Intruders in sacred territory
How Dutch anthropologists deal with popular mediation of their science
MYRNA EINDHOVEN,
LAURENS BAKKER
AND GERARD A.
PERSOON
SBS
Myrna Eindhoven is a PhD
student at the Institute of
Environmental Sciences at
Leiden University; Gerard
A. Persoon is head of the
Department of Environment
and Development at the same
institute. Laurens Bakker is
a PhD student at the Faculty
of Law, Radboud University,
Nijmegen. All authors have
extensive research experience
in the Mentawai Islands.Their
emails are:
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected].
Fig. 1. The first meeting
between the Bregman family
and the Hagahai of Papua
New Guinea.
8
In the autumn of 2005, the Dutch commercial television
station SBS61 broadcast Groeten uit de rimboe (‘Ticket
to the tribes’).2 In this eight-part series, two Dutch and
one Belgian family temporarily give up their luxurious
lifestyles to spend several weeks among ‘the most primitive tribes’ – the Himba in Namibia, the Mentawaians of
Siberut in Indonesia, and the Tamberma in Togo respectively.3 Groeten uit de rimboe explored whether these
Westerners could cope with primitive life and be accepted
as worthy members of the tribe. With an estimated average
of 1.5 million viewers, the series, broadcast at primetime
on Saturday evening, was an overwhelming success. In
this article we look at how the programme was received
in Dutch anthropological circles, and examine the relation between academic anthropology and entertainment
programmes which, while not anthropology, are popularly
associated with it.
The programme’s spin-off Groeten terug (‘The tribes
are coming’), broadcast in early spring 2006, was an even
greater success and had members of the tribes paying a
return visit to their Dutch guests.4 The producer promised:
‘It will be a complete culture shock for these people who
do not even know the world we live in exists, let alone
understand our daily life.’5 Its eight episodes showed the
Dutch families and their guests engaged in ‘typical’ Dutch
activities such as visiting the beach, a museum, a cheese
factory and an eel smokehouse, celebrating carnival and
birthdays, and ice-skating. There were other outings too,
supposedly more suitable for the tribal imagination: forest
walks, visits to the zoo and meetings with a tattoo artist.
Both Groeten uit de rimboe and Groeten terug generated
considerable media attention. While the general public
was enthusiastic – as witness the number of viewers and
responses in web-based forums – several rival television
stations began a campaign against the programme. They
argued that the ‘tasteless formula’ would probably cause
the ‘tribals’ lasting trauma. Some anthropologists, as well
as supporters of the rights of indigenous peoples, were
quick to join the protest, arguing that the programme promoted a form of neo-colonial exploitation of marginalized
groups. Yet they lacked authority. In NRC Handelsblad,
a leading Dutch newspaper, Groeten uit de rimboe was
referred to as ‘anthropology for the masses’ (Stigter
2006), and ‘anthropology for dummies’ (Beerekamp 2005)
– ignoring anthropologists’ stance that whatever it was, the
series was not anthropology.
The phenomenon is not unique. Pat Caplan’s (2005)
article on the series Tribe and the ensuing discussion in
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY (Hughes-Freeland 2006, Singer
2006, Fish and Evershed 2006) shows that anthropologists in the UK are debating similar issues: how is anthropology portrayed on TV? Who decides which programmes
are anthropology? While anthropologists disagree among
themselves, for the general audience the matter seems a
non-issue.
Tribe was recently broadcast on Belgian television, but
non-Dutch readers will be unfamiliar with the format of
Groeten uit de rimboe and Groeten terug. This is, however,
likely to change. The formula has been sold internationally
and Wie die Wilden (‘Like the savages’) began airing on
German television in August 2006.6 Australian and New
Zealand families are scheduled to follow, while production company Eyeworks reports that negotiations with
TV channels in Scandinavia, Italy, Spain and the USA are
at an advanced stage. In some cases the very same host
families are revisited, though still billed as members of
‘completely isolated tribes’. Meanwhile additional tribes
have been found in Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea and
Ecuador (Beekman 2006)7 and a new series of Groeten uit
de rimboe is being made for SBS6. The format of the programme is identical to the previous series; earlier criticism
from anthropologists has had no discernible impact.8
Although the discussions spawned by Tribe and Groeten
uit de rimboe are broadly similar, the programmes themselves differ. If Tribe has a little more of the flavour of a
science-based entertainment programme (stronger recent
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 23 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2007
We would like to thank
David Hymans for his
suggested improvements.
