideration in kinship studies. Bloodmatters, yes (Carsten 2013), but can often be put in its place or even dismissed in certain cultures of relatedness (Carsten 2000). This is not so with the body in the anthropology of death. To read about death is to read of smells, alongside the awkwardness and instabilities of flesh and bone forming a recalcitrant presence.Douglas’s (1966) work on purity and danger is almost nowhere more relevant than to the panoply of death pollution taboos; it all has to do with matter out of place.

And matter it is. Verdery (1999) puts this well. Dead bodies are “indisputably there” (Verdery 1999, p. 27, original emphasis); they are “heavy symbols” (p. 32). By this, she means to suggest that a dead human is “unlike a tomato can or a dead bird” (p. 32; cf. Hertz 1960, p. 27). It is the thing that is always more than a thing. Verdery provides us with one of the most significant accounts of the there-ness of the dead by tracing their political significance in postsocialist Eastern Europe. She does this with respect not only to bodies, but also to the iconic power of socialist-era statues—or, “dead people cast in bronze or stone” (Verdery 1999, p. 5)—through which the living reconfigure the social world, enlivening it with “‘cosmic’ concerns, such as the meaning of life and death” (p. 31).

A connection between the corpse and problem of meaning is a consistent theme in the lit- erature. Corpses are certainly heavy symbols when it comes to practices of secondary burial. Danforth’s (1982) classic example concerns the extent to which Greek villagers use the body as a cosmic index. “The condition of the corpse…is a model for the condition of the soul” (Danforth 1982, p. 37). The Orthodox rite of exhumation, which takes place up to five years after a death, provides mourners with the legible traces of a soul’s state. The ideal is dry, white bones, with the hair and clothes long dissolved, and the soul thus safely passed to the other world. Versions of this sensibility abound from Portugal to China (de Pina Cabral 1986, Watson 1982). Proper decomposition and decay are often what mark a good death: more purity, less danger.

Care of the corpse is a key aspect of this, too. Often, the significance of such ethical practice becomes clearest in its frustration. This happened in Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak of 2014–2015 (Lipton 2017). There, families had to contend with international edicts forbidding the handling of corpses, due to the possibilities of contagion, which otherwise would have been a central aspect in local funerary rites of washing, perfuming, and wrapping. This limitation cre- ated a number of problems, playing out with respect to religious affiliations, land claims, and relationships with ancestors. The clash between universalized, biomedical protocols and those

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 31

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

of Krio deathways in Freetown also maps onto larger and long-standing discourses of race and power—just as they do with respect to gender (Abu-Lughod 1993, Martin 1988). In Freetown, deaths became “white” and “black”—both, actually, depending on the moment and issue—with the former indexing not only the anticultural prescriptions of biomedicine, but also distinct no- tions of personhood, temporality, and social relations. “As death in the time of Ebola made plain, the clockwork of ‘white time’—while exemplifying Weberian bureaucratic order—presented a form of cruel, impersonal disorder; a metronomic punctuality opposed to the comforting rhythm of activity typically associated with ‘good’ death” (Lipton 2017, p. 814).

Weber’s (1946) work on disenchantment, through which calculation crowds out wonder and science replaces magic, is also relevant here. His interests in secularization and modernization are strongly reflected in the literature on death, especially in a master narrative that emphasizes a number of shifts in the West and, by extension, the colonial and postcolonial worlds. These include shifts from the authority of the family to that of the state, the home to the hospital, and the priest to the doctor. These are set out most influentially in the work of historian Ariès (1981) but underpin some approaches in sociology (Walter 1994) and anthropology (Davies 1997). This can also be used to help explain why some of the most interesting analyses of death in recent years are not framed primarily as “the anthropology of death”; the main focus is the state, or biopolitics, or another rubric. And the master narrative is not unfounded. Death is now often a matter of paperwork, made even worse, as Gorer (1965) puts it, by the extent to which the dead, alongside expressions of grief and mourning, became pornographic under the conditions of modernity, unmoored from a public culture and ritual efficacies.

In line with this point, it is worth noting how Weber’s reflections on disenchantment concern his admiration for Tolstoy’s questioning of how “civilized man” deals with death. This is not very well, for “he catches only the most minute part of what the life of the spirit brings forth ever anew, and what he seizes is always something provisional and not definitive, and therefore death for him is a meaningless occurrence” (Weber 1946, p. 140). Weber’s invocations of death and death imagery are purposeful; consider how he writes as well of his students’ “bony hands seek[ing] to grasp the blood-and-the-sap of true life without ever catching up with it” (p. 141).

Weber could figure more prominently in the anthropology of death. His concerns with disen- chantment, secularization, and rationalization are certainly useful when it comes to understanding contemporary pushback on themedicalization of death. If this is true in Sierra Leone—where fam- ilies did what they could to negotiate biomedical regimes—it is equally so in the United States and Britain. In these and other settings, trends are emerging in which natural burials (Clayden et al. 2010), home funerals (Hagerty 2014), death doulas (Olson 2018), and other efforts to es- tablish values of intimacy mark commitments to “the blood-and-the-sap of true life” (however defined). The trends capture a number of related concerns, including a rejection of the funeral industry, distaste for ostentatious displays and markers of status, and pushback against the nor- mative protocols of biomedicine. In short, such practices challenge the pornography of death. As Hagerty (2014) puts it, in a study of home funerals in California, “[H]ere is the body in decay, in ordinary living rooms and bedrooms all over America, unembalmed, unmistakenly dead, for all to see and touch and smell—publicly available to the full sensorium” (p. 429). Putrescence persists.

COMMEMORATIONS If putrescence persists, it also ends, prompting questions of commemoration.A good death is about not only the dryness of bones, or perfuming of the corpse, but also how remains of the dead are placed, literally and figuratively. From stones to gravestones, statues to photographs, park benches

32 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

to Facebook tributes, and to lockets of hair and urns of ash, it is crucial to attend to what Hallam & Hockey (2001) call “figuring memory” (pp. 23–46) in relation to how the materiality of death extends beyond the body (Hallam et al. 1999).

