The adaptive nature of culture

Some have argued that the major contribution of anthropology to science is the concept of culture. Until very recently, however, evolutionary anthropologists have largely ignored culture as a topic of study. This is perhaps because of the strange bedfellows they would have to maintain. Historically, anthropologists who claimed the focus of cultural anthropology tended to be anti‐science, anti‐biology, or both. Paradoxically, a segment of current mainstream cultural anthropology has more or less abandoned culture as a topic. It is particularly ironic that in spite of a growing awareness among evolutionary anthropologists that culture is critical for understanding the human condition, the topic of culture has fallen out of favor among many “cultural” anthropologists. ^1,2     

The American Anthropological Association and the Values of Science, 1935-70

American anthropologists have repeatedly addressed questions about the nature of anthropology as a science and the relationship of anthropology to society. Complex interactions between anthropology and political events in American life have challenged definitions of science, including anthropologists as citizens, scientists, and professionals and the roles they appropriately play. A series of exchanges and events between the 1930s and 1970 are examined in order to shed light on some of the recurrent dilemmas of definition and practice in anthropology as anthropologists have grappled with them in different times and in relation to different contexts. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, U.S. history, science]     

Individuals and the evolution of biological and cultural systems

Recently, it has been suggested that anthropologists could more effectively build scientific theories of cultural evolution by reference to biology rather than social science. In this way, the evolution of cultures might be more usefully viewed as an anolog to the evolution of species. In systematic biology, however, the nature of species continues to be the subject of a long-standing duality of thought. This duality is analogous to the longstanding conflict in anthropology over the nature of culture. We argue, by analogy to Michael Ghiselin’s work on species, that a culture is an individual, not a class, and that cultures, like other individual entities, evolve. This view is highly concordant with concepts of culture formulated in earlier decades of this century. It has also been the philosophical orientation of American archaeology for approximately the last 25 years. We conclude that both biology and anthropology have an equal potential of contributing to a general evolutionary theory.     

The State of Biological Anthropology in 2008: Is Our Discipline Strong and Our Cause Just?

ABSTRACT   Biological anthropologists inform a largely professional discourse on the evolutionary history of our species. In addition, aspects of our biology, the ways in which we vary, and certain patterns of behavior are the subjects of a more public and popular conversation. The social contexts in which we work not only define our times but also produce the anthropologists that in turn construct an emergent understanding of our species' (and our societies') inner workings. In this review of scholarly production, I focus on developments within a selection of "sub-subdisciplines" that were particularly influential in bending the arc of biological anthropology in 2008, namely: evolutionary medical anthropology, anthropological neuroscience, forensic anthropology, primatology, and paleoanthropology. Ultimately, this review demonstrates, yet again, anthropology's great contribution: the ability to incorporate new technologies and research methodologies into a synthetic and integrative interdisciplinary approach toward the elucidation of human behavior, evolution, and biocultural engagements with the environment. [Keywords: biological anthropology, year in review, 2008, science and society]     

A perspective on the diversity of human adaptability

Certain perspectives of morphological and functional diversities molded to adapt to highly technological environments remain to be evaluated, which leads us to consider what a truly healthy and comfortable environment is by focusing on the diversity of human adaptability based on the keywords of physiological anthropology, or physiological polymorphism, functional potentiality and whole body coordination. Each of the three keywords is outlined here, as well as the mutual relationship between them. A re-evaluation of the significance of polymorphism in the current living environment is also discussed here.     

The emergence of biomedical anthropology and its implications for the future

Primarily during the past 15 years a distinct new area within physical anthropology has emerged, biomedical anthropology. Physical anthropologists have become heavily involved in studying problems of relevance to the health and illness patterns of living humans. There has been a proportionate increase in biomedically focused papers published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, in biomedically focused papers presented at annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and in physical anthropology doctoral dissertations oriented toward modern biomedical phenomena. Proportionately more physical anthropologists are now employed in medical schools and there has been recent growth in the proportion of physical anthropologists in anthropology departments who claim some aspect of biomedical anthropology as a research interest. Increasingly, physical anthropologists are focusing their research on cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in America. These distinct trends are partially a result of the nature of physical anthropology and its unique biocultural perspective. However the growth of applied anthropology, the present academic marketplace, and the availability of research funds are probably also contributing factors. The emergency of biomedical anthropology holds promise for the future of physical anthropology and for its current employment crisis. Careers with academic and nonacademic organizations engaged in biomedical research appear to be a viable alternative to careers in departments of anthropology, for biomedical anthropologists. This will entail some reorientation of graduate training for physical anthropologists. More emphasis will have to be placed on substantive biomedical subjects, research methods, and data management and analysis.     

Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology

Standard histories of American anthropology have downplayed the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of later anthropologists. Jewish histories, however, foreground the roles and deeds of Jews. This essay brings together these various discourses for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially those concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism. Although Boas's anthropology was apolitical in terms of theory, in message and purpose it was an antiracist science.     

Physiological anthropology: past and future

Environmental studies in adaptive human biology by North American anthropologists have a history of strong investigative research. From both laboratory and field work, we have gained major insights into human response to physical and social challenges. While these results were considered by most professionals to belong within evolutionary biology, in fact the intellectual structure sprang almost entirely from physiological equilibrium models. Consequently, physiological process itself was the focus. Further, most of the physiological patterns were not linked directly to important outcomes such as work output, reproductive success or survival.About 1975, American physiological anthropologists, led by Paul Baker, turned to studies of health, change and stress response. These studies were strong, but were still neither genetic nor evolutionary in intellectual structure. Evolutionary human biology was taken over by a new body of theory now called "behavior ecology", positing that selfish genes control human behavior to promote their own reproduction. This was paralleled by strong use of evolutionary theory in some areas of molecular biology. However, although physiological anthropologists have not focused on evolution, we have been developing powerful causal models that incorporate elements of physiology, morphology, physical environment and cultural behavior. In these "proximate" biocultural models, it is of little importance whether outcomes such as work or energy management are genetically based.Our future offers two major challenges. First, we must confirm causal links between specific physiological patterns and outcomes of practical importance to individuals and societies. Second, if we are to take our place in evolutionary biology, the one overarching theory of life on earth, we must understand the heritability of physiological traits, and determine whether they play a role in survival and reproduction.     

Beyond the Post-Structural Impasse in the Anthropology of Development

In recent years anthropologists have produced innovative and critical scholarship that refuses to simplify or essentialise the development process. However, for the most part the anthropology of development remains closely tied to the post-structuralist paradigm. Why, after more than two decades, does the post-structuralist critique continue to hold its dominant grip on the anthropology of development? Why haven’t anthropologists been able to move the anthropology of development, or development itself, further ahead? These are the main questions addressed in this article. More specifically, it is argued that the anthropology of development has reached an impasse; it remains bound to an overly structural interpretation of the development process, a construction that privileges not only structure over agency, but also hegemony over dialectics. Using the ethnography of a high-profile case of development in northwest Namibia, the article suggests a possible path forward by outlining a proposal for a simultaneous theoretical re-orientation and methodological reclamation in the anthropology of development.     

Approach to human adaptability to stresses of city life

Interest of human adaptability to city life is one of the most principal topics of physiological anthropology. Especially, cultural adaptation and flowing stresses by itself is the most important viewpoint of human adaptability in the recent modern life. In this paper, the authors reviewed the keywords of physiological anthropology, especially with the focus on techno-adaptability, and presented our experimental trials to study physiological polymorphism of cardio-vascular reactivity to mental stresses. We scoped the psychological stresses by means of mental tasks as an experimental model of techno-stress. Techno-stress was defined as not only from inadequate interface of man-machine system, but also from increased social complexity owing to highly advanced technological social system. In the experimental trial, we observed different types of cardio-vascular responses to several mental tasks. Blood pressure rose significantly during the tasks. However, contribution of change in cardiac output and total peripheral resistance on it was not the same between subgroups of the subjects.     

Perspectives on environmental adaptability and physiological polymorphism in thermoregulation

The environmental adaptability of human beings has progressed according to various environments experienced in the course of evolution. Therefore, various phenotypes for environmental adaptability exist and are considered to be physiological polymorphism. Physiological polymorphism in thermoregulation is influenced by genotype, individual characteristics, environmental factors, cultural factors, etc. Moreover, it is thought that physiological polymorphism is evidenced more clearly in physiological responses to extreme situations and/or changing conditions than in environments where homeostasis is easily maintained. In the field of physiological anthropology, I think that it is important not only to discover the physiological responses that demonstrate polymorphism, but also to hypothesize about the mechanisms and the processes by which such polymorphisms were formed, and their meaning for human beings. Such discussions may be supposed to lead to an evaluation of the environmental adaptability of humans from the viewpoint of physiological anthropology.     