Any remaining errors are the
responsibility of the authors.
We are also grateful to the
anonymous AT reviewers for
their critical comments and
questions.
1. SBS6 is a commercial
television station aimed
at the ‘average Dutch
family’. It broadcasts light
entertainment, sport, films,
celebrity news shows
and news programmes
with a strong focus on the
Netherlands.
2. A description of the
programme format can be
found on the production
company’s website, www.
eyeworks.tv.
3. An earlier, completely
Belgian, version of the
format, Toast kannibaal
(‘Cannibal toast’), was
broadcast on Belgian
television in the spring of
2005.
4. Owing to administrative
difficulties the Tamberma
were not able to visit Belgium
in time for filming.
5. Quotation from press
release dated 25 January
2006 at http://www.eyeworks.
tv/?c=News&land=global&ni
d=155&fid=.
6. See http://www.sat1.de/
comedy_show/wiediewilden/.
7. The Ethiopian tribe
visited in the new series of
Groeten uit de rimboe are
the Suri, visited by Bruce
Parry in Tribe. A new series
of Tribe is likely to include
the Mentawaians of Siberut,
visited in the first Dutch and
German series of Groeten
uit de rimboe. We do not
know whether the producers
of Tribe and Groeten uit de
rimboe are in contact with
one another.
8. The BBC is planning to
produce a ‘female’ version
of Tribe based on encounters
between British women
(but not anthropologists)
and female members of
isolated communities
around the world (personal
communication with a BBC
researcher). We do not know
whether this plan is a reaction
to the much criticized ‘Boys’
Own’ character of Tribe or
an attempt to attract a new
audience.
9. In the reality show
category, at the 46th Rose
d’Or Festival. It did not win
the award.
10. Here we summarize
the most important arguments
drawn from a large number
of relatively short articles in
various media.
SBS
Fig. 2. Peter Bregman after
being dressed by his hosts
as a ‘real Hagahai’, to the
amusement of his wife and
daughters.
examples of which include Coast, but also Time Team and
Wild Thing), Groeten uit de rimboe unashamedly follows
in the footsteps of Big Brother and reality TV. The family
ties which unite the visitors, their helplessness in foreign
surroundings and strained interaction with their hosts form
the ingredients of a successful formula for emotionally
charged reality TV.
When the series began, we were critical of the highly
staged performances and the poor and occasionally suggestive translations. But what was more striking was the great
wave of unrest it generated amongst Dutch anthropologists: the programmes provoked a reaction whose ferocity
cannot be fully explained by the criticisms presented thus
far. Why were anthropologists so intent on putting down
this programme? And what does it tell us about the position of anthropology in Dutch society today?
Anthropologists’ reactions
Almost all rival television companies in the Netherlands
devoted attention to the series, and solicited help from
anthropologists to voice their criticism. Some anthropologists also approached the media to object to the
programme, which was nominated for an international
television award.9
Much of the criticism published in Dutch newspapers
and journals parallels Caplan’s and Hughes-Freeland’s
comments on Tribe.10 First there is the charge of exploiting
‘exotic’ people. In an extensive article in De Volkskrant,
another leading Dutch newspaper, an anthropologist from
the University of Amsterdam drew parallels between late
19th-century exhibitions of recently discovered tribes and
Groeten terug (van de Port 2006). The charge of exploitation also addresses the profit motive. While many anthropologists hold that research participants should receive a
fair return that reflects the services and information provided, the policies of the commercial television companies
remain unclear. It has been suggested that the indigenous
peoples involved in Groeten uit de rimboe and Groeten
terug received only tips (Blonk 2006).
A second criticism concerns the incomplete and onesided representation of the so-called ‘isolated tribes’.
Neither of the programmes mentioned that these people
live in modern nation-states; irrespective of how isolated
they may be, they must have had previous contact with the
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 23 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2007
agents of colonial as well as present-day states, but this
was never mentioned (van de Port 2006).