One fruitful line of inquiry has been the innovation around cremation and ash disposal (Prendergast et al. 2006). In Britain, an increasing number of families are patriating the ashes of loved ones and personalizing the ways in which the dead are commemorated. And from Britain, to Japan (Kawano 2004), to Spain (Kawano 2004, Vaczi 2014), people are making the most of this materiality (but see Jieun 2016): One can scatter ashes over the prow of a boat, or along a favorite mountain path; one can keep themon themantle, or in a ring; one can bury them in sports stadiums and inject them under your skin (in a memorial tattoo). Such practices index the significance of authenticity, individualism, and choice (i.e., consumerism) as cultural values (Schafer 2011,Walter 1994). And these values are expressed not only with respect to the pliability of ashes; we find sim- ilar practices of personalized expression (and pushback against state-regulated expectations and norms) in cemeteries. At the same time, work on these modes of commemoration has shown that in many instances (a) collective identities and community ties still matter (Engelke 2015b, Vaczi 2014), and (b) traditions of personal expression and marking are not new, even as the profession- alization of death trades and state regulations have promoted “aesthetic restraint” (Dawdy 2013, p. 456). We see no such restraint in Ghana, where coffins are elaborately constructed. This prac- tice, too, has to do with consumption, prestige, and individual biography, although it is primarily about “the importance of being remembered,” with the coffin as “the instrument that allows the memory of the deceased to be stored” (Bonetti 2012, p. 275).

Commemorations of death often define the landscape. Throughout Imerina, in Madagascar, “in most villages there is literally no place one can stand without a tomb being in sight”; tombs are “symbols of permanence,” constructed of granite, in contrast to mud brick houses (Graeber 1995, p. 262). Tombs are also the sites of the Merina’s famadihanas—ritual practices which involve dancing with corpses and rewrapping bones. Famadihanas recall and honor the dead; they are a means through which the living seek blessings and favor. At the same time, famadihanas signal not only connection (as dancing might suggest) but also detachment—a kind of “depersonalization” of the dead (Bloch 1971, pp. 161–71). Relatives get close to the dead in order to underscore their distance and difference.Famadihanas are acts of remembering to forget—cultivation of “genealog- ical amnesia” (Graeber 1995, p. 264)—prompted by conflicting images of the dead as “benevolent ancestors” and “rapacious ghosts” (p. 275).What famadihanas point out so well is the social tension often found between concern for the dead in general with anxiety over the dead in particular (cf. Taylor 1993, Vitebsky 2017).

If theMerina’s dead should both fade frommemory and disintegrate over time, it is nevertheless crucial that they be buried properly in the first place. “For theMerina there is no worse nightmare than that one’s body will be lost so that it cannot enter into the communal tomb” (Bloch & Parry 1982b, p. 15). They are not alone. And once again, as with the time of Ebola, the nexus here of the body, its disposition, and memorialization is most arresting in instances of its frustration.Dead bodies are often symbolically heaviest, in Verdery’s sense, when absent altogether. From Argentina (Robben 2018a) to Zimbabwe (Fontein 2014), no dead are more dangerous than those unsettled: the war dead and the disappeared, cheated proper rites of burial and commemoration. During the Vietnam War, the amount of grievous death, in which “the agony of a violent death and the memory of terror entrap the soul” (Kwon 2008, p. 13), reshaped life to an unprecedented extent, in part by making “bad deaths” a norm, thus upsetting the received Hertzian calculus in which bad deaths stand as the occasional instance and through which the ideological articulation of a good death gets made. As Kwon (2008) argues, we need to take greater account of the extent to which bad deaths can become normalized, prompting a “representational crisis in social memory”

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 33

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

(p. 21; cf.Kilma 2002,Mueggler 2001,Talebi 2011).This has also often led to pushback against the state’s valuation of traditional practices as backward (Feeley-Harnik 1984, Grant 2011, Mueggler 2018).

If the politics and poetics of commemoration shine light on the arrangements of mass culture, the significance of these arrangements is often expressed through particular events. The Black Lives Matter movement in the United States has brought the issue of racialized mass death to the fore in such terms. Since the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, specific faces, names, and bodies have been made heavy. As Black Lives Matter shows, though, to say that the dead body is a heavy symbol requires further qualification because not all (dead) bodies are treated equally (Vargas 2015; see also Williams 2015 and other posts in this series). Similar points can be made with reference to the dead in Apartheid South Africa (Dennie 2009), war-torn Guatemala (O’Neill 2012), heat-wave Chicago (Klinenberg 2001), Rust-Belt Syracuse (Rubinstein et al. 2018), and nuclear-meltdown Ukraine (Petryna 2003). This list could go on, each case capturing the extent to which a (dead) body is also black, or female, or queer, or Muslim, or radioactive, or any number of other marked designations.Within the semiotics of commemoration—or lack thereof—we find the machinations of necropolitics (Mbembe 2003).

Carter’s (2018) research on the memorial work of African American women in New Orleans gives us a good sense of these necropolitics.Within the church-based communities Carter studied, “motherwork” was too often pressed into the service of giving name and shape to the victims of gun violence, most of whom are young black men. This work involved a range of activities and actions, from birthday parties for the dead—“raising dead sons”—to weekly marches on city hall, bearing a bouquet of roses—one for each new victim of urban violence. An important aspect of the latter project was bearing witness to and for the dead whose names did not make it into the papers or otherwise circulate within local communities. In all such practices and efforts, “homicide victims were no longer ‘unidentified black men’ found dead on the streets of New Orleans. They were sons, grandsons, and the children and grandchildren of neighbours, known and unknown” (Carter 2018, p. 699). The heaviness of these symbols is built up through the force of metonymy.

TECHNOLOGIES OF TRADE Very few corners of the earth operate without a funeral industry or death trade. From a pioneering exposé of the business in 1960s America (Mitford 1978), to contemporary studies of its growth in Ghana (De Witte 2003), South Africa (Lee 2011), and Japan (Suzuki 2000), the uneasy rela- tionship between money and death—“death as a living” (Parry 1994, pp. 75–150)—has received good attention. We have already touched on reactions to this unease as expressed in the home funerals movement and natural burials. I do not want to dwell further on them here because it eclipses other ways of considering the “technologies of trade.” It might also leave the false im- pression that these relationships are distinct to modern markets. Death is always exchange—most famously captured in the figure of Charon, ferryman of the Styx; similar figures appear in cos- mologies stretching from South America to Southeast Asia (Grinsell 1957). Yet when it comes to technologies and trade, there are two more basic points to consider: (a) the importance of rec- ognizing that exchange entails relationships; and (b) how the affordances of specific technologies give those relationships shape.