Resolving the Anti-Antievolutionism Dilemma: A Brief for Relational Evolutionary Thinking in Anthropology

ABSTRACT   Anthropologists often disagree about whether, or in what ways, anthropology is "evolutionary." Anthropologists defending accounts of primate or human biological development and evolution that conflict with mainstream "neo-Darwinian" thinking have sometimes been called "creationists" or have been accused of being "antiscience." As a result, many cultural anthropologists struggle with an "anti-antievolutionism" dilemma: they are more comfortable opposing the critics of evolutionary biology, broadly conceived, than they are defending mainstream evolutionary views with which they disagree. Evolutionary theory, however, comes in many forms. Relational evolutionary approaches such as Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, and autopoiesis–natural drift augment mainstream evolutionary thinking in ways that should prove attractive to many anthropologists who wish to affirm evolution but are dissatisfied with current "neo-Darwinian" hegemony. Relational evolutionary thinking moves evolutionary discussion away from reductionism and sterile nature–nurture debates and promises to enable fresh approaches to a range of problems across the subfields of anthropology. [Keywords: evolutionary anthropology, Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, autopoeisis, natural drift]     

Sows' Ears and Silver Linings. A Backward Look at Ethnography

Globalization, changing views of science, and alterations in the culture concept have gradually modified the way fieldwork is perceived within anthropology. This paper briefly examines the contributions of four ethnographers in order to argue that ethnography based on fieldwork remains essential to our definition as a profession. The claim is made here that unless anthropologists continue to make fieldwork central, anthropological theory will be cut off from its grounding in data. Other observers, less skilled than anthropologists but more daring, will increasingly supplant ethnographers in gathering new information that they then interpret and in claiming the public readership that anthropologists were once able successfully to address.     

颅面复原技术在体质人类学中的应用

面貌是人类最重要的特征,其形态受到颅骨几何形态、面部软组织分布以及性别、年龄、身体质量指数、营养状况等多种因素的影响。考古遗址出土的古代人类遗骸,其面部软组织大多已经消失,如何根据颅面形态关系推测古人类颅骨的生前面貌已成为人类学家和考古学家关注的热点问题之一。传统手工颅面复原是由人类学家和艺术家使用雕塑技艺在颅骨上用可塑物质生成其生前面貌的技术。近年来,随着医学影像采集和计算机技术的发展,计算机颅面复原技术已经成为信息科学、体质人类学、法医人类学交叉研究的前沿技术之一。本文通过梳理和归纳相关文献的研究方法,对手工颅面复原技术、计算机颅面复原技术和颅面复原结果评价方法作简要综述,并对颅面复原技术在体质人类学中的应用进行了回顾和展望。     

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Since the professionalization of US-based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases. Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board-certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories. Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal-based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.     

A Sensory Ecology of Medicinal Plant Therapy in Two Amazonian Societies

Sensory anthropology has explored sensation as a fruitful but poorly examined domain of cross-cultural research. Curiously, sensory anthropologists have mostly ignored scientific research into sensation, even that which addresses cross-cultural variation. A comparative study in two Amazonian societies (Matsigenka, Yora [Nahua]) documented the role of the senses in medicinal plant therapy and benefited greatly from theoretical insights gleaned from sensory science. The study reveals a complex interweaving of cultural and ecological factors in medicinal plant selection, with sensation standing at the culture--nature nexus linking medical ideas with medical materials. By synthesizing (rather than antagonizing) scientific and anthropological insights, sensation can be understood as a biocultural phenomenon rooted in human physiology yet constructed through individual experience and culture. Overcoming the limitations of a narrowly defined sensory anthropology, sensory ecology is here proposed as a new theoretical perspective for addressing human--environment interactions mediated by the senses.     

The anthropology of deep history

The history of anthropology reveals a discipline driven by fission and fusion. In this article I use the framework of deep history as an example of what might be achieved if anthropology resolved to travel the road of fusion rather than continue with atomization. I will illustrate the pathway by examining the fusion of interdisciplinary endeavour that is encapsulated in the concept of a social brain. By placing social life at the heart of the historical process we find common ground for all the fields of anthropology, and beyond to other disciplines. Here anthropologists have the opportunity to set the agenda. The social brain works in deep as well as shallow history. It unites experimental and historical science. And it marks a return to those core principles which Lubbock and the founders of our Institute established.     

Texas Biology and Biological Anthropology Faculty Express Their Views on Teaching Evolution

Unsurprisingly, survey results indicate that Texas biology and biological anthropology faculty with expertise in an evolutionary area strongly support teaching “just evolution” (100%; N = 54) and not creationism/intelligent design. Importantly, they do not think that religious faith is incompatible with acceptance of evolutionary biology (91%; N = 55), even though 50% (N = 52) describe themselves as “not at all religious.” As school boards nationwide debate science standards, it is important that faculty with relevant expertise have a voice. Biological anthropologists should not be overlooked as a public resource in these debates.