Friday, August 29, 2014

The Real Reason Sugar Has No Place in Cornbread


20140820-cornbread-vicky-wasik-1.jpg


20140820-cornbread-vicky-wasik-2.jpg




And it should always be made in a cast iron skillet. [Photographs: Vicky Wasik]
I'm about to touch the third rail of Southern food. Well, actually, one of the third rails of Southern food, for when it comes to defining how certain beloved dishes should or should not be made, Southerners can get downright touchy. But, sometimes a truth is so self-evident that you can't present an impartial case for both sides. So I'm just going to say it: sugar has no business in cornbread.
Neither, for that matter, does wheat flour. One might make something quite tasty with well-sweetened wheat flour mixed with cornmeal, but be honest with yourself and call it a dessert. Cornbread is something else.
Now for a less personal perspective.
Much of the sugar/no sugar debate comes down to how one's grandmother made cornbread (and my grandmother didn't let a speck of sugar enter her batter). There are plenty of otherwise perfectly normal Southerners (my wife, for instance) whose grandmothers put sugar in cornbread. And there's a good explanation for why they did it. It all comes down to the nature of modern cornmeal.

Daily Bread

20140820-cornbread-vicky-wasik-3.jpgBut, first, a word on cornbread and Southerness. A lot of corn is grown in places like Iowa and Illinois, and Americans in all parts of the country have long made breads, cakes, and muffins from cornmeal. But for some reason, cornbread itself is still associated primarily with the South.
"The North thinks it knows how to make cornbread, but this is gross superstition," Mark Twain wrote in his autobiography. When the Southern Foodways Alliance needed a title for their series of books collecting the best Southern food writing, they chose Cornbread Nation.
Cornbread's enduring role in Southern cookery comes from its ubiquity—it was the primary bread eaten in the region from the colonial days until well into the 20th century. Though farmers in the Northeast and Midwest cultivated thriving crops of wheat and rye, corn remained the staple grain of the south, as European wheat withered and died of rust in the region's heat and humidity.
For all but the wealthiest Southerners, the daily bread was cornbread.
For all but the wealthiest Southerners, the daily bread was cornbread. "In the interior of the country," a New York Times correspondent observed in an 1853 article about Texas, "cornbread forms the staple article of diet—anything composed of wheat flour being about as scarce as ice-cream in Sahara." Biscuits made from wheat flour are very closely associated with the South, but for most Southerners they were rare treats reserved for special occasions like Sunday dinner.

Early Cornbread

The simplest type of cornbread was corn pone, which was made from a basic batter of cornmeal stirred with water and a little salt. It was typically cooked in a greased iron skillet or Dutch oven placed directly on hot coals. An iron lid was put on top and covered with a layer of embers, too, so the bread was heated from both bottom and top and baked within the pan.
Over time, the basic pone recipe was enhanced to become cornbread. Cooks first added buttermilk and a little baking soda to help it rise. Later, eggs and baking powder made their way into many recipes. But there are two ingredients you almost never see in any recipes before the 20th century: wheat flour and sugar.
In 1892, a Times correspondent, after enumerating the many types of corn-based breads eaten in Virginia, noted, "It will be observed that in none of them is sugar used. There are cornmeal puddings served with sweet sauces, but no Southern cook would risk the spoiling of her cornbreads by sweetening them."
In 1937, the Times reported that "cornbread in Kentucky is made with white, coarsely ground cornmeal. Never, never are sugar and wheat flour used in cornbread. Water-ground cornmeal and water-ground whole wheat flour have still a market in Kentucky and are still used with delight."

Changing the Recipe

So why were cooks so unanimous on the subject of sugar and wheat flour up through the 1930s and so divided on it today? That mention of Kentucky's lingering market for "water-ground" meal provides an important clue, for a huge shift occurred in the cornmeal market in the early part of the 20th century, one that changed the very nature of cornmeal and forced cooks to alter their cornbread recipes.
There's no better source to turn to to understand these changes than Glenn Roberts of Anson Mills in Columbia, South Carolina. In the 1990s, Roberts embarked on a single-minded mission to help rediscover and revive the rich variety of grains that were all but lost amid the industrialization of agriculture and food production. He's cultivated a network of farmers to grow heirloom corn, rice, and other grains, and he launched Anson Mills to mill them in traditional ways and distribute them to restaurant chefs and home cooks.
During the 19th century, Roberts says, toll milling was the way most farm families got the meal for their cornbread. Farmers took their own corn to the local mill and had it ground into enough cornmeal for their families, leaving behind some behind as a toll to pay the miller. "With toll milling, it was three bags in, three bags out," Roberts explains. "A person could walk or mule in with three bags, take three bags home, and still get chores done."
The mills were typically water-powered and used large millstones to grind the corn. Starting around 1900, however, new "roller mills" using cylindrical steel rollers began to be introduced in the South. Large milling companies set up roller operations in the towns and cities and began taking business away from the smaller toll mills out in the countryside. "The bottom line is they went off stone milling because the economies didn't make sense," Roberts says, "which is why stone milling collapsed after the Depression."
Unlike stone mills, steel roller mills eliminate much of the corn kernel, including the germ; doing so makes the corn shelf stable but also robs it of much flavor and nutrition. The friction of steel rolling generates a lot of heat, too, which further erodes corn's natural flavor. Perhaps the most significant difference, though, is the size of the resulting meal.
"If you're toll milling," Roberts says, "you're using one screen. It's just like a backdoor screen. If you put the grits onto that screen and shake it, coarse cornmeal is going to fall through. The diverse particle size in that cornmeal is stunning when compared to a [steel] roller mill."
When cornmeal's texture changed, cooks had to adjust their recipes. "There's a certain minimum particle size required to react with chemical leaven," Roberts says. "If you are using [meal from a roller mill] you're not going to get nearly the lift. You get a crumbly texture, and you need to augment the bread with wheat flour, or you're getting cake."
The change from stone to steel milling is likely what prompted cooks to start putting sugar in their cornbread, too. In the old days, Southerners typically ground their meal from varieties known as dent corn, so called because there's a dent in the top of each kernel. The corn was hard and dry when it was milled, since it had been "field ripened" by being left in the field and allowed to dry completely.
High-volume steel millers started using corn harvested unripe and dried with forced air, which had less sweetness and corny flavor than its field-ripened counterpart. "You put sugar in the cornmeal because you are not working with brix corn," Roberts says, using the trade term for sugar content. "There's no reason to add sugar if you have good corn."

Today's Cornmeal


20140820-cornbread-vicky-wasik-4.jpg
By the end of the Depression, old fashioned stone-ground cornmeal and grits had all but disappeared from the South, replaced by paper bags of finely-ground corn powder. The new cornmeal tended to be yellow, while the meal used for cornbread in much of the coastal South traditionally had been white. (There is a whole complex set of issues associated with the color of cornmeal that will have to wait for a later time.)
Cooks who paid attention knew there was a difference. "A very different product from the yellow cornmeal of the North is this white water-ground meal of the South," wrote Dorothy Robinson in the Richmond Times Dispatch in 1952. "The two are not interchangeable in recipes. Most standard cookbooks, with the exception of a comparative few devoted to Southern cooking, have concerned themselves with yellow cornmeal recipes as if they did not know any other kind! They do not even distinguish between the two. They simply say, naively, 'a cup of cornmeal' when listing ingredients in a recipe."
But even those who knew the difference had trouble finding the old stone-ground stuff. In 1950, a desperate Mrs. Francine J. Parr of Houma, Louisiana, posted a notice in the Times-Picayune with the headline "Who's Got Coarse Grits?" and explained, "the only grits we can get is very fine and no better than mush. In short, I'm advertising for some grocer or other individual selling coarse grits to drop me a line."