The dead are demanding. There are very few places/times in which the dead actually “rest in peace,” if that is understood to mean disconnect. There are, as with the Merina, cases in which the living seek to realize disconnection (Conklin 2001, Mueggler 2018). But even here, the end goal of remembering to forget can be achieved only within a certain temporal arc, characterized by intensive—and often quite literal—interaction with the dead. What commemoration often

34 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

involves is much more than remembering the dead. It requires a serious engagement with the things that ghosts and ancestors want: a proper burial, a pot of beer, a feast, money, a fitting grave- stone, the blood of a reindeer, the blood of kin. Debts abound (De Pina-Cabral 1986, Jasarevic 2012, Langford 2013, Russ 2005). And they are often framed in terms of sacrifice. Death is ob- viously an aspect of the literature on sacrifice, though it is underexplored in such terms (Hoskins 1993). But as a number of anthropologists have emphasized, to grapple with sacrifice is also to grapple with two of anthropological theory’s enduring interests: the gift and, more generally, ex- change (Langford 2013, Mayblin 2014, Mueggler 2018, Parry 1986, Toulson 2013, Willerslev 2009). Even more, then, alongside Hertz’s death essay one should also read his collaborative essay on sacrifice (Hubert & Mauss 1964) as well as Marcel Mauss’s The Gift (1990). Together these texts crystalize the moral aspects of intentionality, reciprocity, and hierarchy in the crafting of social bonds with the dead.

Willerslev (2009) pulls these texts together well. For the Chukchi, voluntary death—“the wish to die at the hands of a close relative”—is a “heroic act,” ideally performed when one is aged and infirm (p. 695).While rarely carried out, this “optimal sacrifice” in the Siberian North reflects the esteem for, and superiority of, the ancestors, from whom all fortune is given. Ancestors are said to experience such death of kin as a form of return. This logic of exchange is extended outward, such that reindeer, upon which Chukchi rely for survival, become the next most valuable (and more common) sacrificial victims, as their deaths replenish herds in the world of the dead. Related to what we find in the classic literature on the generative function of funerals, this is about “the maintenance and furthering of life through the act of taking life” (Willerslev 2009, p. 701). It is an exchange, albeit an unequal one, because the living are always already dependent on the goodwill of ancestors. In many cosmologies, life is a debt that can never be repaid, and sacrifice, or other forms of exchange, while in some ways emphasizing relationships between the living and the dead, also serves to underscore difference and hierarchy. In this respect relations with the dead also raise key questions about the nature and sources of social authority (Kopytoff 1971)—to which we return below.

If the dead are powerful, they are also vulnerable and rely on the care of the living. Hertzian work on relations between the living and the dead has often had an instrumental tinge here: giv- ing to get. Recent work complicates this picture, showing how care, love, and commitment exceed the functional calculus (Desjarlais 2014, Feldman 2017, Klima 2002). In her work on Lao and Cambodian emigrants to the United States, Langford’s (2013) attention to care adds a twist to the literature on “ghosts of war.” Like their Vietnamese counterparts, these emigrants find them- selves haunted by bad deaths linked to the VietnamWar (and Khmer Rouge).What Langford also finds is a new form of violence, and bad death, brought on by the medical and funeral industries in the United States. To the ghosts of war, add the ghosts of hospitals; such institutions try to dematerialize death and grief, shifting focus from consumption, display, and physical care of the corpse—all central to traditional sensibilities—and toward more Protestant and secular concerns with the immaterial and symbolic. “U.S. institutions for managing death become critical sites for the disruption of gift exchange and the discounting of sacrifice” (Langford 2013, p. 195). They make proper care impossible because they frustrate “enactment of the sociality of living and dead” (p. 203).

Langford’s work tracks the significance of major changes within social and cosmological orders. Contest over deathways is often a bellwether of such changes, with funerals and burials in partic- ular laying bare religious and political reconfigurations (Durham 2002, Gable 2006, Geschiere 2005, Janson 2011, O’Rourke 2007, Telle 2000, van der Geest 2006). The classic example is Geertz’s (1957) analysis of the funeral of a Javanese boy, which should have followed a locally developed syncretic form but precipitated a clash between secular nationalists and conservative

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 35

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Muslims. The center of the clash, it is worth noting, was the boy’s corpse—the heavy symbol, making a bang. Yet we also find other things serving as catalysts for these reconfigurations.

Take a recent trend in Ethiopia, reported by Boylston (2015), during which people began erect- ing concrete graves. The materials had become affordable, and the value of individual remem- brance had grown, partly as a result of the influx of new ideas (political, religious, and economic). The concrete caused a practical problem: lack of space in the churchyard. More importantly, it raised theological issues because it signaled a valuation of “body” over “spirit” (if we take these terms loosely)—contrary to Orthodox norms of “not leaving any remnant after departing from this world” (Boylston 2015, p. 287). And that valuation was generally borne out in practice, as local people cared very little for the maintenance of graves or even preservation of bones; in one instance, Boylston found himself surprised by the casual way in which fellow gravediggers tossed away human remains they came upon in their pit. “Concrete graves insist on pointing to the bones; they do not let the body blend back into the environment” (p. 300).

Technology often becomes intertwined with questions of embodiment and materiality vis- à-vis cosmological frames. In other cases, we see this intertwining with the emergence of new procedures for body disposal. In recent years, alkaline hydrolysis (AH)—the process of liquify- ing remains—has gained a foothold in the American funeral industry. This process is presented as a more ecological alternative to cremation, though it is meeting strong resistance from en- trenched business interests. Economics aside, the controversy hinges on cultural encodings of purity and danger, with critics expressing concern over “wet” remains (despite the fact that AH also produces “dry” calcium phosphate deposits). “Analysis of the politics of dead bodies must take account of the roles played by disposition technologies in the exercise of authority over the corpse” (Olson 2014, p. 667). And these technologies are not confined to funeral industries; they extend throughout broader social infrastructures (Fisch 2013, Ghannam 2015, Huberman 2013). In research on commuter train suicides in Tokyo, for instance, Fisch (2013) tracks the shift in reporting such events as suicides to, increasingly, “body accidents.” In doing so, train compa- nies are simultaneously dehumanizing a life and enlivening a transportation network, or “techno- social body” (p. 340). This case reinforces the links (and blurring) between human and machine; a thanatology for the transhumanist age, in which the authority to decide what is what is thrown open.