Thirdly, it was argued that the programmes were ethnocentric and promoted the assumption of Western cultural
supremacy, because of the ways in which Western and
tribal culture were presented. By contrasting itself with
contemporary ‘primitivism’, the Dutch audience realizes
its own cultural identity and achievements, which are
taken for granted in everyday life.
A fourth argument was advanced that bringing these isolated peoples into modern society would lead to all kinds of
trauma. The culture shock, it was feared, would be severe.
Radio stations connected to the rival television companies
made much of this theme, and searched for experts – often
cultural psychologists (Huigsloot 2006) – to confirm the
potential risks.11
The programmes also violated ethical standards that
anthropologists would consider sacrosanct, for example
that visitors should behave unobtrusively and respect local
norms. Some of the confrontation arose from the visitors’
lack of language skills, which gave rise to all kinds of
misunderstandings. Given the programme-makers’ aim of
maximum confrontation, the visit had to be short: people
should not come to understand each other or get used to
their hosts’ way of life. Once they are no longer dazed and
disturbed by their hosts’ behaviour, it’s hard to get entertaining footage.12
In response to these criticisms, the producer of the series
acknowledged that the main aim of the programme was to
entertain. He maintained, however, that in paying attention to tribal rituals interwoven with personal experiences
of survival in unfamiliar settings, the programmes were
respectful of culture. He denied the charge of cultural
suprematism, arguing that as the programmes also showed
the guests’ reactions to ‘strange’ things in Western culture,
the shock reaction was seen on both sides. He added that
in spite of the cultural differences, the series explicitly
showed ties of friendship and mutual understanding (Eljon
2006).
Anthropological authority
The authority to represent different peoples and cultures
that anthropologists have worked so hard to establish is
eroding. In the days of Malinowski, apart from the odd
9
Allen, Benedict 2001. The
last of the medicine men.
London: BBC Worldwide
Ltd.
Barley, Nigel 1983. The
innocent anthropologist:
Notes from a mud hut.
London: British Museum
Publications.
Beekman, Bor 2006.
Langlaufende zwarte
als exportartikel. De
Volkskrant, 19 August.
Beerekamp, Hans 2005. Het
Beeld. NRC Handelsblad,
23 September.
Blonk, Mathijs 2006. Groeten
terug, de lachspiegel.
Indigo 2. Available at:
http://www.nciv.net/site3/
pages/archief/Groeten%2
0terug,%20de%20lachspi
egel.htm
Caplan, Pat 2005. In search
of the exotic: A discussion
of the BBC2 series Tribe.
Anthropology Today 21(2):
3-7.
Eljon, Eric 2006. SBS6 neemt
‘primitieven’ wel serieus.
De Volkskrant, 4 April.
10
SBS
SBS
SBS
11. For instance the
programme Hoe? Zo! of 5
April 2006 (available on
http://www.teleac.nl/radio/
index.jsp?nr=134903&news_
nr=886233), in which
a discussion between a
professor of anthropology,
a professor of intercultural
communication and a
representative of SBS6
was aired. The discussion
revolved largely around
ethical versus commercial
interests.
12. According to the
Belgian family visiting
Mentawai hosts, situations
likely to give rise to physical
and emotional stress were
deliberately sought out and
carefully engineered by
Eyeworks’ production crew
(personal communication
with this Belgian family).
13. The Periplus series
‘Indonesia Travel Guides’
(Oey 1991) and the coffeetable book Indonesia in focus
(Schefold et al.), written by a
group of anthropologists, are
examples.
14. Eriksen (2006) points
out that this situation varies in
different nations. In Norway,
for instance, anthropologists
are very much part of the
media, popular debate and
issues of general interest.
traveller, missionary or colonial administrator, it was the
trained anthropologist who encountered the ‘exotic other’
in an adventurous cloud of secrecy. Extended research
periods and the ensuing monographs formed the basis of
this authority. Competitors (the same missionaries, travellers and colonial officials) were few in number, and their
goals were different. While mission and colonial influences
have diminished, modern media, international tourism,
NGOs and others with non-anthropological agendas have
replaced them in encroaching on the ‘sacred’ territory of
anthropology – the ‘noble savage’ who inhabits ‘out-ofthe-way places’.