Making Proper Cornbread


20140820-cornbread-vicky-wasik-5.jpg
Cornbread is just one of many traditional Southern foods that are difficult to experience today in their original form for the simple reason that today's ingredients just aren't the same. Buttermilk, rice, benne seeds, watermelons, and even the whole hogs put on barbecue pits: each has changed in fundamental ways over the course of the 20th century.
But, thanks to historically-minded millers like Glenn Roberts and others, it's getting a little bit easier to find real stone-ground cornmeal again. Some are even using heirloom varieties of dent corn to return the old flavor and sweetness to cornmeal and to grits, too.
The key to making good, authentic Southern cornbread is to use the right tools and ingredients. That means cooking it in a black cast iron skillet preheated in the oven so it's smoking hot when the batter hits the pan, causing the edges of the bread to brown. That batter should be made with the best buttermilk possible (real buttermilk if you can find it, which isn't easy).
And you shouldn't use a grain of wheat flour or sugar. If you start with an old fashioned stone-ground meal like the Anson Mills' Antebellum Coarse White Cornmeal, you'll have no need for such adulterations.


this gentleman got it just right...follow this recipe!!
I very much enjoyed this article and I am so glad to see someone tell the real story about cornbread and get it right. Like most southerners I agree whole heatedly that you should never put sugar in corn bread.
My dad and granddad have raised white dent corn for as long as I can remember, (i'm 51 my dad is 76). I use to go with them when they would take a sack of shelled corn to the miller to have it ground into corn meal. After the last old miller died in the area where I grew up, (southwest Virginia), my dad located and purchased a small stone mill and with the help of my granddad they brought it home and set it up. My dad is still raising his own white dent corn and grinding his own corn meal which he generously shares with me and many other folks in the community. I can tell you, it is nothing like the so called corn meal that you buy from the store. for the last 2 years he has raised a variety called Boone County White. Dad remembers raising it when he was growing up. The corn grows 15 feet tall and the ears of corn are can be as larges as 14 inches long and grow about 8 feet high on the stalk. I had never seen anything like it until 2 years ago when he raised the first patch of it. Truly "Corn as high as an elephants eye ...". I have seen a number of people requesting a recipe, so here it is and like most good things it is very simple.
If you like the bread about an inch to inch and a half thick us a #5 cast iron skillet, if you like it thinner then use a #7 or #8 cast iron skillet.
(The cast iron skillet needs to be well seasoned or the bread will stick)
Preheat you oven to 475. when the oven is hot put about a teaspoon or two of bacon grease in the skillet and slide it in the over on the top rack to heat up. While the skillet is heating, take a medium size mixing bowl and blend together:
1 1/2 cups of corn meal
1 tsp of salt
1 to 1 1/2 tsp of baking powder
1/4 tsp of baking soda
Add enough whole buttermilk to the dry ingredients to make a thick paste. If you like the cornbread kind of wet and heavy add a little extra buttermilk if you like it dry then use a little less.
When the skillet is good and hot, (the bacon grease will be starting to smoke), remove the skillet from the oven and pour in the batter and return it to the top rack of the oven. When the top is golden brown it is ready, about 15 to 20 minutes.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Maryland Crab-Cake Sandwich

Home / Blogs / Eat Like a Man
Eat Like a Man

Melissa Golden; illustrations by Mikey Burton
A Top Chef Masters contestant attempts to teach a writer who can barely make a bowl of cereal how to create food that expresses love and tastes delicious. In four hours. No problem.
Published in the September 2013 issue
The best way to cook is at someone's knee. You stand, you watch, you get out of the way when they need to get something off the stove. Stand there long enough and you start to pick up not only little tips, like how to chop a pepper, but also larger truths, like why we cook at all. Here, four writers with varying levels of experience shadow four great chefs, each at the top of his game. Feel free to stand and watch. Check back here to read more this week!

Lesson 1: Cook Like You Mean It

It took a bit for Bryan Voltaggio, the famous young chef with a pig tattooed on his arm, to decide I really was the tragic miracle I'd said I was. We were in the kitchen of his fourth and newest restaurant, Range, in Washington, D.C., pasta and cherry tomatoes and garlic simmering on the stove. A few minutes before, when I was cutting those same cherry tomatoes in half, I told him he was witnessing my first time putting a knife to a vegetable. Not long after, he wondered aloud whether he was being set up as part of some elaborate prank. That's when I mentioned I'd never cracked an egg. "How is that possible?" Voltaggio said. "How are you alive?"
I agreed that it was ridiculous for a thirty-nine-year-old man never to have cracked an egg, that it says something terrible about me as well as modern society that I can survive and in fact grow quite fat without acquiring even the most basic cooking skills, but nevertheless, I had never cracked an egg. Before entering Voltaggio's kitchen, I had possibly prepared the least food of any fully functioning North American adult: one plate of pasta — dried noodles and jarred sauce — just after I'd graduated from Meal Plan University and one serving of Hamburger Helper, with which I'd attempted to court the very good cook who somehow still became my wife. Other than those two barely digestible meals, whenever I have eaten, someone else has made my food for me, either because they love me or because I paid them. Only after Voltaggio watched me nervously crack that first egg did he finally believe me. "Nobody's that good an actor," he said.
Voltaggio comes from a family of cooks and chefs — he finished second to his brother, Michael, on the sixth season of Top Chef — and to watch him work in a kitchen is to watch witchcraft, years of experience and observation and fever poured into a cauldron. In some ways, that afternoon at Range confirmed my guiding philosophy: We should do only those things at which we are good. Why would I cook when Bryan Voltaggio cooks? If cooking makes him happy, and eating his food makes me happy, why would I upset that happy order of things? It had never made sense to me, and today it would remain nonsensical but for the fact that after we finished making our pasta, Voltaggio and I made the crab-cake sandwich that changed my life. We didn't just make that sandwich. We made every last component of that sandwich from its most basic ingredients. We made the soft, hot rolls, washing them with egg and sprinkling them with salt; we made the crab cakes, giant lumps of fresh crab combined with not much else and carefully levered into a pan of clarified butter; we even made the tartar sauce, from Voltaggio's original recipe, that went on top of the crab cakes like a blanket.

Now, here I must confess: While making that tartar sauce, I was consumed by the cynicism of my former self. It took me maybe an hour of work, not including the time I would need at home to find each of its fourteen ingredients. It required making grape-seed oil shimmer in the pan but not smoke — canola oil would smell like rotting fish, Voltaggio said, the sort of wisdom that seems impossible for me to own — and sweating diced celery, fennel, and onions, but not browning them. Alternatively, I could go out and buy a jar of tartar sauce in about six seconds. But then I finished Voltaggio's recipe, and I tasted it, and I understood. It wasn't some small fraction better than factory-born tartar sauce. It was better by orders of magnitude, turning something incidental into something essential. I can't recall eating any single tartar sauce in my life except for that one. Then we put it on the sandwich, and then we ate the sandwich, and holy sweet Mary mother of baby Jesus, it was the best sandwich I have ever eaten. It was the sandwich I had been dreaming about my whole life put suddenly where it belonged, in my open, groaning mouth.
What Voltaggio taught me, more than anything else, is that there is no particular magic in that trick. He refuses to call food art, or cooking artistry. That makes it sound more precious and inaccessible than it is. All good cooking requires, at its foundation, is generosity. Every decent meal I have eaten I have enjoyed because someone else had a big enough heart to make it.
I always thought of my refusal to cook as a selfless act: I was sparing the world my barbarism. In reality, learning how to make delicious whole food requires a capacity for goodness that I wish I didn't have to work so hard to possess. Yes, at some level, that crab-cake sandwich was just a sandwich, just caloric energy presented in a photogenic shape. But it was also this beautiful expression of care, this tender, charitable agreement that Bryan Voltaggio had made to teach me how to do some tiny fraction of what he does and to help me feel as though I could do more of it. I will make those crab-cake sandwiches again and again, partly because I couldn't live with the idea of never eating another one, but mostly because it will allow me to give something meaningful, my time and my effort, my attention and my education, to the people who remind me not only how I am alive but also why.