SOVEREIGNTY/AUTHORITY Who owns the dead? How is death managed and declared? How is it conquered? Answers to these questions have emerged in some of what is covered above; however, within the anthro- pology of death, sovereignty and authority are central ethnographic issues and theoretical con- cerns in their own right (Bernstein 2013, Bloch 1971, Cagüeñas 2018, Grant 2011, Kilma 2002, Makley 2015, Singh 2012). Ethnographically, we find a full shelf of cases in which power is deter- mined by who presides over the funeral, who certifies the death, who serves as custodian of the chief/prophet/premier’s remains, and who can wield legitimate violence.Theoretically, these cases stake interventions in debates ranging from necropolitics and bare life to kingship and seculariza- tion. In this final section, we come back to some key aspects of dealing with the corpse, tracing the ways in which authority of/over the dead is enacted.

The significance of authority is made clear in the example of Vladimir Lenin, whose body has been on display since 1924 (Yurchak 2015). To call it “his body,” though, is to gloss a more com- plicated situation, for the amount of preservation and reconstruction work required means that it is not him; so much is new, and often inorganic matter. What the Soviet and Russian states have perpetuated is the practice of linking the sovereign’s body to the body politic (Kantorowicz 1957),

36 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

albeit with a distinctive form of “material doubling” (Yurchak 2015, p. 136) in which, through the science of preservation, corpse and effigy are one. Materiality still matters, but the significance of the corpse’s materiality is eclipsed by political visions.

The most recent work on Russia, by Bernstein (2019), points to the long-standing lure of immortalism, as expressed through the problem of the body’s finitude. Today, this concept finds expression among transhumanists, who turn to science and technology in their efforts to defeat death. Cryogenics, neural uploading, and a refashioning of biological life are among the diverse strategies employed in these efforts, which together underscore the extent to which temporality is bound up with materiality. Bernstein’s ethnography is as much about the anthropology of time as it is about the anthropology of death; in this respect, it continues a theme we find in other works, both classic [Frazer 1994 (1903), Hertz 1960] and contemporary (Farman 2017, Kaufman 2005, Svendsen et al. 2018). For Bernstein’s interlocutors, the future is a cause, as much as a fact. There should be no time to die: This is true sovereignty. A related assertion of sovereignty can be found in the moves to legalize assisted dying and euthanasia, the rise of which is starting to gain anthropological attention (Buchbinder 2018, Norwood 2009). Here, the sovereign decision is not not to die, but when—and how.

Vitebsky’s (2017) work captures the struggle of sovereignty over life and death that can follow from religious proselytization. Over the past generation, fundamentalist strains of Baptist Chris- tianity and Hinduism have gained prominence among the Sora, in India, forcing a break with the traditional practice of speaking with the ancestors via shamans (Vitebsky 1993). While the older ways of dialogic connection were ultimately about “carefully paced forgetting” (Vitebsky 2017, p. 293), Baptist and Hindu demands to disavow the dead, in obeisance to the true god(s), have created community rifts; some people embrace the new understandings of authority, whereas oth- ers are racked by anxieties over facing a bad death through absolute and immediate silencing and disconnection. Such crises of authority often prompt moral torment and contests in relation to funerals, what makes a good death, and ancestral relations (Robbins 2004; see also Chua 2011, Tomlinson 2007).

If in some contexts we find clear assertions of a “religious” domain, in many more contexts the lines between scientific and religious sources of authority blur. This is the case in Russian transhumanism, where we find strains of both Christian and secular imaginaries. And the blurring even takes place within the heart of the seemingly heartless modern medical complex. In her research on African American experiences in a neonatal intensive care unit, Rouse (2004) offers a nuanced reading of one case in which the parents’ Christian faith was harnessed to renegotiate the secular-scientific understandings of suffering and the value of life. For the hospital, a good death for the critically ill baby girl in question had to mean a cessation of life support. But a “do not resuscitate” order was not an option for the parents, who understood the matter at hand in relational, not individual, terms, the significance of which was marked by the value of care, not secularized renderings of suffering and pain (Asad 2003, Fassin 2011). Related work focuses on debates over fetal personhood and pregnancy loss (Gammeltoft 2014,Morgan 2009, van der Sijpt 2018).

There is no doubting the power of medical authority, as both culturally expressed and legally codified. Death can indeed be a matter of legal decree, as we see in the literature on organ dona- tion (Lock 2001, Sharp 2006; cf. Copeman & Reddy 2012). Here, though, any explanatory rubric of modernity falls short because what we find in Canada and the United States (increasing accep- tance) is different from that in, say, Japan (resistance). As Lock (2001) makes clear in this compari- son, we need to think instead in terms of the self and the body: how dominantWestern renderings of the person have been built up on increasingly immaterial foundations, with “the self” located

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 37

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

in the mind and spirit. This view is a key part of why brain death—a legal precondition for the harvesting of organs—is not an absurd term. It is the Cartesian end.

This end is running into some trouble, as the Russian transhumanists show. Farman (2013, 2017) has also explored the muddy waters between life and death, as it depends on certain render- ings of time and matter. With respect to the latter, Farman’s work on American transhumanists explores the philosophical problems thrown up by cryonics—the process of freezing the body (or brain) in the hopes of a future reanimation.And what is that reanimation? If a self is a mind, housed in a secular, “desouled body” (Farman 2017, p. 105), what role does matter have? Tellingly, cryo- genists refuse to refer to that matter as a corpse; it is a patient. As Farman notes, “the cryopreserved cannot be treated as mere corpses,” while the patient simultaneously has to be understood as “a personless body” (Farman 2013, p. 743). Technoscientific imaginaries highlight the imprecision of our conceptual categories.

THE END? A Cartesian frame has never been, and will never be, the only option. A good reminder of this notion, as well as the contingency of the technological factor, can be found in Mueggler’s (2018) work in Júzò, Southwest China. Pushing back against the state’s degradation of tradition, while at the same time engaging with modern sensibilities of individuality and sincerity, funerary rites in Júzò, as well as more general forms of sociality, are wrapped up in concerns with the material and immaterial, rendered by Mueggler in terms of soul/body. Yet the only real bodies, in this cosmology, are dead bodies, the materiality of which is pliable enough to encompass not only the corpse but also the carcasses of sacrificed animals, textual inscriptions, stones, tombstones, and photographs. In the local rendering, the living might be better described as virtual, marked by their potential to be dead.Similar to what we find in a classic example from central Africa (Kopytoff 1971), a boundary between life and death comes to feel artificial. “In Júzò, at least, and possibly anywhere, an ontological distinction between the living and the dead is a distortion. Rather than to speak of either living or dead as real or imaginary it is more accurate to speak of both as moving continuously between material and immaterial forms” (Mueggler 2018, p. 10).