Anthropologists’ efforts to reach a holistic understanding
of cultures different from their own stand in stark contrast
to the interests of other visitors. Many anthropologists
explicitly attempt to avoid ‘othering’ and the labelling of
research subjects as exotic contemporaries, and are critical
of others who do just that. Although – or perhaps because
– Groeten uit de rimboe is so popular among the general
public, anthropologists criticize the programme for misrepresenting the ‘tribes’ and misleading its audience.
Many anthropologists develop deep and lifelong relationships with the people they research, often during long
and intensive periods of fieldwork, seen as a rite of passage. This stands in contrast to the tourists and film crews
who spend only a few days on location. While lifelong
relationships are unlikely to develop in such short periods,
the economic reward may be considerable in the eyes of
the group visited. Why would they not look favourably on
the experience if the deal is clear?
Television shows such as Groeten uit de rimboe focus
on the personal and emotional, the very aspects anthropologists shield from view. By focusing on ordinary people,
the programmes address everyday experience and basic
human questions rather than scientific discovery; featured
subjects may include ‘eating a handful of live sago larvae
for lunch’, ‘slaughtering a cow with one’s bare hands’, or
‘how about sex behind the chicken barn?’ Most anthropologists do not address such topics, which they consider mundane and personal. But as it turns out that laypeople can
also build relationships and overcome the inconveniences
of daily life in these places – and do so in front of a camera
rather than behind a curtain of secrecy – anthropologists
are realizing that we are not so special after all.
Closely tied to the idea of an exclusive relationship with
his or her research subjects is the anthropologist’s selfproclaimed position as intermediary between ‘his’ noble
savages and the encroaching outside world. As indigenous
peoples frequently occupy vulnerable and marginal positions in society, many anthropologists have taken it upon
themselves to protect them from outside influences, that is,
to become gatekeepers. But now that the anthropologist’s
gate turns out to be but one of many access points to these
‘remote’ communities, his/her expertise is reduced to just one
of the many tools in the media’s well-filled tool box, only
to be used if it comes in handy. Anthropologists were not
even invited to provide background information or to serve
as guides: the series could obviously do without them.
Popularizing anthropology
Efforts to popularize ethnographic knowledge have had
little success; nor have they been very widespread. Very
few anthropologists involve themselves in the production
and publication of coffee-table books and guides for the cultural traveller.13 The English anthropologist Nigel Barley
– The innocent anthropologist (1983) is probably his bestknown book – is one of the few committed to lifting the
secrecy surrounding anthropological fieldwork. Although
Barley may be well-known to the larger public, his work
almost never features on the reading lists of anthropology
courses. In the Netherlands, Gerrit Jan Zwier occupies a
SBS
Fig. 3. The Bregman women
in Hagahai dress.
Fig. 4. One of the Bregman
daughters showing a picture
of a Dutch milch cow to a
Hagahai woman.
Fig. 5. Dutch visitors’
reactions to their first
encounter with a Suri
stickfight.
Fig. 6. Ton Rentier learning a
shamanic dance in Mentawai.
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 23 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2007
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 23 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2007
SBS
SBS
SBS
SBS
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland
2006. Engaging
anthropology: The case for
a public presence. Oxford:
Berg.
Fish, Adam and
Evershed, Sarah
2006. Anthropologists
responding to
anthropological television:
A response to Caplan,
Hughes-Freeland and
Singer. Anthropology
Today 22(4): 22-24.
Franceschi, Patrice 2001. Les
33 Sakuddei. TeleImage,
France 2.
Hughes-Freeland, Felicia
2006. Tribes and
tribulations: A response to
Pat Caplan. Anthropology
Today 22(2): 22-23.
Huigsloot, N. 2006. Rieten
rokjes op Schiphol. In
Groeten terug logeren
Afrikaanse stammen
twee weken bij families
in Nederland en België:
Verantwoorde televisie?
VARA Magazine 77(11):
24-25.
Nijland, Dirk 1989.
‘Schaduwen en
werkelijkheid: Cultureel
bepaald kennen,
waarnemen, nonverbaal
communiceren en
onderzoek daarvan via
de terugvertoning van de
etnografische film Tobelo
marriage’. Leiden: FSW
(PhD dissertation).
NOS 1978. Verre volken
(13 volumes). Utrecht/
Antwerpen: Het Spectrum.