MARYLAND CRAB-CAKE SANDWICH

Bryan Voltaggio, Range, Washington D.C.
—As told to Francine Maroukian
Serves 6 to 8
Ingredients
  • 7 Tbsp mayonnaise, preferably Duke's
  • 1 Tbsp Old Bay
  • 2 ½ tsp Worcestershire sauce
  • 2 ½ tsp Dijon mustard
  • 3 ¾ tsp lemon juice
  • 2 eggs
  • 4 scallions, minced
  • 6 drops Tabasco sauce
  • ½ tsp fine sea salt
  • 2 lbs jumbo lump crabmeat, picked of shell fragments
  • 1 cup cracker meal for breading
  • 1 cup clarified butter*
  • 8 buns, toasted and buttered
In a medium bowl , combine the mayonnaise, Old Bay, Worcestershire, mustard, lemon juice, eggs, scallions, Tabasco, and sea salt. Using a wire whisk, mix the ingredients together to incorporate evenly. Add the crabmeat by thirds and fold gently with a spatula to be sure the crab does not get broken up.
Evenly coat the bottom of a baking dish with a generous dusting of the cracker meal, about ½ cup. Use an ice-cream scoop or a similar tool to divide crabmeat mixture into six or eight individual cakes. Place each crab cake in the cracker meal and dust with the remaining cracker meal, coating all sides. In a large frying pan, slowly heat the clarified butter. Use a candy thermometer to get it to 325 degrees, or stick the end of a chopstick into the butter — when it gives off a steady stream of bubbles, you're at 325.
Using a slotted metal or other high-heat-resistant spatula and working one at a time, place each cake into the butter, leaving a half inch between them so the crab cakes brown evenly. Cook crab cakes on both sides in the clarified butter, about 6 full minutes per side, until golden brown. (If you need to cook in multiple batches, set your oven at the lowest temperature and insert a cooling rack over a baking sheet, to rest the crab cakes on.) Let cakes sit for a minute, and then transfer them to the buns. Top with tartar sauce.
*Slowly melt three sticks of butter in a pan. When it starts bubbling, remove from heat. Using a spoon, remove white milk solids from the surface and discard. Pour the golden yellow layer of clarified butter into a container — this is what you will cook with. Discard the solids remaining on the bottom.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

The Kennewick Man: the most important human skeleton ever found in North America

The Kennewick Man Finally Freed to Share His Secrets

He’s the most important human skeleton ever found in North America—and here, for the first time, is his story


Smithsonian Magazine | Subscribe


n the summer of 1996, two college students in Kennewick, Washington, stumbled on a human skull while wading in the shallows along the Columbia River. They called the police. The police brought in the Benton County coroner, Floyd Johnson, who was puzzled by the skull, and he in turn contacted James Chatters, a local archaeologist. Chatters and the coroner returned to the site and, in the dying light of evening, plucked almost an entire skeleton from the mud and sand. They carried the bones back to Chatters’ lab and spread them out on a table.
The skull, while clearly old, did not look Native American. At first glance, Chatters thought it might belong to an early pioneer or trapper. But the teeth were cavity-free (signaling a diet low in sugar and starch) and worn down to the roots—a combination characteristic of prehistoric teeth. Chatters then noted something embedded in the hipbone. It proved to be a stone spearpoint, which seemed to clinch that the remains were prehistoric. He sent a bone sample off for carbon dating. The results: It was more than 9,000 years old.
Thus began the saga of Kennewick Man, one of the oldest skeletons ever found in the Americas and an object of deep fascination from the moment it was discovered. It is among the most contested set of remains on the continents as well. Now, though, after two decades, the dappled, pale brown bones are at last about to come into sharp focus, thanks to a long-awaited, monumental scientific publication next month co-edited by the physical anthropologist Douglas Owsley, of the Smithsonian Institution. No fewer than 48 authors and another 17 researchers, photographers and editors contributed to the 680-page Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton (Texas A&M University Press), the most complete analysis of a Paleo-American skeleton ever done.
The book recounts the history of discovery, presents a complete inventory of the bones and explores every angle of what they may reveal. Three chapters are devoted to the teeth alone, and another to green stains thought to be left by algae. Together, the findings illuminate this mysterious man’s life and support an astounding new theory of the peopling of the Americas. If it weren’t for a harrowing round of panicky last-minute maneuvering worthy of a legal thriller, the remains might have been buried and lost to science forever.


The storm of controversy erupted when the Army Corps of Engineers, which managed the land where the bones had been found, learned of the radiocarbon date. The corps immediately claimed authority—officials there would make all decisions related to handling and access—and demanded that all scientific study cease. Floyd Johnson protested, saying that as county coroner he believed he had legal jurisdiction. The dispute escalated, and the bones were sealed in an evidence locker at the sheriff’s office pending a resolution.
“At that point,” Chatters recalled to me in a recent interview, “I knew trouble was coming.” It was then that he called Owsley, a curator at the National Museum of Natural History and a legend in the community of physical anthropologists. He has examined well over 10,000 sets of human remains during his long career. He had helped identify human remains for the CIA, the FBI, the State Department and various police departments, and he had worked on mass graves in Croatia and elsewhere. He helped reassemble and identify the dismembered and burned bodies from the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Later, he did the same with the Pentagon victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Owsley is also a specialist in ancient American remains.
“You can count on your fingers the number of ancient, well-preserved skeletons there are” in North America, he told me, remembering his excitement at first hearing from Chatters. Owsley and Dennis Stanford, at that time chairman of the Smithsonian’s anthropology department, decided to pull together a team to study the bones. But corps attorneys showed that federal law did, in fact, give them jurisdiction over the remains. So the corps seized the bones and locked them up at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, often called Battelle for the organization that operates the lab.



nullAt the same time, a coalition of Columbia River Basin Indian tribes and bands claimed the skeleton under a 1990 law known as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA. The tribes demanded the bones for reburial. “Scientists have dug up and studied Native Americans for decades,” a spokesman for the Umatilla tribe, Armand Minthorn, wrote in 1996. “We view this practice as desecration of the body and a violation of our most deeply-held religious beliefs.” The remains, the tribe said, were those of a direct tribal ancestor. “From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time. We do not believe that our people migrated here from another continent, as the scientists do.” The coalition announced that as soon as the corps turned the skeleton over to them, they would bury it in a secret location where it would never be available to science. The corps made it clear that, after a monthlong public comment period, the tribal coalition would receive the bones.
The tribes had good reason to be sensitive. The early history of museum collecting of Native American remains is replete with horror stories. In the 19th century, anthropologists and collectors looted fresh Native American graves and burial platforms, dug up corpses and even decapitated dead Indians lying on the field of battle and shipped the heads to Washington for study. Until NAGPRA, museums were filled with American Indian remains acquired without regard for the feelings and religious beliefs of native people. NAGPRA was passed to redress this history and allow tribes to reclaim their ancestors’ remains and some artifacts. The Smithsonian, under the National Museum of the American Indian Act, and other museums under NAGPRA, have returned (and continue to return) many thousands of remains to tribes. This is being done with the crucial help of anthropologists and archaeologists—including Owsley, who has been instrumental in repatriating remains from the Smithsonian’s collection. But in the case of Kennewick, Owsley argued, there was no evidence of a relationship with any existing tribes. The skeleton lacked physical features characteristic of Native Americans.
In the weeks after the Army engineers announced they would return Kennewick Man to the tribes, Owsley went to work. “I called and others called the corps. They would never return a phone call. I kept expressing an interest in the skeleton to study it—at our expense. All we needed was an afternoon.” Others contacted the corps, including members of Congress, saying the remains should be studied, if only briefly, before reburial. This was what NAGPRA in fact required: The remains had to be studied to determine affiliation. If the bones showed no affiliation with a present-day tribe, NAGPRA didn’t apply.
But the corps indicated it had made up its mind. Owsley began telephoning his colleagues. “I think they’re going to rebury this,” he said, “and if that happens, there’s no going back. It’s gone."

Photos of the Ainu people of Japan, thought to be among his closest living relatives, were inspiration for Kennewick Man’s reconstruction. (National Anthropological Archives )