Has there even been a mere corpse? The closest we seem to get is theHadza (Woodburn 1982), who have little concern for the body, burying it quickly, and shallowly, with only some thought for making sure hyenas cannot disinter it. But compared to how Hadza understand the deaths of animals—those dead birds, perhaps?—human passing is “hedged around with remarkably few procedures, prescriptions, taboos or rituals” (Woodburn 1982, p. 188). Secular humanists also make some efforts to claim so, albeit as a future goal (Engelke 2015a).

But perhaps the grip of the dead is nowhere more evident than in the personal situations of anthropologists themselves. Like other writers, anthropologists (of all specialties) dedicate their books to loved ones; many such dedications are in memoriam and easily cast, from a reverse an- thropological view, as an effort at loosening the grip of death. More notably, though, there is a haunting and minor practice among anthropologists who study death of folding into academic work accounts of their own terror, anger, sadness, rage, wonder, and enchantment with personal losses (e.g., Behar 1991, Farman 2017, Graeber 2012, Laqueur 2015). Rosaldo’s (1984) reflection on the deaths of his brother and, eleven years later, his wife (fellow anthropologist, Michelle), in his efforts to understand Ilongot headhunting, is the canonical example. The argument he makes from this personal grief is that anthropologists need to take the role of emotions seriously in their academic treatments of death—something which, at the time of his writing, was too often still treated in the way Radcliffe-Brown (1933, pp. 241–45) treated Andaman tears of mourning. Inas- much as this review has not focused properly on grief and mourning, the importance of such an

38 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

argument needs to be acknowledged (see Brison & Leavitt 1995, Wikan 1990; see also Part II of Robben 2018b)—including as key themes in texts I have cited above (Conklin 2001, Danforth 1982, Kwon 2007, Scheper-Hughes 1993).

Most of Rosaldo’s (1984) essay is devoted to exploring the emotions surrounding death. But what is also worth reflecting on is the presence, albeit fleetingly, of Michelle Rosaldo’s body (p. 183), for it is upon seeing her—could anyone say “it”?—at the bottom of a treacherous ravine that his own thinking and feeling unfold. Personal encounters with the dead—ranging from fam- ily to strangers—are a bracing presence in the literature, whether in up close, visceral detail (De León 2015, Gorer 1965, Hagerty 2014, Schwarz 2015, Stepputat 2014b) or in dreamlike haunt- ings (Mueggler 2018). In the anthropology of death, a “cadaverous cold” (Rosaldo 1984, p. 184) stitches together self and other in a way that seems to demand a pause in the reflex to exhaustive explanation. It behooves us to recognize these findings and lacunae in our ongoing efforts at un- derstanding this thing that seems always more than a thing. The anthropology of death shows no signs of winding down.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The author is not aware of any affiliations,memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Jenny Huberman and Bambi Schieffelin for their insightful feedback on a draft of this ar- ticle. Many other colleagues offered helpful suggestions for this review—too many to name—but I extend special thanks to Anya Bernstein, Shannon Lee Dawdy, Abou Farman, Tim Hutchings, Rebekah Lee,Tamara Kneese, Phil Olson, andMargaret Schwarz. I also thank Zachary Hendrick- son for his help in preparing the references.

LITERATURE CITED

Abu-Lughod L. 1993. Islam and the gendered discourses of death. Int. J. Middle East Stud. 25(2):187–205 Adams KM. 2018. Leisure in the “Land of the Walking Dead”: Western mortuary tourism, the Internet, and

zombie pop culture in Toraja, Indonesia. In Leisure and Death: An Anthropological Tour of Risk, Death, and Dying, ed. A Kaul, J Skinner, pp. 97–120. Louisville: Univ. Press Colo.

Ariès P. 1981. The Hour of Our Death: The Classic History of Western Attitudes Toward Death over the Last One Thousand Years. New York: Vintage Books

Arnold B, Jeske J. 2014. The archaeology of death: mortuary archaeology in the United States and Europe, 1990–2013. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:325–46

Asad T. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Astuti R. 2007. What happens after death? In Questions of Anthropology, ed. R Astuti, J Parry, C Stafford,

pp. 227–48. Oxford, UK: Berg Behar R. 1991.Death and memory: from Santa María del Monte to Miami Beach.Cult. Anthropol. 6(3):346–84 Bernstein A. 2013. Religious Bodies Politic: Rituals of Sovereignty in Buryat Buddhism. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press Bernstein A. 2019. The Future of Immortality: Remaking Life and Death in Contemporary Russia. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. Press Biehl J. 2005. Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bjerregaard P, Rasmussen AE, Sørensen TF, eds. 2016.Materialities of Passing: Explorations in Transformation,

Transition and Transience. Abingdon, UK: Routledge

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 39

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Bloch M. 1971. Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages, and Kinship Organization in Madagascar. New York: Seminar

Bloch M, Parry J, eds. 1982a.Death and the Regeneration of Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Bloch M, Parry J. 1982b. Introduction: death and the regeneration of life. See Bloch & Parry 1982a, pp. 1–44 Bonetti R. 2012.Coffins for wear and consumption: Abebuu adekai as memory makers among the Ga of Ghana.

RES: Anthropol. Aesthet. 61/62:262–78 Boylston T. 2015. “And unto dust shalt thou return:” death and the semiotics of remembrance in an Ethiopian

Orthodox Christian village.Mater. Relig. 11(3):281–302 Brison KJ, Leavitt SC. 1995. Coping with bereavement: long-term perspectives on grief and mourning. Ethos

23(4):395–400 Buchbinder M. 2018. Choreographing death: a social phenomenology of medical aid-in-dying in the United

States.Med. Anthropol. Q. 32(4):481–97 Caduff C. 2014. On the verge of death: visions of biological vulnerability. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:105–21 Cagüeñas D. 2018.Reversed rapture: on salvation, suicide, and the spirit of terrorism.Public Cult. 30(3):465–82 Cannell F. 2011.English ancestors: themoral possibilities of popular genealogy. J. R.Anthropol. Inst.17(3):462–

80 Carsten J. 2000. Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. Press Carsten J, ed. 2013. Special Issue: BloodWill Out: Essays on Liquid Transfers and Flows. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.