Oey, Eric (ed.) 1991.
Indonesia travel guides
(8 volumes). Singapore:
Periplus Editions.
Persoon, Gerard 2003. Visual
images of an island people.
In: Nas. P.J.M., Persoon,
G.A. and Jaffe, R. (eds),
Framing Indonesian
realities, pp. 315-332.
Leiden: KITLV Press.
Posner, Richard 2001. Public
intellectuals: A study
of decline. Cambridge,
MA/London: Harvard
University Press.
Schefold, Reimar 1974.
The Sakuddei. London:
Granada TV.
— (ed.) 1990. Indonesia
in focus: Old traditions,
modern times. Meppel:
EduActief.
Singer, André 2006. Tribes
and tribulations: A
response to HughesFreeland. Anthropology
Today 22(3): 24.
Stigter, Bianca 2006.
Vluchtig als een Flirt. NRC
Handelsblad, 21 April.
van de Port, Mattijs 2006. Het
nieuwe zwartjes kijken. De
Volkskrant, 1 April.
comparable role. His many books are based on first-hand
anthropological experience or on extensive reading of
other anthropologists’ works, and are written in an attractive narrative style for audiences outside the discipline. In
the 1980s Zwier produced radio plays on anthropological
subjects and famous anthropologists.
With these exceptions, Dutch anthropologists as a
rule confine themselves to academia and the writing of
detailed scientific texts.14 Activities other than the production of such scientifically acceptable texts are not always
well received by fellow anthropologists, and may even be
seen as ‘selling’ anthropology for commercial purposes.
Engaging in activities which commercialize anthropological knowledge for entertainment can seriously harm one’s
reputation as a scientist; contributing to illustrated coffeetable books and travel guides is as far as serious Dutch
anthropologists working at universities, ethnographic
museums and research institutes can go.
We know of no anthropologists making a career in the
Dutch entertainment industry or working with commercial television companies. From the point of view of Dutch
academia, it’s simply ‘not done’. Nor are such vacancies
offered to scholars from the discipline; jobs as tour leaders
for specialist travel expeditions, for which there is a considerable market, are the closest anthropologists in the
Netherlands get to popular entertainment. While scholars in
many disciplines (history, art, law, language studies) have
succeeded in creating a popularized version of their profession and subject matter, anthropology is conspicuously
absent from today’s television screen. Unlike Lévi-Strauss
in France or Geertz in the USA, no anthropologist in the
Netherlands has ever achieved the status of ‘popularizer’
(Eriksen 2006) or ‘public intellectual’ (Posner 2001) able
to contribute to debate beyond narrowly defined fields
of expertise. Most of the few Dutch public intellectuals
are either legal scholars or (former) politicians. Lacking
public profile and apparently unwilling to engage in public
discourse of a more general nature, anthropologists’ marginal position in Dutch commercial television becomes
understandable.
It has been a long time since anthropology was televised
in the Netherlands. Apart from invitations to comment on
individual news items (the political turmoil in Indonesia
in 1998, the war in Afghanistan and the aftermath of the
2004 tsunami), anthropologists today rarely contribute to
television. As in many other countries, ethnographic films
presenting exotic people were popular in the 1960s and
70s. A 13-part series entitled Verre volken (‘Distant peoples’) was broadcast in 1978 by the public television company NOS. The series featured peoples such as the Xingu
Indians, Pygmies, Papua, Tuareg, Inuit and Trobrianders,
and was accompanied by booklets with background information written by experts. The underlying theme was
encroaching civilization threatening tribal peoples’ survival, and looking back at this series, a certain degree of
‘looking for isolated exotics’ cannot be denied. It was suggested that many of these distant peoples would shortly
become extinct; the series’ aims included documenting
their lifestyles and learning lessons for our own survival
(NOS 1978).
The popularity of ethnographic film among anthropology students in the Netherlands (particularly in Leiden,
as it was developed by the pioneering work of Adrian
Gerbrands) has not led to the popularization of the genre
(Nijland 1989). Like written anthropology, ethnographic
film has been unwilling or unable to release itself from
its rigid disciplinary corset and continues to be aimed at
the specialist scientific audience. We are, however, fully in
agreement with Hughes-Freeland’s (2006) suggestion that
the general quality of this work justifies greater presence
in public media.