So Owsley and several of his colleagues found an attorney, Alan Schneider. Schneider contacted the corps and was also rebuffed. Owsley suggested they file a lawsuit and get an injunction. Schneider warned him: “If you’re going to sue the government, you better be in it for the long haul.”
Owsley assembled a group of eight plaintiffs, prominent physical anthropologists and archaeologists connected to leading universities and museums. But no institution wanted anything to do with the lawsuit, which promised to attract negative attention and be hugely expensive. They would have to litigate as private citizens. “These were people,” Schneider said to me later, “who had to be strong enough to stand the heat, knowing that efforts might be made to destroy their careers. And efforts were made.”
When Owsley told his wife, Susan, that he was going to sue the government of the United States, her first response was: “Are we going to lose our home?” He said he didn’t know. “I just felt,” Owsley told me in a recent interview, “this was one of those extremely rare and important discoveries that come once in a lifetime. If we lost it”—he paused. “Unthinkable.”
Working like mad, Schneider and litigating partner Paula Barran filed a lawsuit. With literally hours to go, a judge ordered the corps to hold the bones until the case was resolved.
When word got out that the eight scientists had sued the government, criticism poured in, even from colleagues. The head of the Society for American Archaeology tried to get them to drop the lawsuit. Some felt it would interfere with the relationships they had built with Native American tribes. But the biggest threat came from the Justice Department itself. Its lawyers contacted the Smithsonian Institution warning that Owsley and Stanford might be violating “criminal conflict of interest statutes which prohibit employees of the United States” from making claims against the government.
“I operate on a philosophy,” Owsley told me, “that if they don’t like it, I’m sorry: I’m going to do what I believe in.” He had wrestled in high school and, even though he often lost, he earned the nickname “Scrapper” because he never quit. Stanford, a husky man with a full beard and suspenders, had roped in rodeos in New Mexico and put himself through graduate school by farming alfalfa. They were no pushovers. “The Justice Department squeezed us really, really hard,” Owsley recalled. But both anthropologists refused to withdraw, and the director of the National Museum of Natural History at the time, Robert W. Fri, strongly supported them even over the objections of the Smithsonian’s general counsel. The Justice Department backed off.
Owsley and his group were eventually forced to litigate not just against the corps, but also the Department of the Army, the Department of the Interior and a number of individual government officials. As scientists on modest salaries, they could not begin to afford the astronomical legal bills. Schneider and Barran agreed to work for free, with the faint hope that they might, someday, recover their fees. In order to do that they would have to win the case and prove the government had acted in “bad faith”—a nearly impossible hurdle. The lawsuit dragged on for years. “We never expected them to fight so hard,” Owsley says. Schneider says he once counted 93 government attorneys directly involved in the case or cc’ed on documents.
Meanwhile, the skeleton, which was being held in trust by the corps, first at Battelle and later at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington in Seattle, was badly mishandled and stored in “substandard, unsafe conditions,” according to the scientists. In the storage area where the bones were (and are) being kept at the Burke Museum, records show there have been wide swings in temperature and humidity that, the scientists say, have damaged the specimen. When Smithsonian asked about the scientists’ concerns, the corps disputed that the environment is unstable, pointing out that expert conservators and museum personnel say that “gradual changes are to be expected through the seasons and do not adversely affect the collection.”
Somewhere in the move to Battelle, large portions of both femurs disappeared. The FBI launched an investigation, focusing on James Chatters and Floyd Johnson. It even went so far as to give Johnson a lie detector test; after several hours of accusatory questioning, Johnson, disgusted, pulled off the wires and walked out. Years later, the femur bones were found in the county coroner’s office. The mystery of how they got there has never been solved.
The scientists asked the corps for permission to examine the stratigraphy of the site where the skeleton had been found and to look for grave goods. Even as Congress was readying a bill to require the corps to preserve the site, the corps dumped a million pounds of rock and fill over the area for erosion control, ending any chance of research.
I asked Schneider why the corps so adamantly resisted the scientists. He speculated that the corps was involved in tense negotiations with the tribes over a number of thorny issues, including salmon fishing rights along the Columbia River, the tribes’ demand that the corps remove dams and the ongoing, hundred-billion-dollar cleanup of the vastly polluted Hanford nuclear site. Schneider says that a corps archaeologist told him “they weren’t going to let a bag of old bones get in the way of resolving other issues with the tribes.”
Asked about its actions in the Kennewick Man case, the corps told Smithsonian: “The United States acted in accordance with its interpretation of NAGPRA and its concerns about the safety and security of the fragile, ancient human remains.”
Ultimately, the scientists won the lawsuit. The court ruled in 2002 that the bones were not related to any living tribe: thus NAGPRA did not apply. The judge ordered the corps to make the specimen available to the plaintiffs for study. The government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which in 2004 again ruled resoundingly in favor of the scientists, writing:


 
because Kennewick Man’s remains are so old and the information about his era is so limited, the record does not permit the Secretary [of the Interior] to conclude reasonably that Kennewick Man shares special and significant genetic or cultural features with presently existing indigenous tribes, people, or cultures.
During the trial, the presiding magistrate judge, John Jelderks, had noted for the record that the corps on multiple occasions misled or deceived the court. He found that the government had indeed acted in “bad faith” and awarded attorney’s fees of $2,379,000 to Schneider and his team.
“At the bare minimum,” Schneider told me, “this lawsuit cost the taxpayers $5 million.”
Owsley and the collaborating scientists presented a plan of study to the corps, which was approved after several years. And so, almost ten years after the skeleton was found, the scientists were given 16 days to examine it. They did so in July of 2005 and February of 2006.
From these studies, presented in superabundant detail in the new book, we now have an idea who Kennewick Man was, how he lived, what he did and where he traveled. We know how he was buried and then came to light. Kennewick Man, Owsley believes, belongs to an ancient population of seafarers who were America’s original settlers. They did not look like Native Americans. The few remains we have of these early people show they had longer, narrower skulls with smaller faces. These mysterious people have long since disappeared.
***
To get to Owsley’s office at the National Museum of Natural History, you must negotiate a warren of narrow corridors illuminated by fluorescent strip lighting and lined with specimen cases. When his door opens, you are greeted by Kennewick Man. The reconstruction of his head is striking—rugged, handsome and weather-beaten, with long hair and a thick beard. A small scar puckers his left forehead. His determined gaze is powerful enough to stop you as you enter. This is a man with a history.
Kennewick Man is surrounded on all sides by tables laid out with human skeletons. Some are articulated on padded counters, while others rest in metal trays, the bones arranged as precisely as surgeon’s tools before an operation. These bones represent the forensic cases Owsley is currently working on.
“This is a woman,” he said, pointing to the skeleton to the left of Kennewick Man. “She’s young. She was a suicide, not found for a long time.” He gestured to the right. “And this is a homicide. I know there was physical violence. She has a fractured nose, indicating a blow to the face. The detective working the case thinks that if we can get a positive ID, the guy they have will talk. And we have a positive ID.” A third skeleton belonged to a man killed while riding an ATV, his body not found for six months. Owsley was able to assure the man’s relatives that he died instantly and didn’t suffer. “In doing this work,” he said, “I hope to speak for the person who can no longer speak.”
Owsley is a robust man, of medium height, 63 years old, graying hair, glasses; curiously, he has the same purposeful look in his eyes as Kennewick Man. He is not into chitchat. He grew up in Lusk, Wyoming, and he still radiates a frontier sense of determination; he is the kind of person who will not respond well to being told what he can’t do. He met Susan on the playground when he was 7 years old and remains happily married. He lives in the country, on a farm where he grows berries, has an orchard and raises bees. He freely admits he is “obsessive” and “will work like a dog” until he finishes a project. “I thought this was normal,” he said, “until it was pointed out to me it wasn’t.” I asked if he was stubborn, as evidenced by the lawsuit, but he countered: “I would say I’m driven—by curiosity.” He added, “Sometimes you come to a skeleton that wants to talk to you, that whispers to you, I want to tell my story. And that was Kennewick Man.”
A vast amount of data was collected in the 16 days Owsley and colleagues spent with the bones. Twenty-two scientists scrutinized the almost 300 bones and fragments. Led by Kari Bruwelheide, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian, they first reassembled the fragile skeleton so they could see it as a whole. They built a shallow box, added a layer of fine sand, and covered that with black velvet; then Bruwelheide laid out the skeleton, bone by bone, shaping the sand underneath to cradle each piece. Now the researchers could address such questions as Kennewick Man’s age, height, weight, body build, general health and fitness, and injuries. They could also tell whether he was deliberately buried, and if so, the position of his body in the grave.
Next the skeleton was taken apart, and certain key bones studied intensively. The limb bones and ribs were CT-scanned at the University of Washington Medical Center. These scans used far more radiation than would be safe for living tissue, and as a result they produced detailed, three-dimensional images that allowed the bones to be digitally sliced up any which way. With additional CT scans, the team members built resin models of the skull and other important bones. They made a replica from a scan of the spearpoint in the hip.
As work progressed, a portrait of Kennewick Man emerged. He does not belong to any living human population. Who, then, are his closest living relatives? Judging from the shape of his skull and bones, his closest living relatives appear to be the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands, a remote archipelago 420 miles southeast of New Zealand, as well as the mysterious Ainu people of Japan.
“Just think of Polynesians,” said Owsley.
Rib fragments showing details of the ends. (Chip Clark / NMNH, SI)
Not that Kennewick Man himself was Polynesian. This is not Kon-Tiki in reverse; humans had not reached the Pacific Islands in his time period. Rather, he was descended from the same group of people who would later spread out over the Pacific and give rise to modern-day Polynesians. These people were maritime hunter-gatherers of the north Pacific coast; among them were the ancient Jōmon, the original inhabitants of the Japanese Islands. The present-day Ainu people of Japan are thought to be descendants of the Jōmon. Nineteenth-century photographs of the Ainu show individuals with light skin, heavy beards and sometimes light-colored eyes.
Jōmon culture first arose in Japan at least 12,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 16,000 years ago, when the landmasses were still connected to the mainland. These seafarers built boats out of sewn planks of wood. Outstanding mariners and deep-water fishermen, they were among the first people to make fired pottery.
The discovery of Kennewick Man adds a major piece of evidence to an alternative view of the peopling of North America. It, along with other evidence, suggests that the Jōmon or related peoples were the original settlers of the New World. If correct, the conclusion upends the traditional view that the first Americans came through central Asia and walked across the Bering Land Bridge and down through an ice-free corridor into North America.
Sometime around 15,000 years ago, the new theory goes, coastal Asian groups began working their way along the shoreline of ancient Beringia—the sea was much lower then—from Japan and Kamchatka Peninsula to Alaska and beyond. This is not as crazy a journey as it sounds. As long as the voyagers were hugging the coast, they would have plenty of fresh water and food. Cold-climate coasts furnish a variety of animals, from seals and birds to fish and shellfish, as well as driftwood, to make fires. The thousands of islands and their inlets would have provided security and shelter. To show that such a sea journey was possible, in 1999 and 2000 an American named Jon Turk paddled a kayak from Japan to Alaska following the route of the presumed Jōmon migration. Anthropologists have nicknamed this route the “Kelp Highway.”
“I believe these Asian coastal migrations were the first,” said Owsley. “Then you’ve got a later wave of the people who give rise to Indians as we know them today.”
What became of those pioneers, Kennewick Man’s ancestors and companions? They were genetically swamped by much larger—and later—waves of travelers from Asia and disappeared as a physically distinct people, Owsley says. These later waves may have interbred with the first settlers, diluting their genetic legacy. A trace of their DNA still can be detected in some Native American groups, though the signal is too weak to label the Native Americans “descendants.”
Whether this new account of the peopling of North America will stand up as more evidence comes in is not yet known. The bones of a 13,000-year-old teenage girl recently discovered in an underwater cave in Mexico, for example, are adding to the discussion. James Chatters, the first archaeologist to study Kennewick and a participant in the full analysis, reported earlier this year, along with colleagues, that the girl’s skull appears to have features in common with that of Kennewick Man and other Paleo-Americans, but she also possesses specific DNA signatures suggesting she shares female ancestry with Native Americans.
Kennewick Man may still hold a key. The first effort to extract DNA from fragments of his bone failed, and the corps so far hasn’t allowed a better sample to be taken. A second effort to plumb the old fragments is underway at a laboratory in Denmark.
***
There’s a wonderful term used by anthropologists: “osteobiography,” the “biography of the bones.” Kennewick Man’s osteobiography tells a tale of an eventful life, which a newer radiocarbon analysis puts at having taken place 8,900 to 9,000 years ago. He was a stocky, muscular man about 5 feet 7 inches tall, weighing about 160 pounds.               
                                                                                        He was right-handed. His age at death was
                                                                                          around 40.
Kennewick Man pelvis. (Chip Clark / NMNH, SI)