19(S1) Carter RL. 2018. Life-in-death: raising dead sons in New Orleans. Ethnos 83(4):683–705 Christensen DR,Willerslev R, eds. 2016.Taming Time, Timing Death: Social Technologies and Ritual. Abingdon,

UK: Routledge Chua L. 2011. Soul encounters: emotions, corporeality, and the matter of belief in a Bornean village. Soc. Anal.

55(3):1–17 Clayden A, Hockey J, Powell M. 2010. Natural burial: the de-materialising of death? See Hockey et al. 2010,

pp. 148–64 Conklin BA. 2001.Consuming Grief: Compassionate Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society. Austin: Univ.Tex. Press Copeman J, Reddy DS. 2012. The didactic death: publicity, instruction and body donation.HAU: J. Ethnogr.

Theory 2(2):59–83 Crossland Z. 2009. Of clues and signs: the dead body and its evidential traces. Am. Anthropol. 111(1):69–80 Crossland Z. 2013. Evidential regimes of forensic archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42:121–37 Danforth LM. 1982. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Das V. 2008. Violence, gender, and subjectivity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 37:283–99 Das V, Han C, eds. 2016. Living and Dying in the Contemporary World: A Compendium. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

Press Davies DJ. 1997.Death, Ritual and Belief: The Rhetoric of Funerary Rites. London: Continuum Dawdy SL. 2013. Archaeology of modern American death: grave goods and blithe mementoes. In The Ox-

ford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, ed. P Graves-Brown, R Harrison, A Piccini, pp. 451–65. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

De León J. 2015. The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press De Pina-Cabral J. 1986. Sons of Adam, Daughters of Eve: The Peasant Worldview of the Alto Minho. Oxford, UK:

Oxford Univ. Press de Witte M. 2003. Money and death: funeral business in Asante, Ghana. Africa 73(4):531–59 Dennie G. 2009. The standard of dying: race, indigence, and the disposal of the dead body in Johannesburg,

1886–1960. Afr. Stud. Rev. 68(3):310–30 Desjarlais R. 2014.Liberation upon hearing: voice,morality, and death in a Buddhist world.Ethos 42(1):101–18 Douglas M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Durham D. 2002. Love and jealousy in the space of death. Ethnos 67(2):155–79 Engelke M. 2015a. The coffin question: death and materiality in humanist funerals.Mater. Relig. 11(1):26–48 Engelke M. 2015b. Humanist ceremonies: the case of non-religious ceremonies in England. In The Wiley

Blackwell Handbook of Humanism, ed. A Copson, AC Grayling, pp. 216–33. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell

40 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Farman A. 2013. Speculative matter: secular bodies, minds, and persons. Cult. Anthropol. 28(4):737–59 Farman A. 2017. Terminality. Soc. Text 35(2):93–118 Fassin D. 2011.Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Feeley-Harnik G. 1984. The political economy of death: communication and change in Malagasy colonial

history. Am. Ethnol. 11(1):1–19 Feldman I. 2017.Humanitarian care and the ends of life: the politics of aging and dying in a Palestinian refugee

camp. Cult. Anthropol. 32(1):42–67 Fisch M. 2013. Tokyo’s commuter train suicides and the society of emergence. Cult. Anthropol. 28(2):320–43 Fontein J. 2014. Re-making the dead, uncertainty and the torque of human materials in northern Zimbabwe.

See Stepputat 2014a, pp. 114–42 Franklin S, Lock M, eds. 2005. Remaking Life and Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences. Santa Fe,

NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press Frazer JG. 1994 (1903).The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Oxford,UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Abr.

ed. Gable E. 2006. The funeral and modernity in Manjaco. Cult. Anthropol. 21(3):385–415 Gammeltoft TM. 2014.Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. Press Geertz C. 1957. Ritual and social change: a Javanese example. Am. Anthropol. 59(1):32–54 Geschiere P. 2005. Funerals and belonging: different patterns in south Cameroon. Afr. Stud. Rev. 48(2):45–64 Ghannam F. 2015. Technologies of immortality, ‘good endings’, and martyrdom in urban Egypt. Ethnos

80(5):630–48 Gorer G. 1965.Death, Grief, and Mourning. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Graeber D. 1995. Dancing with corpses reconsidered: an interpretation of “famadihana” (in Arivonimamo,

Madagascar). Am. Ethnol. 22(2):258–78 Graeber D. 2012. Dead zones of the imagination: on violence, bureaucracy, and interpretive labor. HAU: J.

Ethnogr. Theory 2(2):105–28 Grant B. 2011. Shrines and sovereigns: life, death, and religion in rural Azerbaijan. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.

53(3):654–81 Grinsell LV. 1957. The ferryman and his fee: a study in ethnology, archaeology, and tradition. Folklore

68(1):257–69 Hagerty A. 2014. Speak softly to the dead: the uses of enchantment in American home funerals. Soc. Anthropol.

22(4):428–42 Hallam A, Hockey J. 2001.Death, Memory, and Material Culture. Oxford, UK: Berg HallamA,Hockey J,HowarthG, eds. 1999.Beyond the Body: Death and Social Identity.Abingdon,UK:Routledge Hertz R. 1960.Death and the Right Hand. London: Cohen & West Hockey J, Komaromy C, Woodthorpe K, eds. 2010. The Matter of Death: Space, Place and Materiality.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Hoskins JA. 1993. Violence, sacrifice, and divination: giving and taking life in eastern Indonesia. Am. Ethnol.

20(1):159–78 Huberman J. 2013. Forever a fan: reflections on the branding of death and the production of value. Anthropol.