SBS
Figs 7 and 8 (above). A
scooter, brought as a gift to
the Namibian Himba.
Fig. 9 (centre). A BelgianHuaorani disco in the
Ecuadorian forest.
Figs 10 and 11 (below). Peter
Bregman joining in men’s
chores in Papua New Guinea.
11
SBS
SBS
SBS
SBS
SBS
SBS
Fig. 11 (above). Monique Massing making the acquaintance of a group of Himba women, who appreciate the colour of her hair but urge her to go
topless ‘like a real Himba woman’.
Figs 12-16 (left). A series of promotional photographs showing the Himba in ‘typically Dutch’ contexts during their visit to the Netherlands in Groeten
terug. A number of these pictures were made available as free Boomerang cards.
12
The classic ethnographic film has been replaced by
documentaries with Dutch subtitles broadcast on TV channels like Discovery and National Geographic, and this is
changing the way in which ethnographic material is mediated. The all-knowing anthropologist, who rarely if ever
appeared in the film (apart from a voice-over explaining
strange phenomena), has been replaced by the adventurous
figure on a voyage of discovery. In an analysis of ten ethnographic films and documentaries made in Mentawai
(predominantly on Siberut) the trend becomes clear. The
1970s documentary The Sakuddei by John Sheppard and
anthropologist Reimar Schefold was a classic ethnographic film; in more recent productions made on Siberut
such as Benedict Allen’s The last of the medicine men and
Patrice Franceschi’s Les 33 Sakuddei, the central figure has
become a much more identifiable person – a public figure
engaging in cultural experience – rather than the omniscient but mysteriously absent anthropologist (Persoon
2003). It is the encounter between this person and the
tribe which lies at the heart of these documentaries. The
entertainment value is high: people are shown having fun,
locals amused by the curious behaviour of their foreign
visitors and misunderstandings arising from the language
barrier contributing to the general merriment.
In the reality TV programmes Groeten uit de rimboe and
Groeten terug, identification and entertainment have been
taken a step further, and this probably explains their popularity among the Dutch public. Reality TV shows exotic
places and habits, and focuses on strong emotions, thus
giving the programmes an excitement value that an
anthropological documentary often lacks. When,
in Groeten terug, a Himba woman is urged by
her Dutch hostess to try on a bra at a lingerie
party, she dramatically opens her fleece jacket,
displaying her naked breasts and saying: ‘We
Himba do not keep our breasts in bags like
you. For us, naked breasts are a sign of pride.’
The scene has high entertainment value because
of its comic absurdity, communication difficulties and
scanty clothing – exactly the reasons that would exclude it
from a traditional ethnographic film.
Conclusion
The presence in the field of other, often commercial actors
with much larger budgets and non-scientific goals is a
growing reality in our world of mass travel and globalization. But now that these other actors are encroaching
on anthropologists’ sacred territory – and their work is
being labelled ‘lay anthropology’ or ‘anthropology for
the masses’ – Dutch anthropologists are condemning their
activities as irresponsible and beyond all anthropological
rules of conduct.
Contributing to the ‘shock of the anthropologist’ is the
fact that the carefully constructed ‘noble but vulnerable
savage’ is perfectly capable of taking care of him- or herself – and what is more, displays an enterprising attitude
while indulging in the pleasures of modern-day consumerism. The anthropologist’s exclusive research subject
is creating what are sometimes rewarding relations with
others, with far less effort and in considerably less time.
The anthropologist’s self-appointed role as gatekeeper
– at least in the case of Groeten uit de rimboe and Groeten
terug – has been bypassed.
The entertainment of contemporary reality TV featuring
‘isolated’ and exotic indigenous peoples and the serious
scientific premises of Dutch anthropology seem to be
incompatible. In terms of financial resources, anthropologists cannot compete with what they see as ‘pulp anthropology’ (rather than the popularization of their science),
while many are unwilling to join or assist its producers
on moral (and possibly career) grounds. Rather than ferociously condemning these programmes with arguments
based on premises which have not always been responsibly addressed by the discipline, anthropologists might be
better off rethinking their position and that of their science
in Dutch society. !
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 23 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2007