Anthropologists can tell from looking at bones what muscles a person used most, because muscle attachments leave marks in the bones: The more stressed the muscle, the more pronounced the mark. For example, Kennewick Man’s right arm and shoulder look a lot like a baseball pitcher’s. He spent a lot of time throwing something with his right hand, elbow bent—no doubt a spear. Kennewick Man once threw so hard, Owsley says, he fractured his glenoid rim—the socket of his shoulder joint. This is the kind of injury that puts a baseball pitcher out of action, and it would have made throwing painful. His left leg was stronger than his right, also a characteristic of right-handed pitchers, who arrest their forward momentum with their left leg. His hands and forearms indicate he often pinched his fingers and thumb together while tightly gripping a small object; presumably, then, he knapped his own spearpoints.
Kennewick Man spent a lot of time holding something in front of him while forcibly raising and lowering it; the researchers theorize he was hurling a spear downward into the water, as seal hunters do. His leg bones suggest he often waded in shallow rapids, and he had bone growths consistent with “surfer’s ear,” caused by frequent immersion in cold water. His knee joints suggest he often squatted on his heels. I like to think he might have been a storyteller, enthralling his audience with tales of far-flung travels.
Many years before Kennewick Man’s death, a heavy blow to his chest broke six ribs. Because he used his right hand to throw spears, five broken ribs on his right side never knitted together. This man was one tough dude.
The scientists also found two small depression fractures on his cranium, one on his forehead and the other farther back. These dents occur on about half of all ancient American skulls; what caused them is a mystery. They may have come from fights involving rock throwing, or possibly accidents involving the whirling of a bola. This ancient weapon consisted of two or more stones connected by a cord, which were whirled above the head and thrown at birds to entangle them. If you don’t swing a bola just right, the stones can whip around and smack you. Perhaps a youthful Kennewick Man learned how to toss a bola the hard way.
Spear point from Kennewick Man's hip
The most intriguing injury is the spearpoint buried in his hip. He was lucky: The spear, apparently thrown from a distance, barely missed the abdominal cavity, which would have caused a fatal wound. It struck him at a downward arc of 29 degrees. Given the bone growth around the embedded point, the injury occurred when he was between 15 and 20 years old, and he probably would not have survived if he had been left alone; the researchers conclude that Kennewick Man must have been with people who cared about him enough to feed and nurse him back to health. The injury healed well and any limp disappeared over time, as evidenced by the symmetry of his gluteal muscle attachments. There’s undoubtedly a rich story behind that injury. It might have been a hunting accident or a teenage game of chicken gone awry. It might have happened in a fight, attack or murder attempt.
Much to the scientists’ dismay, the corps would not allow the stone to be analyzed, which might reveal where it was quarried. “If we knew where that stone came from,” said Stanford, the Smithsonian anthropologist, “we’d have a pretty good idea of where that guy was when he was a young man.” A CT scan revealed that the point was about two inches long, three-quarters of an inch wide and about a quarter-inch thick, with serrated edges. In his analysis, Stanford wrote that while he thought Kennewick Man had probably received the injury in America, “an Asian origin of the stone is possible.”


The food we eat and the water we drink leave a chemical signature locked into our bones, in the form of different atomic variations of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. By identifying them, scientists can tell what a person was eating and drinking while the bone was forming. Kennewick Man’s bones were perplexing. Even though his grave lies 300 miles inland from the sea, he ate none of the animals that abounded in the area. On the contrary, for the last 20 or so years of his life he seems to have lived almost exclusively on a diet of marine animals, such as seals, sea lions and fish. Equally baffling was the water he drank: It was cold, glacial meltwater from a high altitude. Nine thousand years ago, the closest marine coastal environment where one could find glacial meltwater of this type was Alaska. The conclusion: Kennewick Man was a traveler from the far north. Perhaps he traded fine knapping stones over hundreds of miles.
 