Theory 12(4):467–85 Huberman J. 2018. Immortality transformed: mind cloning, transhumanism and the quest for digital immor-

tality.Mortality 23(1):50–64 Hubert H, Mauss M. 1964. Sacrifice: Its Nature and Functions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Janson M. 2011. Living Islam through death: demarcating Muslim identity in a rural Serahuli community in

the Gambia. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 17(1):100–15 Jasarevic L. 2012.Grave matters and the good life: on a finite economy in Bosnia.Camb. J. Anthropol. 30(1):25–

39 Jieun K. 2016.Necrosociality: isolated death and unclaimed cremains in Japan. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 22(4):843–

63 Kantorowicz EH. 1957. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. Press

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 41

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Kaufman SR. 2005. And a Time to Die: How American Hospitals Shape the End of Life. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Kaufman SR, Morgan LM. 2005. The anthropology of the beginnings and ends of life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:317–41

Kawano S. 2004. Scattering ashes of the family dead: memorial activity among the bereaved in contemporary Japan. Ethnology 43(3):233–48

Klaits F. 2010. Death in a Church of Life: Moral Passion during Botswana’s Time of AIDS. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Klima A. 2002.The Funeral Casino: Meditation,Massacre, and Exchange with the Dead in Thailand. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Klinenberg E. 2001. Bodies that don’t matter: death and dereliction in Chicago. Body Soc. 7(2–3):121–36 Kopytoff I. 1971. Ancestors as elders in Africa. Africa 41(2):129–42 Kwon H. 2007.After the Massacre: Commemoration and Consolation in Ha My and My Lai. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

Press Kwon H. 2008.Ghosts of War in Vietnam. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Langford JM. 2013. Consoling Ghosts: Stories of Medicine and Mourning from Southeast Asians in Exile.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Laqueur TW. 2015.TheWork of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ.

Press Layne LL. 2003.Motherhood Lost: A Feminist Account of Pregnancy Loss in America. New York: Routledge Lee R. 2011. Death ‘on the move’: funerals, entrepreneurs and the rural-urban nexus in South Africa. Africa

81(2):226–47 Lipton J. 2017. ‘Black’ and ‘white’ death: burials in a time of Ebola in Freetown, Sierra Leone. J. R. Anthropol.

Inst. 23(4):801–19 Lock M. 2001. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Lomnitz C. 2005.Death and the Idea of Mexico. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books Makley C. 2015. The sociopolitical lives of dead bodies: Tibetan self-immolation protest as mass media. Cult.

Anthropol. 30(3):448–76 Martin E. 1988.Gender and ideological differences in representations of life and death. InDeath Ritual in Late

Imperial and Modern China, ed. JL Watson, ES Rawski, pp. 164–79. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Mauss M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: Norton Mayblin M. 2014. The untold sacrifice: the monotony and incompleteness of self-sacrifice in northeast Brazil.

Ethnos 79(3):342–64 Mbembe A. 2003. Necropolitics. Public Cult. 15(1):11–40 Metcalf P, Huntington R. 1991. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. Press. 2nd ed. Mills A, Slobodin R, eds. 1994.Amerindian Rebirth: Reincarnation Belief Among North American Indians and Inuit.

Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press Mitford J. 1978. The American Way of Death Revisited. New York: Knopf Morgan L. 2009. Icons of Life: A Cultural History of Human Embryos. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Mueggler E. 2001.The Age of Wild Ghosts: Memory, Violence, and Place in Southwest China. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

Press Mueggler E. 2018. Songs for Dead Parents: Corpse, Text, and World in Southwest China. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press Newby Z, Toulson R, eds. 2018. The Materiality of Mourning: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York:

Routledge Norwood F. 2009. The Maintenance of Life: Preventing Social Death Through Euthanasia Talk and End-of-Life

Care—Lessons from the Netherlands. Durham, NC: Carol. Acad. Press O’Neill KL. 2012. There is no more room: cemeteries, personhood, and bare death. Ethnography 13(4):510–

30 O’Rourke D. 2007.Mourning becomes eclectic: death of communal practice in a Greek cemetery.Am. Ethnol.

34(2):387–402

42 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Obeyesekere G. 2002. Imagining Karma: Ethical Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist, and Greek Rebirth. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Olson PR. 2014. Flush and bone: funeralizing alkaline hydrolysis in the United States.Sci. Technol.Hum.Values. 39(5):666–93

Olson PR. 2018. Domesticating deathcare: the women of the U.S. natural deathcare movement. J. Med. Humanit. 39(2):195–215

Palgi P, Abramovitch H. 1984. Death: a cross-cultural perspective. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:385–417 Parry J. 1986. The gift, the Indian gift and the ‘Indian gift.’Man 21(3):453–73 Parry JP. 1994.Death in Banaras. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Petryna A. 2003. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Prendergast D, Hockey J, Kellaher L. 2006. Blowing in the wind? Identity, materiality, and the destination of

human ashes. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 12(4):881–98 Radcliffe-Brown AR. 1933. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Robben ACGM. 2018a.Argentina Betrayed: Memory,Mourning, and Accountability. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press Robben ACGM, ed. 2018b. A Companion to the Anthropology of Death. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Robbins J. 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and moral torment in a Papua New Guinea society. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. Press Rosaldo R. 1984. Grief and a headhunter’s rage: on the cultural force of emotions. In Text, Play, and Story:

The Construction and Reconstruction of Self and Society, ed. EM Bruner, pp. 178–98. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland

Rouse C. 2004. “If she’s a vegetable, we’ll be her garden”: embodiment, transcendence, and citations of com- peting cultural metaphors in the case of a dying child. Am. Ethnol. 31(4):514–29

Rubinstein RA, Lane SD, Mojeed L, Sanchez S, Catania E, et al. 2018. Blood in the Rust Belt: mourning and memorialization in the context of community violence. Curr. Anthropol. 59(4):439–54

Russ AJ. 2005. Love’s labor paid for: gift and commodity at the threshold of death. Cult. Anthropol. 20(1):128– 55

Schafer C. 2011. Celebrant ceremonies: life-centered funerals in Aotearoa/New Zealand. J. Ritual Stud. 25(1):1–13

Scheper-Hughes N. 1993.Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Schwarz M. 2015.Dead Matter: The Meaning of Iconic Corpses. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Sharp LA. 2006. Strange Harvest: Organ Transplants, Denatured Bodies, and the Transformed Self. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. Press Simpson B, Douglas-Jones R. 2017. New immortalities: death, donation, and dedication in the twenty-first

century.Med. Anthropol. Theory 4(4):1–21 Singh B.2012.The headless horseman of central India: sovereignty at varying thresholds of life.Cult.Anthropol.