The food we eat and the water we drink leave a chemical signature locked into our bones, in the form of different atomic variations of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. By identifying them, scientists can tell what a person was eating and drinking while the bone was forming. Kennewick Man’s bones were perplexing.
Although he came from distant lands, he was not an unwelcome visitor. He appears to have died among people who treated his remains with care and respect. While the researchers say they don’t know how he died—yet—Owsley did determine that he was deliberately buried in an extended, prone position, faceup, the head slightly higher than the feet, with the chin pressed on the chest, in a grave that was about two and a half feet deep. Owsley deduced this information partly by mapping the distribution of carbonate crust on the bones, using a magnifying lens. Such a crust is heavier on the underside of buried bones, betraying which surfaces were down and which up. The bones showed no sign of scavenging or gnawing and were deliberately buried beneath the topsoil zone. From analyzing algae deposits and water-wear marks, the team determined which bones were washed out of the embankment first and which fell out last. Kennewick Man’s body had been buried with his left side toward the river and his head upstream.
***
The most poignant outcome? The researchers brought Kennewick Man’s features back to life. This process is nothing like the computerized restoration seen in the television show Bones. To turn a skull into a face is a time-consuming, handcrafted procedure, a marriage of science and art. Skeletal anatomists, modelmakers, forensic and figurative sculptors, a photographic researcher and a painter toiled many months to do it.
The first stage involved plotting dozens of points on a cast of the skull and marking the depth of tissue at those points. (Forensic anatomists had collected tissue-depth data over the years, first by pushing pins into the faces of cadavers, and later by using ultrasound and CT scans.) With the points gridded out, a forensic sculptor layered clay on the skull to the proper depths.
The naked clay head was then taken to StudioEIS in Brooklyn, which specializes in reconstructions for museums. There, sculptors aged his face, adding wrinkles and a touch of weathering, and put in the scar from the forehead injury. Using historic photographs of Ainu and Polynesians as a reference, they sculpted the fine, soft-tissue details of the lips, nose and eyes, and gave him a facial expression—a resolute, purposeful gaze consistent with his osteobiography as a hunter, fisherman and long-distance traveler. They added a beard like those commonly found among the Ainu. As for skin tone, a warm brown was chosen, to account for his natural color deepened by the harsh effects of a life lived outdoors. To prevent too much artistic license from creeping into the reconstruction, every stage of the work was reviewed and critiqued by physical anthropologists.
“I look at him every day,” Owsley said to me. “I’ve spent ten years with this man trying to better understand him. He’s an ambassador from that ancient time period. And man, did he have a story.”
Today, the bones remain in storage at the Burke Museum, and the tribes continue to believe that Kennewick Man is their ancestor. They want the remains back for reburial. The corps, which still controls the skeleton, denied Owsley’s request to conduct numerous tests, including a histological examination of thin, stained sections of bone to help fix Kennewick Man’s age. Chemical analyses on a lone tooth would enable the scientists to narrow the search for his homeland by identifying what he ate and drank as a child. A tooth would also be a good source of DNA. Biomolecular science is advancing so rapidly that within five to ten years it may be possible to know what diseases Kennewick Man suffered from and what caused his death.
Today’s scientists still have questions for this skeleton, and future scientists will no doubt have new ones. Kennewick Man has more to tell.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/#cJjuCq3D6dLC8DuW.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


Greater Boston Needs 300,000 to 435,000 more homes


(NECN: Peter Howe, Boston) - We’re always known super-expensive Greater Boston needs way more affordable housing. But Thursday regional planning experts put an astonishing new number on just how many new housing units the region will need by 2040 to keep the economy growing and accommodating new workers to replace retiring Baby Boomers: 300,000 to 435,000 more houses, apartments, condos, townhouses and micro-units.

"We have a lot of baby boomers who are likely to retire at an increasing pace over the course of the next few decades," said Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which conducted the study. "They're going to be leaving their jobs, and we need young workers to fill in those jobs if our economy's going to remain strong … We're going to have to have a place for those workers to live, and that means building more housing in the city of Boston, around the city of Boston, and even in urbanized areas in the suburbs, village centers, near commuter rail stations and other places."



The MAPC study takes into account demographics and also a growing trend that average household size has been steadily declining, and looks likely to keep declining, as more and more people live longer alone or unmarried or widowed or choosing not to have roommates.

But just how big a number is 435,000 housing units? According to Census Bureau data, that is as much housing as now exists in Boston, Quincy, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, and Revere – combined. (The Census Bureau website showed as of 2010 272,481 housing units in Boston, 42,838 in Quincy, 47,291 in Cambridge, 33,720 in Somerville, 12,621 in Chelsea, and 22,100 in Revere.) Imagine the total housing stock in Boston and those five neighboring cities – and that’s what has to be built, all over again, over the next 26 years, according to the MAPC’s scenario that envisions the strongest economic growth.

Gregory Vasil, president of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, considers that goal extraordinarily difficult to reach. "It's going to be difficult, and I think we're going to have to change in terms of the kind of product and the kind of housing that we look into," Vasil said, with much more willingness for developers to build and residents to buy more land-efficient townhomes, apartments, and multi-until residential living. That, in turn, will require dozens of communities making big changes in what they’ll allow to be built and where within their borders.

"Zoning would be enormous" to change, Vasil said. "Many communities around Massachusetts, especially towns, don't have areas of their town and community zoned for a multi-family" development. Besides zoning, Vasil said, developing 435,000 more housing units around Greater Boston also could drive huge issues of water and sewer infrastructure, parking, and public transportation.

But Patricia L. Belden, chief operating officer of Preservation Of Affordable Housing, who has helped build or save 8,000 units of affordable housing nationally over the last 13 years, said she considers the MAPC’s target doable by 2040 – with the right attitudes and commitment.

"Zoning, water and sewer – they are barriers, but they are also barriers that can go away more readily with better coordination and communication," Belden said. For the region to reach anything close to the level of increased housing the MAPC identifies as necessary, Belden said, "That vision needs to be shared. It needs to be shared by cities and towns who have and play a part in it and see that a growing economy also is in their interest."

Before leaving office, former Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino late last year set a goal of 30,000 more housing units in Boston within a decade. Massachusetts Governor Deval L. Patrick has floated a goal of 10,000 more housing units per year being constructed and developed across Massachusetts.

What the MAPC report suggests is that far from being bold or ambitious goals, those may just be down payments on the kind of new residential development needed for Greater Boston to maintain the kind of economic vibrancy it’s come to expect and depend on in the 1990s and 2000s.



"A strong economy depends on a strong workforce," Draisen said, "and those workers need somewhere to live -- or they're not going to come to the Boston region."

With videographer Dan Smith and video editor Lauren Kleciak


Tags: Boston, Peter Howe, Boston housing, housing needs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we don’t have the housing we need, we can’t attract the people we need, and it discourages employers from moving to the region,” said Marc Draisen, the council’s executive director.

If there is strong growth, a large number of communities would see their population expand, some substantially, according to the report. Boston’s population could shoot from 617,000 in 2010 to more than 700,000 in 2030, with nearby urban areas also expecting growth.

‘If we don’t have the housing we need, we can’t attract the people we need, and it discourages employers from moving to the region.’
MARC DRAISEN, Executive director, Metropolitan Area Planning Council

In the Globe North area, Everett, Revere, Somerville, Methuen, and Malden could grow more than 20 percent by the year 2030, according to the report. But 14 communities are projected to lose residents, including Boxford, Wenham, Nahant, Newbury, and Topsfield.

The region will see strong growth if it can build enough housing, particularly apartments and condos in urban areas and town centers, if it can attract and retain more young people, and if the trend toward urban living continues, according to the report.

J. GILBERT MCALLISTER THE MEMORIAL RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

DOCUMENTS AND MINUTES OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
REPORT OF THE MEMORIAL RESOLUTION COMMITTEE FOR
J. GILBERT MCALLISTER
The special committee of the General Faculty to prepare a Memorial Resolution for J. Gilbert
McAllister, Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, has filed with the Secretary of the General
Faculty the following report.
H. Paul Kelley, Secretary
The General Faculty
IN MEMORIAM
J. GILBERT McALLISTER
J. Gilbert McAllister, “Dr. Mac” to many generations of students, was an extraordinary teacher
who put most of his professional energy into the classroom rather than into research and the politics of
academia. He anticipated that his salary might suffer as a consequence but, characteristically, he figured it
was his career and his business. He did not vacillate, and he had no patience with apologists. He viewed
himself as an anthropologist, a teacher, and a Texas liberal confronting galloping McCarthyism and deep
Texas conservatism.
Primarily a cultural anthropologist, he also carried out significant archaeological research early in
his career, and one of his principal contributions to anthropology other than in the classroom was as an
archaeological administrator. His courses, however, emphasized social anthropology, in Oceania and
among Plains Indians. As the testimonials at the end of this memorial resolution make clear, no student
ever forgot the experience of a MacAllister course. He memorized the names and faces of every
student—in the McAllister classroom there were no anonymous back-row seats—and used this skill to
demand the best of every individual. Survival in his courses required, first, that one study and know the
material; second, that one think, and think critically; and third—most difficult—that one express oneself
cogently. Dr. Mac dispensed biting criticism and warm praise to precipitate challenging and rewarding
classroom encounters. For many students, his class was their most moving and memorable college
experience. No matter what the grade, each student knew that Dr. Mac, more than most professors, cared
what students thought.
J. Gilbert McAllister (he never used his first name, John) was born January 26, 1904, in San
Antonio, Texas. Educated in the public schools of San Antonio, he went on to The University of Texas,
and to graduate school at the University of Chicago. He was on the anthropology faculty of his alma mater
in Austin for most of his career, during which he became one of the most forceful, respected, feared, and
effective teachers ever to practice the art of teaching in the halls of this institution.
Graduating from high school in San Antonio at age seventeen, he worked in a local library for a
year—“for twenty cents an hour,” he says on an oral-history tape recording made in 1980 by the Texas
State Archeologist, Curtis Tunnell. "None of my family had gone to college, but in 1922 I decided I should
go, so I came ... to The University of Texas. The first year I was in business school or something like that
21032
.... The second year I switched to English or journalism and got an article published in the campus
magazine."
Then he quit college and took a job on the daily San Antonio Light. "The two guys who had the
job before me got fired for getting drunk. All the city editor asked me when I came in was if I drank. I was
floored, and I said, ‘No, but I guess I could learn to drink.’ He hired me anyway and said, ‘Well, you got
the federal room.’ ”
After a year on the Light he returned to The University of Texas, majoring now in Sociology, with
Anthropology as a minor. A few years before, the Anthropology Department had been transformed from
an earlier Department of Institutional History by an inspired teacher, James E. Pearce, who had trained at
Chicago at the turn of the century under Frederick Starr and Cyrus Thomas, and at Paris under Manouvrier
and de Mortillet. Also on the Anthropology staff was George C. Engerrand, a colorful French
anthropologist of the old school, a polymath who expected his students to be as intimately versed as he in
the manners and customs of the peoples of the world. McAllister was much influenced by Engerrand and
even more so by Pearce who, by virtue of a marvelously warm and sincere personality and an evangelical
belief in the worth of anthropology, turned the young student into an anthropologist. In McAllister's words,
"Pearce was a phenomenal individual."
Gaining his Bachelor’s degree in Sociology in 1928, McAllister entered the anthropology graduate
program at the University of Chicago where he remained, except when in the field, until 1935, when he
received the Ph.D. degree. "At Chicago," he said, "I studied primarily under Redfield, and there was Cole,
and Sapir." He adds, without elaboration, "Conditions in Chicago were horrible." It is also made clear in
his dissertation that A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, the noted British social anthropologist then visiting at Chicago,
had a strong influence on him and his fellow graduate students.
The Chicago years were interrupted more than once. From 1929 to 1931 he was Ethnologist at the
Bishop Museum in Honolulu. Despite the title, his position was primarily in archaeology and resulted in
two substantial publications in 1933, The Archaeology of O`ahu and The Archaeology of Kahoolawe, the
first systematic surveys carried out on those islands. McAllister recorded every kind of site, adding
ethnohistorical and historical information wherever possible. Years later, not long before his death, he was
contacted by the Hawaiians and participated in a videotaped interview concerning one of the sites he had
recorded in the O`ahu survey, a site that has recently become politically important. Although he did no
more archaeology in the Pacific after 1931, his work there remains a solid piece of research that is a
valuable basic resource.
In the summer of 1931 he was Acting State Director of Archaeology in Indiana, and here his work
was part of a systematic statewide county-by-county survey that was creating the foundations of
archaeological research in the state, much as had been the case in Hawaii. The Archaeology of Porter
County, a 96-page report, was published in l932.
But his primary interest was always in cultural anthropology. In l933-1934 he and his wife Cora
Reveley McAllister (they had no children) were in Oklahoma for a year of field work collecting data for his
dissertation, Kiowa-Apache Social Organization. This was his major piece of research, resulting in his
receiving his doctorate in 1935. In it he reconstructed Kiowa-Apache culture as it had existed some six
decades earlier (before being overwhelmed by White culture) on the basis of detailed information obtained
from the oldest men of the tribe, who recalled those days vividly. He approached his analysis through the
details of kinship structure, acknowledging his intellectual debt to Radcliffe-Brown. The dissertation was
published in condensed form in 1937 as a chapter in the famous Radcliffe-Brown festschrift edited by Fred
Eggan, Social Organization of North American Tribes (Chicago, 1937; 2nd ed, 1955).
21033
With the degree in hand and a potential career ahead studying Plains Indian cultural anthropology,
McAllister was lured back to Austin in 1935 by his old mentor James Pearce. In the small department they
made a felicitous and charismatic teaching pair. Pearce was toward the close of his career, mellow and
conservative, whereas McAllister was in his early 30s, young, vigorous, and iconoclastic. In later years,
fondly recalling his relationship with Pearce, McAllister often told how they fought over such issues as
race, since Pearce was a racist and McAllister was anything but.
As it turned out, McAllister’s days in research had largely come to an end. He was to make his
name as an archaeological administrator and especially as a remarkable teacher. Pearce died in 1938, and
McAllister found himself not only Chairman of the department but also in charge of Pearce’s
archaeological program, which, as the Division of Research in Anthropology, was sending field parties to
many parts of the state. At first depending on private funds, the Division eventually, in the mid-1930s,
became one of the large Depression-era New Deal archaeological programs financed through the Works
Progress Administration. The largest of the field projects was the salvage archaeology that Pearce’s people
were carrying on in the basins of the then-building Highland Lake reservoirs, one of the earliest reservoir
archaeology programs in the world. Unfortunately, however, this field work suffered from a lack of up-todate
archaeological training on the part of Pearce and his subordinates, whose efforts were characterized
more by conscientiousness and zeal than by sophistication.
Gilbert McAllister, despite considering himself a cultural anthropologist, was now in charge of
the whole archaeological research program. He set about to modernize Texas archaeology by bringing in
well-trained persons, not a task to be accomplished overnight. He accepted the chairmanship of a statewide
committee to examine archaeological methods being used in the state. By the time World War II brought
archaeological work to a halt, a number of archaeologists with solid professional training—such persons as
Campbell, Kelley, Newell, Beattie, Stephenson, and Krieger—were at work in the state, and most of them
had been brought in by McAllister. After the war he was no longer involved in archaeology, but by that
time he had laid a solid foundation for modern archaeological research in Texas.
But beyond his administrative accomplishments, it was as a teacher that he eventually excelled.
By 1950 he was acquiring a reputation as a splendid pedagogue whom the students never forgot, and it is
this reputation that lives on. The list of his courses includes:
Ant. 311 - Man's Biocultural Heritage [Upper-Division General Anthropology]
Ant. 320 - Ethnology of Oceania
Ant. 322 - Indians of the Plains
Ant. 373 - Applied Anthropology
Ant. 376 - Early Social Organization
Ant. 382 - Method and Theory in Cultural Anthropology
Ant. 391 - Seminar in Social Anthropology
We can do no better than base the remainder of this essay on a series of reminiscences offered by
former students.
Bill Moyers, National Public Radio, in his Commencement address at The University, May 21,1988:
... If we're to build a common future—your generation and mine—we cannot
talk about the new economics of competition without talking about a new ethic of
cooperation. This means recognizing our capacity to make common cause with others,
between government and the business sector, and the necessity of creating a political
culture that nurtures and honors obligation and trust.
21034
This is not a new idea, although it is one widely ignored of late. Gilbert
McAllister taught it in his anthropology courses here 30-odd years ago. That's where I
had my first de-programming. I went to see Dr. McAllister this afternoon. He's 85. We
sat and talked for a long time. We talked again about the time he spent among the
Apaches as a young graduate student before he came here to teach. I said, "Do you
remember what you told us all those years ago that you learned from the Apaches?" He
thought a minute and said, "I'm not sure I can remember the exact words but I think I
talked to you about reciprocity." "That's right," I said, "reciprocity." Then he got going.
"You know, in the Apache tongue, the word grandfather is the same word for
grandson—grandfather, grandson—it's all one word. Of course, the Apaches believed in
the reciprocity of generations—in both linking and in locking one generation to another."
Reciprocity. Mutual help. Reinforcing. Time and time again in this class, he'd look
back over the sweep of time to tell us that human beings have advanced more in the past
through having learned the value of cooperative caring behavior than through their ability
to compete successfully.
Edward B. Jelks, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Illinois State University (at the time
of this episode, Dr. Jelks was not a callow freshman but a veteran coming out of World War II):
I met Gilbert in 1947 when, as an undergraduate student at The University of
Texas, I enrolled in his class in introductory cultural anthropology. At the first class
meeting he delivered what I later learned was a stock lecture in which he eloquently
deplored the sloppy use of language by students. Then he said if there was one thing he
hoped we would learn in college, it was how to communicate properly in both the
spoken and written word. As an English major I was duly impressed that an
anthropology professor emphasized the importance of communication skills.
On his first test there was a question asking us to "indicate" which of so and so
was such and such. While it was clear that he wanted a discussion-type answer, I could
not resist the temptation to respond with a brief sentence, stating that one particular so
and so was such and such, with no elaboration. When he returned my paper with no
credit for my answer, and with a marginal note that I should have discussed the matter, I
stopped by his office and, with some trepidation, told him that the word "indicate" does
not mean “to discuss,” but to point out something specific, which was what I had done. I
also reminded him of his lecture on using language properly and said I had been trying to
follow his advice.
Gilbert laughed, expressed his delight that I had called his hand, and gave me
full credit for my answer. From that moment on we were great friends. Later, when I
became employed as an archaeologist in Austin, my wife Judy and I became part of the
University social circle, and we came to know Gilbert and Cora well. Since leaving
Austin in 1968, we have kept in touch with them regularly through Christmas notes.
Gilbert was among the three or four of my professors whose teaching skills and
personal concern for their students were inspirational. He was a faithful mentor, both in
and out of the classroom, and he will be sorely missed by a multitude of former students.
Ronnie Dugger, political observer, in Our Invaded Universities (W. W. Norton, New York, 1974):
This reminded me ... of my experiences with a senior professor of anthropology,
J. Gilbert McAllister. A practitioner of what he called "education by irritation," Doctor
Mac, as we called him, would teach his large classes of Texas freshmen and sophomores
whatever would jolt or infuriate them into thinking about the American culture, and then
21035
he would grind it in. They got mad as hell, many of them disliked or even detested him,
but he didn't give a damn about that—he was educating them, and that was his work.
Once McAllister said something in class about vocabulary size that I believed
was wrong. I was a feisty and conceited young fellow, and he and I had spirited
exchanges in class, but by this time in the course I was enforcing a silence on myself. He
caught my disagreement on my face, though, and asked me for it, so I gave it. He said
that I was wrong; I said, politely, that I was right. Bring me a written paper to prove it,
he said. I burrowed into the library, worked hard on a paper that proved my case to my
satisfaction, and one morning laid it on his desk as class opened. Without looking it over
he told me to read it to the class. I said I had a cold. Read it, he said. I read it and
received an ovation. He said he still believed he was right, but he let things stand that
way. He was secure: he could let me have my day. And there was something in my
pride that made me ashamed and redoubled my respect for him.
When, therefore, one evening at the home of another professor, McAllister said
to me, "Dugger, you look to me like the kind of smart young guy who's going to sell out,"
he jolted me clear through to my ego, and that was all the way. As years passed I would
hear from students in his classes that he was telling and retelling the story of the paper on
vocabulary size, and telling it at his own expense, but all through college, on campus, in
halls, on the phone, he would say to me, "Well, Dugger, have you sold out yet?" For ten
years, fifteen, he kept asking me this question in the same serious, taunting way. If I had
a chance, I would do a lot for Gilbert McAllister.
Joe D. Gilliland, Professor Emeritus in Humanities, Cochise College, in a letter to the editor in The
Daily Texan, April 6, 1993:
Dr. McAllister was professor of anthropology while I was a student at the
University in 1943 and 1947. He was by any standard one of the great teachers in
America. He was the finest teacher I ever had at the University or at any university I
attended over the years.
Dr. McAllister was a man greatly loved by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
students. At one time or another those same students who loved him probably hated him
for the work he made us do. We loved him, not because he made us feel all warm and
good inside, or because his lectures entertained and charmed, but because he made us
think and often made us angry. But most important he made us aware of our world and
taught us how—not what—to think about that world.
Chad Oliver, Robert D. King Centennial Professor in Liberal Arts—Anthropology, The University of
Texas at Austin, "Some Blues for a Trio,” in Bryan A. Garner, comp. & ed., Texas, Our Texas:
Remembrances of the University. Eakin Press, Austin, 1984:
... One of the professors my fellow students were talking about was a man
named J. Gilbert McAllister of the Department of Anthropology.
Nobody ever referred to him as Dr. McAllister. It was always "Dr. Mac." The
essence of what I heard was this: "Before you get out of this place, you really should
take a course from Dr. Mac."
Why not? I was interested in anthropology, although it had never occurred to
me that I might one day become a professional anthropologist myself. I had a spot for an
elective my senior year. I decided to find out what this Dr. Mac was all about.
21036
I found out. I walked into his class on "Social Organization" with a casual
respect for anthropology. By the time it was over, I was an anthropologist. I was on fire
with the stuff.
Dr. Mac was like no other teacher I have ever had. He was a somewhat fraillooking
man with a vision. The vision permeated everything that he taught. It was a
belief—totally sincere and with no element of humbug about it—that this world could be
a better place and that anthropology could do a lot to make that happen.
Within a week, he knew every student in the class by name. Within two weeks,
he knew our life histories. Within three weeks, he had a personal battle going on with
every single student. If you were with him, he pushed you relentlessly to do more and
better work. If you were against him, he hammered away to put a dent in your armor.
Years later, when we were colleagues, I would watch former students troop into
Dr. Mac's office in Benedict Hall. Invariably, he would call them by name—and this
with students he had not seen in a decade or more. "Well, Miss Jones," he would say
with a twinkle in his eye, "about that question you missed on the second exam in the
Polynesia course. What do you think about it now?"
Dr. Mac believed in what he was doing. He did not just "teach a class." He
threw himself into it, heart and mind and soul. I have seen him leave a classroom so
spent that he could hardly walk. I remember—and will remember as long as I live—one
warm and humid day in his class on "Applied Anthropology." I was taking the course in
summer session and had driven in from a lakeside cabin I was renting. I was in high
good spirits. We were due to get a test back, and I knew that I had knocked that test dead
in its tracks.
Dr. Mac returned the tests. I had a grade of ninety-nine.
Dr. Mac went to work on me. "Mr. Oliver," he said, "I'll bet you think you're
really something."
I started to laugh in an aw-shucks manner, figuring that I was about to be singled
out as an example. I was indeed, but not in the way I was anticipating.
"You are capable of making 100 on any test I give," Dr. Mac said. "This is an
insult. I don't ever want it to happen again."
I began searching for a hole to crawl into. I could hardly believe my ears. I had
missed one point on an exam, and this man was angry.
Dr. Mac was not kidding. He may have calculated his performance a bit, but he
meant what he was saying. His point—which he made at considerable length—was that
if I was thinking of going to graduate school in anthropology I had to learn to give my
best. Anything less was unsatisfactory.
I left that class chagrined, angry, and determined. I never missed a point on one
of Dr. Mac's exams again. I knew I never wanted to go through that experience again.
The grade, of course, was not all that important. The lesson that he taught me, however,
was invaluable; whatever you do, give it your best shot or don't do it at all.
I have no idea how many students Dr. Mac inspired to seek professional careers
in anthropology or in related disciplines. There were a lot of us, and we all still make
21037
occasional pilgrimages to his home in Tarrytown. I do know that he gave us more than a
vision. Dr. Mac had been trained at the University of Chicago under Radcliffe-Brown,
one of the founders of modern social anthropology. When I went to graduate school at
U.C.L.A.—which had a very high-powered department of anthropology—I found that I
was as well prepared as students from anywhere else in the world. I attribute this largely
to the training I received from Dr. Mac.
Oddly enough, I never had a chance to take one of his most popular courses,
which was "Indians of the Plains." I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on the Plains Indians,
but after I joined the faculty at Texas I did not teach the course until Dr. Mac retired. It
was not that he had any objection; Dr. Mac was always a generous colleague and friend.
It was simply that "Indians of the Plains" was his course, and I was in no hurry to
compete with a legend.
Dr. Mac's favorite question in class was, "So what?" He would summarize the
contribution of some distinguished anthropologist and then ask his question. It meant:
"What difference does it make? What did this person do that affects how you look at the
world around you?"
Former students of mine may recognize the question. That is where it came
from, along with my addiction to hand-woven Indian ties.
Gilbert McAllister had—and has—a massive integrity about him. I do not
believe that he ever did anything that he thought was wrong. I do not believe that he ever
gave a dishonest answer to a question. We talk a lot about role models these days. He
was one of the good ones.
This seems an appropriate place to say in public what I have said to him many
times in private: "Thank you, Dr. Mac."
Dr. Mac retired in 1968 after thirty-three years of teaching. Maintaining contact with a host of former
students around the country, he and Cora lived quietly in Tarrytown, the old residential section of Austin,
until his death on March 20, 1993.
This Memorial Resolution was prepared by a special committee consisting of Professor Emeritus
E. Mott Davis (Chair) and Professor Claud A. Bramblett.
Distributed to Voting and Emeritus Members of the faculty of the Department of Anthropology, the Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts, the Executive Vice President and Provost, and the President on August 31,
1995.