27(2):383–407 Sluka JA, ed. 1999.Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press Stepputat F, ed. 2014a. Governing the Dead: Sovereignty and the Politics of Dead Bodies. Manchester, UK:

Manchester Univ. Press Stepputat F. 2014b. Introduction. See Stepputat 2014a, pp. 3–11 Suzuki H. 2000. The Price of Death: The Funeral Industry in Contemporary Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.

Press SvendsenMN,Navne LE,Gjødsbøl IM,DamMS. 2018.A life worth living: temporality, care, and personhood

in the Danish welfare state. Am. Ethnol. 45(1):20–33 Talebi S. 2011. Ghosts of Revolution: Rekindled Memories of Imprisonment in Iran. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.

Press Taylor AC. 1993. Remembering to forget: identity, mourning and memory among the Jivaro.Man 28(4):653–

78 Telle KG. 2000. Feeding the dead: reformulating Sasak mortuary practices. Bijdragen/J. Humanit. Soc. Sci.

Southeast Asia Ocean. 156(4):771–805 Tomlinson M. 2007. Publicity, privacy, and “happy deaths” in Fiji. Am. Ethnol. 34(4):706–20

www.annualreviews.org • The Anthropology of Death Revisited 43

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48CH03_Engelke ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:24

Toulson R. 2013. The meanings of red envelopes: promises and lies at a Singaporean Chinese funeral. J. Mat. Cult. 18(2):155–69

Vaczi M. 2014.Death in the Cathedral: mortuary practices in sport stadiums. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 20(4):635–52 van der Geest S. 2006. Between death and funeral: mortuaries and the exploitation of liminality in Kwahu,

Ghana. Africa 76(4):485–501 Van der Sijpt E. 2018. “Soothing my child’s soul and my own:” dealing with pregnancy loss in postcommunist

Romania. Ethos. https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12222 Vargas J. 2015. Black lives don’t matter. Hot Spots Ser. Fieldsights, June 29. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/

black-lives-dont-matter Verdery K. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York: Columbia Univ.

Press Vitebsky P. 1993.Dialogues with the Dead: The Discussion of Mortality among the Sora of Eastern India. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Vitebsky P. 2017.Living without the Dead: Loss and Redemption in a Jungle Cosmos. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press Volkman TA. 1987. Mortuary tourism in Tana Toraja. In Indonesian Religions in Transition, ed. RS Kipp,

S Rodgers, pp. 161–67. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press Walter T. 1994. The Revival of Death. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Watson J. 1982. Of flesh and bones: the management of death pollution in Cantonese society. See Bloch &

Parry 1982a, pp. 155–86 WeberM. 1946. Science as a vocation. In FromMaxWeber: Essays in Sociology, ed./transl.HHGerth,CWMills,

pp. 129–56. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Wikan U. 1990.Managing Turbulent Hearts: A Balinese Formula for Living. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Willerslev R. 2009. The optimal sacrifice: a study of voluntary death among the Siberian Chukchi.Am. Ethnol.

36(4):693–704 Williams BC. 2015. #BlackLivesMatter: Anti-black racism, police violence, and resistance. Hot Spots

Ser. Fieldsights, June 29. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/696-blacklivesmatter-anti-black-racism- police-violence-and-resistance

Woodburn J. 1982. Social dimensions of death in four African hunting and gathering societies. See Bloch & Parry 1982a, pp. 187–210

Yurchak A. 2015. Bodies of Lenin: the hidden science of communist sovereignty.Representations 129(1):116–57

44 Engelke

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48_FrontMatter ARI 16 September 2019 14:27

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 48, 2019

Contents

Perspectives

How Maya Archaeologists Discovered the 99% Through the Study of Settlement Patterns Jeremy A. Sabloff ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 1

Archaeology

Archaeology and Social Memory Ruth M. Van Dyke ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 207

Arctic Archaeology and Climate Change Sean P.A. Desjardins and Peter D. Jordan ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 279

Itinerant Objects Alexander A. Bauer ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 335

The Call of the Wild: Rethinking Food Production in Ancient Amazonia Eduardo G. Neves and Michael J. Heckenberger ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 371

Biological Anthropology

Adolescence as a Biocultural Life History Transition Meredith W. Reiches ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 151

Soylent Is People, and WEIRD Is White: Biological Anthropology, Whiteness, and the Limits of the WEIRD Kathryn B.H. Clancy and Jenny L. Davis ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 169

Population Demography, Ancestry, and the Biological Concept of Race Adam P. Van Arsdale ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 227

The Embodiment of War: Growth, Development, and Armed Conflict Patrick F. Clarkin ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 423

vii

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48_FrontMatter ARI 16 September 2019 14:27

Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices

Communicating Citizenship Alejandro I. Paz ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣77

Language Endangerment in Childhood Barbra A. Meek ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣95

Governmentality and Language Jacqueline Urla ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 261

Poverty and Children’s Language in Anthropolitical Perspective Amy L. Paugh and Kathleen C. Riley ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 297

Evidentiality Lila San Roque ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 353

From Literacy/Literacies to Graphic Pluralism and Inscriptive Practices Erin Debenport and Anthony K. Webster ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 389

Sociocultural Anthropology

Multisensory Anthropology David Howes ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣17

The Anthropology of Death Revisited Matthew Engelke ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣29

The Anthropology of Populism: Beyond the Liberal Settlement William Mazzarella ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣45

Food: Location, Location, Location David Beriss ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣61

The Anthropology of Islam in Europe: A Double Epistemological Impasse Nadia Fadil ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 117

Environmental Politics of Reproduction Martine Lappé, Robbin Jeffries Hein, and Hannah Landecker ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 133

Physician Anthropologists Claire L. Wendland ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 187

Uncommon Futures David Valentine and Amelia Hassoun ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 243

The Anthropology of Art, After the End of Art: Contesting the Art-Culture System Eugenia Kisin and Fred R. Myers ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 317

viii Contents

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48_FrontMatter ARI 16 September 2019 14:27

The Anthropology of Water Andrea Ballestero ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 405

Theme I: Mobilities

Theme II: Social In/justice

Contents ix

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

AN48_FrontMatter ARI 16 September 2019 14:27

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 39–48 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 443 Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 39–48 ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ 447 Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/anthro

x Contents

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 01

9. 48

:2 9-

44 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lre

vi ew

s.o rg

A cc

es s p

ro vi

de d

by Il

lin oi

s W es

le ya

n U

ni ve

rs ity

o n

08 /2

5/ 20

. F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl