Home Uncategorized Anthropology

Uncategorized

Anthropology

Open the instructions file you will need to do essay 2 (Essay 2, due October 16: Race and Racism in the United States) at the same time you need to read the beginning of the file so you can follow the instructions

I need 3 to 4 full pages

I uploaded the book please use it also take a look at the rubric

,, you did not do the assignment. You are supposed to pick a stance on whether or not race is a useful concept or the removal of Confederate statues or both issues. Because you did not do the assignment, this essay will not earn a passing grade. I can give you two days to resubmit with the the condition that you must schedule a meeting with the writing center. I will also dock you two letter grades on the resubmission.

ANT111: Introduction to Anthropology Writing Assignment Guide

1. Introduction

-briefly get the reader interested by starting broad and getting increasingly narrow

-thesis statement in the below (or similar) format:

“I argue that ____________ because of _________, __________, and ____________.”

-last sentence should lead the reader into the next few paragraphs – tell them what to expect in the rest

of your essay (“preview” sentences)

2. Body paragraphs

-depending on your essay structure, you may wish to include a paragraph after the introduction that

reviews the basics (and cites important material) before getting into your argument

-the subsequent paragraphs should discuss first, second, and third “because of” reasons in the order you

list them

-start every paragraph with an overview topic sentence, present your data and evidence (with citations),

and end with a concluding sentence

-transition as best as possible between body paragraphs

3. Conclusion

-last paragraph should re-state each line of evidence (each “because of” reason) succinctly and clearly

-re-state your thesis sentence in a new, different way

-provide a few sentences to show how and why this topic matters in anthropology; relate to the

concepts we are learning in the course

-provide a sentence to show how and why this topic matters in everyone’s lives – why should we care?

Proofreading checklist:

 I have a title page that includes my name, the professor’s name, and the course

 Page numbers are on every page except the title page

 My essay is double-spaced with each paragraph indented

 I am using a standard font (Calibri, TNR, etc.) at 12 pt, with 1” margins

 Every sentence has a noun, verb, and main idea

 Every reference in the bibliography is cited in the text

 Every citation in the text is listed (in alphabetical order) in the bibliography

 I have followed the Chicago citation style (for in-text citations and bibliography)

 Every direct quotation is cited with a page number

 I have no quotations longer than two full lines of my paper

 If I sent Dr. Landau a draft to read, I have incorporated her comments into this new draft*

o Points will be deducted for comments NOT incorporated in a subsequent draft

 I have read over and corrected any common grammar mistakes (listed in the hand out)

o I have not used any contractions (e.g., “cannot,” not “can’t)

o I have not used sloppy words such as “things,” “pretty ____” etc.

 I have re-read the comments on my previous essay(s) (for Essays 2 and 3), and incorporated

those ideas in this essay.

 My essay is a minimum of three full pages, or a maximum of four full pages

Essay 1, due September 16: the Amish and the anthropological concept of culture

Write a 3-4 page double-spaced essay with 1” margins and standard font that analyzes some aspect(s) of

Amish culture by observing how Amish and non-Amish teens interact with each other. Relate to

anthropological concepts of cultural relativity, ethnocentrism, intersubjectivity, ways of knowing, or

other themes.

Class materials (cite all):

 Park, Michael Alan. 2014. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 6th edition. New

York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

 Hostetler, John. 1993. Amish Society, 4th edition. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

 Beney, Harry, director. 2011. Amish on Break. Washington, D.C., National Geographic.

https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/amish-break/1/

[[FYI, for your in-text citation, cite these as “(Park 2014),” “(Hostetler 1993),” or “(Beney 2011)”]]

Additional materials (available at Alma Library, cite if you’d like):

 Huntington, Gertrude E. 2001. Amish in Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

 Wagler, Ira. 2011. Growing Up Amish: A Memoir. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 Cates, James. 2014. Serving the Amish: A Cultural Guide for Professionals. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

 Redekop, Calvin W. 1989. Mennonite Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/amish-break/1/

Essay 2, due October 16: Race and Racism in the United States

Write a 3-4 page double-spaced essay with 1” margins and standard font that takes a stand on (a)

whether “race” is a useful concept, (b) the place of Confederate monuments in society today, or (c)

some combination of the two. Relate to anthropological understandings of race, in cultural, forensic, or

biological contexts.

Class materials (you must cite Park, Welsch and Endicott, and at least two others)

 Park, Michael Alan. 2014. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 6th edition. New
York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

 Welsch, Robert and Kirk Endicott. 2013. “Is Race a Useful Concept for Anthropologists?” In

Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Anthropology, 5th edition, pp. 2-14. New York: McGraw-Hill

Education.

[[FYI, for your in-text citation, cite these as “(Park 2014)” or “(Welsch and Endicott 2013)” ]]

Choose two of these four:

 Goodman, Alan. 2005. “Three Questions about Race, Human Biological Variation and Racism.”

Anthropology News (September): 18-19.

 American Anthropological Association. 1998. “AAA Position Paper on Race.” May 17, 1998.

www.americananthro.org/ConnectwithAAA/Context.aspex?ItemNumber=2583 Accessed

[date].

 National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2017. “Statement on Confederate Memorials:

Confronting Difficult History.” June 19, 2017. https://savingplaces.org/press-center/media-

resources/national-trust-statement-on-confederate-memorials#.WlfPFqinGUl Accessed [date].

 Joyce, Rosemary. 2017. “Losing the Past or Changing the Future? Archaeologists and Modern

Monuments.” Berkeley Blog, August 17, 2017. http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/08/16/losing-

the-past-or-changing-the-future-archaeologists-and-modern-monuments/ Accessed [date].

[[FYI, for your in-text citation, cite these as “(Goodman 2005),” “(AAA 1998),” “(National Trust 2017),” or

“(Joyce 2017)” ]]

Additional materials (cite if you’d like)

 Handler, Richard. 2017. “The Ku Klux Klan and the Value of Shame.” Sapiens, August 2, 2017.

https://www.sapiens.org/language/ku-klux-klan-glorifies-racist-past/ Accessed [date].

 Dubenko, Anna. 2017. “Right and Left on Removal of Confederate Statues.” New York Times,

August 18, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/right-and-left-on-removal-

of-confederate-statues.html?_r=1 Accessed [date].

For “Accessed [date],” you must insert on what date you consulted the source.

For example, “Accessed August 21, 2019.”

http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectwithAAA/Context.aspex?ItemNumber=2583

https://savingplaces.org/press-center/media-resources/national-trust-statement-on-confederate-memorials#.WlfPFqinGUl

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/08/16/losing-the-past-or-changing-the-future-archaeologists-and-modern-monuments/

https://www.sapiens.org/language/ku-klux-klan-glorifies-racist-past/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/right-and-left-on-removal-of-confederate-statues.html?_r=1

Essay 3, due November 16: Anthropology in the Media: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Write a 3-4 page double-spaced essay with 1” margins and standard font that analyzes how the Sapir-

Whorf Hypothesis is used in the film, Arrival. Be sure to identity which version of the Hypothesis the

main characters discuss, and evaluate their conversations in light of linguistic anthropology. In your

conclusion, broaden this case study to show how anthropology is represented in popular media.

Class materials (cite all):

 Park, Michael Alan. 2014. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 6th edition. New
York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

 Deutscher, Guy. 2010. “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” New York Times, August 26.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-

t.html?fbclid=IwAR10vORcS3wGiFPfImK4j64K8EgRzFGcGEUWZwEHFAVLYS1RPCqF%E2%80%A6

%201 Accessed [date].

 Villeneuve, Denis. 2016. Arrival. Film. Paramount Pictures.

[[FYI, for your in-text citation, cite these as “(Park 2014),” “(Deutscher 2010),” or “(Villanueve 2016)” ]]

Additional materials (cite at least two):

 MindfulThinks. 2017. “Science Behind Arrival: Can Language Determine the Way We Think?”

YouTube, posted February 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtisHuJPo0o Accessed

[date].

 Al-Sheikh Hussein, Basel. 2012. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today.” Theory and Practice in

Language Studies 2, no. 3 (March): 642-646.

 Martinelli, Marissa. 2016. “How Realistic is the Way Amy Adams’ Character Hacks the Alien

Language in Arrival? We Asked a Linguist.” Slate, November 22, 2016.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/22/a_linguist_on_arrival_s_alien_language.ht

ml Accessed [date].

 Livingstone, Josephine. 2014. “Relatively Speaking: Do Our Words Influence How We Think?”

The Guardian, January 29. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/29/how-words-

influence-thought Accessed [date].

 Sheridan, Kate. 2016. “A Translator for E.T.” McGill News: Alumni Magazine, October.

http://mcgillnews.mcgill.ca/s/1762/news/interior.aspx?sid=1762&gid=2&pgid=1344 Accessed

[date].

 Nordquist, Richard. 2017. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” ThoughtCo, October 27.

https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924 Accessed [date].

 Panko, Ben. 2016. “Does the Linguistic Theory at the Center of the Film ‘Arrival’ Have Any

Merit?” AskSmithsonian, December 2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-

century-old-linguistic-hypothesis-center-film-arrival-have-any-merit-180961284/ Accessed

[date].

 Science vs Cinema. 2016. “Science vs Cinema: ARRIVAL.” YouTube, posted November 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzEPU2PTjT4 Accessed [date].

For “Accessed [date],” you must insert on what date you consulted the source.
For example, “Accessed August 21, 2019.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/22/a_linguist_on_arrival_s_alien_language.html

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/29/how-words-influence-thought

http://mcgillnews.mcgill.ca/s/1762/news/interior.aspx?sid=1762&gid=2&pgid=1344

https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-century-old-linguistic-hypothesis-center-film-arrival-have-any-merit-180961284/

INTRODUCING ANTHROPOLOGY
SIXTH EDITION

INTRODUCING
ANTHROPOLOGY SIXTHEDITION
An Integrated Approach
Michael Alan Park
Central Connecticut State University

2013015524
II
INTRODUCING ANTHROPOLOGY, AN INTEGRATED APPROACH, SIXTH EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hili Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10111. Copyright © 2014 by
McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous
editions © 2011, 2008, and 2006. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed
in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written
consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic
storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers
outside the United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1234567890DOODOC109876543
ISBN 978-0-07-803506-7
MHID 0-07-803506-6
Senior Vice President, Products & Markets: Kurt
L. Strand
Vice President, General Manager, Products &
Markets: Michael Ryan
Vice President, Content Production &
Technology Services: Kimberly Meriwether David
Managing Director: Gina Boedeker
Brand Manager: Courtney Austermehle
Executive Director of Development: Lisa Pinto
Managing Development Editor: Penina Braffman
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the
copyright page.
Marketing Specialist: Alexandra Schultz
Director, Content Production: Terri Schiesl
Lead Project Manager: Jane Mohr
Buyer: Jennifer Pickel
Cover Designer: Studio Montage, St. Louis, .”.10
Cover Image: (c) Goodshoot I Fotos
Compositor: Aptara®, Inc.
Typeface: 10/12 Sobon
Printer: R. R. Dcnnelley
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Park, Michael Alan.
Introducing anthropology: an integrated approach / Michael Alan Park. -Sixth edition.
pages em
ISBN-H 978-0-07-803506-7 (alk. paper)
ISBN-W, 0-07-803506-6 (alk. paper)
1. Anthropology. I. Title.
GN25.P293 2014
301-<1c23 The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hili Education, and McGraw- Hill Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites. www.mhhe.com In memory of her companionship many years ago as I conceived, researched, and wrote my first book, this one is for: Joyce (1982-1996) And the patches make the goodbye harder still. -CAT STEVENS DOING ANTHROPOLOGY: Defining the Discipline 3 In the Field 4 The Hutrerires 8 Anthropology 12 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES,What Responsibilities Does the Anthropologist Have When Studying Other Cultures! 16 Contents Preface xvii A Personal Note to My Readers XXlll PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species I Chapter I Chapter 2 Plan of the Book 19 SUMMARY 20 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 20 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 20 HOW ANTHROPOLOGY WORKS: Methods of Inquiry 21 The Scientific Method 22 The "Rules" of the Scientific Method 22 Some Common Misconceptions about Science 23 "Science Proves Ideas for All Time" 23 "Once We Have a Theory about a Particular Topic, We Don't Need to Do More Science" 24 "Science Studies Only Visible, Tangible, Present-Day Things" 24 Science Is Conducted in a Cultural Context 25 vii viii Contents Chapter 3 Belief Systems 27 Anthropology as a Science 28 Studying the Past 28 Studying Culture 29 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES:Are Science and Belief Inherently in Conflict with One Another? 30 Anthropological Methodology: Fieldwork 33 Data Collection 33 Material Observation 33 Biological Observation 33 Behavioral Observation 33 Direct Communication 34 Participant-Observation 34 Some Other Considerations 34 SUMMARY 35 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 35 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 35 THEMES OF ANTHROPOLOGY: Evolution 37 The Evolution of Evolution 38 Before Darwin 38 The Biblical Context 38 The Evidence for Change Accumulates 39 Catastrophism Offers an Explanation for Change 39 Uniformitarianism Answers Catastrophism 41 Lamarck Explains Biological Change 41 Charles Darwin 43 Species 47 To What Is the Organism Adapted? 48 How Is the Organism Adapted to Its Environment? 48 Modern Evolutionary Theory 49 Evidence 50 Processes 52 Natural Selection 52 The Other Processes of Evolution 54 The Origin of New Species 57 Chapter 4 Contents ix CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Is Evolution a Fact, a Theory, or Just a Hypothesis! 59 SUMMARY 60 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 60 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 61 THEMES OF ANTHROPOLOGY: Culture 63 The Concept of Culture 65 The Characteristics of Cultural Behaviors 65 Culture Is Learned 65 Culture Involves Concepts, Generalizations, Abstractions, Assumptions, and Ideas 66 Culture Involves Active Learning and Symbolic Transmission 66 Culture Requires Artifacts 67 Culture in Nonhuman Primates 67 Chimpanzees Make Tools 68 Monkeys Use Tools 69 Apes Can Be Taught the Rudiments of Human Language 70 Humans Are Cultural 71 Brains and Culture: The Basic Biocultural Level 71 A Model for the Study of Cultural Systems 73 The Cultural "Filter" 74 World view 74 Some Examples 76 The Role of Religion 76 The Arctic 77 Southwest Asia 78 The American Worldview 80 An Anthropological Analysis of the Necktie 80 Material Culture and the Study of the Cultural Past 82 Material Culture and Cultural Systems 83 Archaeological Analysis 85 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Can Anthropologists Study Their Own Cultures! 88 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Who Owns Archaeological Sites and Their Contents! 90 SUMMARY 90 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 92 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 92 X Contents PARTTWO The Identity and Nature of the Human Species 95 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 OUR PLACE IN NATURE: Humans as Primates 97 Naming the Animals 99 Linnaean Taxonomy 99 A Primate Taxonomy 101 Into the Trees 103 The Primate Traits 104 The Human Primate 112 SUMMARY 113 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 114 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES: Should Nonhuman Primates Have Right,l I IS NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 116 EVOLUTION: The Bipedal, Large-Brained Primate 117 Out of the Trees 118 Primate Evolution 118 The Evolution of Bipedalism 121 The Benefits of Bipedalism 122 Two Problems 123 The Early Hominids 123 The Earliest Possible Hominids 123 More Definite Hominids 124 The First Members of Genus Homo 128 The First Stone Tools 128 Making Stone Tools 129 The Lives of Early Homo 131 Around the World 132 The Homo erectus Stage 133 Tools and Migrations 136 The Ice Ages 137 Behavioral Traits 138 The Archaic Homo sapiens Stage 138 The Neandertals 139 The Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens Stage 143 Tools 145 Art 147 SUMMARY 151 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Contents xi CONTEMPORARYISSUES:How Many "Kinds" of Humans Have There Been? 152 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 153 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 154 REPRODUCTION: The Sexual Primate 155 Sex and Human Evolution 157 Primate Sex 157 Human Sex 158 Loss of Estrus, and Sexual Consciousness 158 Antecedents and Evolution of Human Sexuality 159 The Importance of Development and Child Care 161 Vive la Difference 161 Sex and Gender 167 The Definitions 167 Gender as Folk Taxonomy 168 Sex and Cultural Institutions 170 Marriage 170 The Incest Taboo 172 SUMMARY 175 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:What Causes Differences in Sexuai Orientation? 176 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 176 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 178 HUMAN VARIATION: Biological Diversity and Race 179 Why Are There No Biological Races within the Human Species? 182 The Concept of Race within General Biology 182 The Distribution of Human Biological Variation 184 Skin Color 18S Blood Type 187 Human Genetics 189 Evolutionary Theory and the Nature of the Human Species 191 Mobility and Gene Flow 191 Culture 192 What, Then, Are Human Races? 192 Anthropology and the Study of Race 195 xii Contents Race, Racism, and Social Issues 196 Cultural Level 196 Race and Intelligence 199 SUMMARY 201 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Are There RacialDifferences in Athletic Ability? 202 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 204 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 204 PARTTHREE Adapting to Our Worlds 207 Chapter 9 FOOD: Getting It, Growing It, Eating It, and Passing It Around 209 Food and Human Evolution 210 Food in Prehistory 210 Food in Historical Times 212 Food-Collecting Societies 215 The Characteristics of Food Collectors 215 An Example Food-Collecting Society 218 The Food-Producing Revolution 223 The Transition to Food Production 223 Evidence for the Food-Producing Revolution 225 Animal Domestication 225 Plant Domestication 229 Food-Producing Societies 231 Horticulture 231 Pastoralism 234 Agriculture 235 Which Subsistence Pattern Works Best? 239 Some Basic Economics 240 Patterns of Exchange 241 Reciprocity 241 Market System 242 Redistribution 242 Social Stratification 244 SUMMARY 245 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:IsThere a World Population Crisis That Is Putting Pressure on Food and Other Resources? 246 Chapter 10 Chapter II Contents xiii QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 246 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 247 THE NATURE OF THE GROUP: Arranging Our Families and Organizing Our People 249 Primate Societies 251 Marriage and Family 252 From Family to Kinship 252 Variations of Marriage 253 Number of Spouses 253 Frequency of Marriage Patterns 254 Kinship 255 Types of Families 256 Bilateral Families 256 Unilineal Families 257 Frequency of Unilineal Societies 257 Family Type and Cultural Systems 258 Kinship Terminology 259 The Eskimo System 259 The Hawaiian System 260 The Omaha System 261 Organization above the Family Level 263 Political Organization 263 Bands 265 Tribes 265 Chiefdoms 265 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Why Don't Bilateral Societies Have Equality between the Sexes? 266 States 266 SUMMARY 267 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 268 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 268 COMMUNICATION: Sharing What We Need to Know 269 Language 271 The Features of Language 272 Language Acquisition 273 Descriptive Linguistics 274 Language and Evolution 276 How Did Language Evolve? 276 xiv Contents Chapter 12 When Did Language Evolve? 277 Brain Anatomy 278 Vocal Apparatus 279 Need 280 Apes and Language 280 Washoe: The Pioneer 280 Why Can These Apes Learn Language? 283 Language and Culture 284 The World's Languages 284 Languages and Cultural Systems 287 Cultural Meanings 287 Language History 288 SUMMARY 289 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES:Are Written LanguagesMore Advanced than Unwritten Ones! 290 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 290 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 291 MAINTENANCE OF ORDER: Making the World view Real 293 Religion 295 A Definition 295 The Basis of Religious Belief 296 Antecedents to Religion 297 Variation in Religious Systems 299 Number of Supernatural Beings 299 Categories of the Supernatural 300 Personalities of the Supernatural 301 Intervention by the Supernatural 301 Religious Specialists 301 Contacting the Supernatural 303 Religion and Culture 304 The Origins of Christianity 304 Some Examples 307 The Hutterites 307 The Holiness Churches 308 Law 312 SUMMARY 314 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 314 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES: How Do We Deal with Faith-BasedActs of Terror in Contemporary Global Society! 315 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 316 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Contents xv CULTURE CHANGE: Theories and Processes 317 The Processes of Culture Change 318 Discovery and Invention 318 Discoveries May Be Abstract 319 Discoveries Do Not Result in All Possible Applications 319 Discoveries Must Coincide with Cultural Norms 319 Discoveries May Change the Culture 320 Diffusion 320 Acculturation and Revolution 322 Acculturation 322 Revolution 324 Understanding Cultural Evolution 325 Classical or Unilinear Evolutionism 326 Diffusionism 326 Historical Particularism 327 SUMMARY 329 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Can Anthropology Be Both a Scientific and a Humanistic Discipline in Today's World? 330 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 330 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 332 THE EVOLUTION OF OUR BEHAVIOR: Putting It All Together 333 "Of Their Flesh Shall Ye Not Eat" 335 The Kosher Laws 335 Ideas Guide Behavior 337 Behavior Guides Ideas 338 A Synthesis? 341 Peaceful Warriors and Cannibal Farmers 343 The Dani 343 The Fore 349 Biology and Culture in Interaction 353 The Question of Altruism 353 Nature and Nurture 354 Cultural Determinism 15 Untenable 354 Biological Determinism Is Untenable 354 Kin Selection as an Example 355 Biology and Human Behavior 356 Altruism Revisited 357 CONTEMPORARYISSUES:Are Humans Naturally Violent? 3S8 SUMMARY 360 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT 360 NOTES, REFERENCES,AND READINGS 361 xvi Contents Chapter 15 ANTHROPOLOGY IN TODAY'S WORLD: Problems and Contributions 363 Change in the Modern World 364 The Hutterires 364 The Dani 366 The San 367 Applying Anthropology 369 The Human Species Today 371 The Human Species in the Future 373 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES,What Kinds of Careers Are There in Anthropology? 376 QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT 377 NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS 377 Glossary G-1 Bibliography B-1 Credits C-1 Index 1-1 Preface Modern anthropology has become extraordinarily diverse, with awide variety of schools of thought and theoretical models within the discipline. Not surprisingly, this breadth in the field has led to a range of approaches to thinking about and teaching those courses tra- ditionally called four-field introductions to anthropology. In short, we anthropologists each have sometimes very different answers to the ques- tion, What is anthropology? The ideas about the nature of anthropology that have guided this book's organization, discussions, and selection of topics center on the field's identity as scientific, humanistic, and holistic: • Anthropology can be, should be, and is scientific. That is, it operates by inductively generating testable hypotheses, which are then deductively tested in an attempt to derive working theories about the areas of human biology and behavior that are our focuses. This is not to say that applying science to cultural variation or the abstract aspects of cultural systems is easy or particularly straightforward, or that science has even come close to satisfactorily answering all the major questions anthropologists ask about our species. Far from it. I simply believe that-if it is to be truly scholarly-the process of anthropologically investigating humankind is a scientific one. • Anthropology can be, should be, and is humanistic. A scientific orientation and focus does not preclude nonscientific investiga- tions and discussions of human behavior, or humanistic applica- tions of anthropology. We are, after all, dealing with human beings who have motivations for their behaviors that fail to respond to fixed laws as do chemicals or subatomic particles. Moreover, because we deal with people, we cannot help developing a concern for the welfare of our fellow humans. Indeed, this is what leads many to choose anthropology as a career in the first place. It becomes, then, only natural-if nor xvii xviii Preface morally incumbent on us-to apply what we have learned about humans and human behavior to give voice to those without one and to lend our knowledge to the agencies and governments that administer, guide, and, sometimes, compel and manipulate social change. • Anthropology can be, should be, and is holistic-because its subject is holistic. Thus, affiliation with one of the traditional subfields of anthropology should be no more than a starting point to the scholarly investigation of the nature of our species. In short, despite the enormous breadth of anthropological subject matter and approaches to studying those subjects, there really is a field called anthropology that has a distinctive view- point and methodology that make it uniquely valuable. FEATURES The assumptions that guided my writing have been concretely applied through the following features: • To convey the holism of the discipline, the traditional subfields are not used to divide the text into major parts, nor are they titles of chapters. The standard subfields are described and defined in the first chapter, but subsequently, the methods and contributions of each are interwoven throughout the book. In other words, the text is organized around the unique subject matter of anthropology-the human species in its holistic entirety-rather than being organized around the current subfield structure of anthropology itself. • To convey the multidimensional holism of the field at the introductory level requires choosing a theme that can act as a common thread tying all the parts together. Just saying that anthropology is holistic and giving a few specific examples is not enough. There are, of course, any number of themes that would be equally useful as such a pedagogical device. The one I have chosen is that of adaptation, broadly defined. J am not using the term in just its biological, ecological sense, although, of course, this definition does apply to human biological evolution and to the direct responses of cultures to their environments. But even abstract aspects of culture are adaptive responses to something. In other words, to paraphrase the title of an old anthology, my theme is that "humans make sense." Even if we have a hard time making sense of some of our behaviors, my central integrative assumption is that behaviors have some explanation within their cultural contexts. Preface xix • I've assumed that student readers have little or no familiarity with anthropology. I am introducing them to the field from the ground up, starting from scratch, and having in mind courses whose goal is to truly introduce rather than supply an encyclo- pedic survey. For the introductory student, none of the detail about models, paradigms, or current theoretical debates makes a bit of sense unless and until that student has a basic knowledge of the general approach, subject matter, methodology, history, and facts of our field. Although I do briefly discuss the area of anthropological theory and note several current debates, a text that focuses on that subject or that is written from just one per- spective would fail to do justice to the field. And it would cer- tainly fail to convey to the introductory student the basic identity of anthropology, the basic facts that anthropology has discerned about the human species, and the richness of our sub- ject matter, our scholarly worldview, and our contributions to knowledge and human welfare. • To get students to feel that I am talking to them personally, I have mixed an appropriate level of informality with the more formal style that must be used to convey the ideas of anthro- pology and the seriousness with which we approach our sub- ject. I want the students to feel that I am taking a journey through anthropology with them, not that I have just given them a map and guidebook and left them on their own. • Because a common misconception of our field is that we only study old dried-up fossils and exotic living peoples with their bizarre behaviors, I have tried to emphasize that anthropology studies the world's peoples in all their guises-ordinary and extraordinary, next door and in remote places. I have used as many examples and analogies as possible from North American cultures, groups, and situations. Students should know that anthropology doesn't stop the moment they walk out the classroom door; they should know that they too can do anthropology and that they too are anthropological subjects. • To really understand anthropology, students must apply it to thinking about their own lives. To further encourage this, the text includes a "Contemporary Issues" box at the end of each chapter that specifically applies the topic of the chapter to some question about the contemporary world, with a focus, where possible, on America and American culture. • Stories have worked well for most of human history as a vehicle for transmitting facts and ideas. They are more memo- rable than lists. I have written this text keeping in mind the narrative approach. There are a few literal stories, such as the one about my fieldwork that begins the book. But narrative in xx Preface a more general sense refers to a causal sequence of events, and I have tried to show how the various topics within anthropology connect with one another in this manner. The student readers should be able to navigate their way through the book and know where they are within the broad and diverse field of anthropology. I have provided signposts in the form of part, chapter, and subheading titles that logically and descriptively divide the subject as I have ordered it. The number of cultures used as examples is limited so that the same groups may be referred to throughout the book in different contexts. • A true introduction should be short and to the point. Achieving brevity while trying to introduce such a broad field is a challenge. I have tried to include every major topic within mainstream anthropology while managing the amount of detail presented. I think it is more efficient, at this level, to convey a sense of a topic through one clear, interesting, memorable example rather than four or five. One's own favorite example can always be discussed or more detail added in class. • Finally, the text is as accessible, attractive, straightforward, and uncluttered as possible. Important terms are boldfaced where they first appear and defined briefly in a running glossary in the margin. These terms are also listed alphabetically in a glossary at the end of the book. Also included is a standard bibliography. The text itself is not interrupted with specific references and citations. These are listed in a section at the end of each chapter called "Notes, References, and Readings," along with other references to the topics covered and to some specific studies or facts for those interested in pursuing a sub- ject further. A chapter summary precedes this section, as well as "Questions for Further Thought," which help students explore the real-world ramifications of the chapters' topics. Photographs and line art are in color where possible, and captions add information rather than simply label the illustrations. NEW TO rms EDITION The book has been updated where needed, and the discussion of many topics has been clarified. Highlights include the following: • The major new feature is the addition of new subheadings in the chapters. This is to help the readers navigate through the more complex topics and, if they study this way, to provide them with a built-in outline of the chapter contents. Preface xxi o The text has been further streamlined. No subject has been deleted, but I have tried to include only central ideas and related concepts that lead to and follow from them. o Topics have been updated throughout to reflect new data, research, and ideas. o Chapter 2, "How Anthropology Works," has an improved discussion of the scientific method. o Chapter 3, "Themes of Anthropology: Evolution," includes simplified discussions of genetics and the processes of evolu- tion, to better prepare students for the applications of those topics to come later. o Chapter 4, "Themes of Anthropology: Culture," has a revised discussion and diagram relating to the methodology of study- ing cultural systems . • Chapter 5, "Our Place in Nature: Humans as Primates," returns to the use of hominid to include only humans and our direct ancestors. I briefly account for this in the context of a simplified and improved discussion of taxonomic schemes. o Chapter 6, "Evolution: The Bipedal, Large-Brained Primate," contains updates on the fossil record, including the new evidence for interbreeding between "modern" humans and Neandertals. o Chapter 7, "Reproduction: The Sexual Primate," and Chapter 8, "Human Variation: Biological Diversity and Race," have been considerably streamlined to more clearly make their important points. • Chapter 13, "Culture Change: Theories and Processes," now does a better job of discussing the processes that bring about culture change. o Chapter 14, "The Evolution of Our Behavior: Putting It All Together," simplifies the discussion of the biblical food laws so as to better set up the topics that follow. o Chapter 15, "Anthropology in Today's World: Problems and Contributions," updates material on the societies discussed. ANCILLARIES Visit our Online Learning Center Web site at www.mhhe.comlpark6e for robust student and instructor resources. For students: Student resources include self-quizzes (multiple-choice and true or false), Internet links, and chapter study aids. For instructors: The password-protected instructor portion of the Web site includes the instructor's manual, a comprehensive computer- ized test bank, and PowerPoint lecture slides. xxii Preface ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank all the hardworking people at McGraw-Hill who have turned my ideas, words, and doodles into a real book. These include Courtney Austermehle, brand manager; Pen ina Braffman, managing editor; Jane Mohr, project manager; Nicole Bridge, developmental editor; Alexandra Schultz, marketing specialist; and jennifer Pickel, buyer. Special thanks also to the sponsoring editor of the first edition of this book, jan Beatty, who encouraged me to try something different and whose influence will always be a part of this and all my other books. Thanks as well to my friend, colleague, and ofttimes coauthor, Ken Feder, for his help in many important ways. Roger Lohmann provided a detailed set of suggestions, comments, and corrections that were help- ful throughout the book and particularly so in the religion chapter. Laura Donnelly provided advice for and posed for the sign-language photos. For those times when I ventured into the physical sciences, Bob Weinberger checked my facts, and Fran Weinberger kept me on my toes regarding the facts of the biblical dietary laws; both these people, of course, remain innocent of any final transgressions. And for forty years my students at Central Connecticut State have been my "guinea pigs" for teaching ideas covered in this text; they have also been my most candid, most vocal, and most helpful critics. The manuscript was reviewed by the following people: Anthony Tessandori, Bellevue College; Benjamin Arbuckle, Baylor University; Pam Sezgin, Gainesville State College; Wanda Clark, South Plains College; Cassandra Kuba, California University of Pennsylvania; Karla Davis-Salazar, University of South Florida; Elizabeth Peters, Florida State University; Catherine Fuentes, University of North Carolina; R. A. Halberstein, University of Miami; Cindy Isenhour, University of Kentucky; Manouchehr Shiva, Bellevue College; and jim Wanner, University of Northern Colorado-Greeley. I thank them all for their helpful and insight- ful contributions. Any errors, of course, remain entirely my responsibility. To My Readers Ihe always appreciated knowing something about the authors of thebooks I read, and so I think you should know something about me- especially since you are relying on me to introduce you to anthropology. I started my college career at Indiana University as a biology major, then switched two or three times to other majors. I took my first anthropology course because it sounded interesting-and because it ful- filled a general education requirement and met at a convenient time. But soon I was hooked. Once I learned what anthropology was all about, I realized it was the perfect combination of many subjects that had always interested me. I went on to get my undergraduate degree in anthropology and stayed at Indiana for graduate work, specializing in biological anthropology-first human osteology (the study of the skeleton) and forensic anthropology and later redirecting my interests to evolutionary theory and evolutionary processes as they apply to the human species. This, as you'll read about in Chapter 1, was the focus of my fieldwork and research among the Hutterites. I received my doctoral degree in 1979. In 1973 I started working at Central Connecticut State University, where I've been ever since, teaching courses in general anthropology (the topic of this book), human evolution, human biocultural diversity, forensic anthropology, the evolution of human behavior, and human ecology. I have also taught courses in the biology department and the university's honors program. I consider myself primarily an educator, so it was a natural step from classroom teaching to writing textbooks. This one is my sixth. In addition to my personal and professional interest in anthropol- ogy, I'm also concerned about the quality of science education and about public knowledge and perception of scientific matters. I have written and lectured on such things as teaching evolution, scientific investigations of palm reading and psychic detectives, and environmen- tal issues. On the purely personal side, in case you're interested, I live in rural Connecticut with my wife, two Labrador retrievers, and two xxiii xxiv To My Readers cats. When I'm not doing anthrnpology, I enjoy reading (although most of what I read seems to have something to do with science) and travel (although our trips nearly always include museums and archae- ological sites). And since you may wonder when you get to Chapter 3, I've never followed up on my tropical fish experiments. PRACfrCAl STUDY TIPS Most Importantly: Establish Your Own Style and Stick to It. What works for one person won't for another. I always needed peace and quiet to study and still do, but I know some of my students like to study while listening to their iPods. Some people highlight passages in the text, others make marginal notes, still others write an outline of the material. Of course, you'll have to adjust your study style to the text in question and to your instructor's format, but for the most part, you can do this around your basic approach. Don't be too inflexible, though; try some of the following suggestions. If they work, fine. If not, forget them. Read the Text as a Book. It may sound strange, but this is a book. It is not a Web site on paper nor a guide to using other resources. Very simply, it should be read as a book, as you would a novel, for example. I wrote it in a "narrative" style. That is, the contents of the chapters and the order of the chapters themselves are meant to convey a story, where one idea leads to the next and each idea follows from previous ideas. Stories are how humans have shared information since time immemorial. And because this book is structured as a story-a causal sequence of ideas-it is much easier to retain than is a list of facts. Don't Highlight Everything. I've seen some of my students' textbooks with virtually every sentence glowing yellow, pink, or green. This is not helpful, just as it's not help- ful to try to write down everything your instructor says in class. Notes To My Readers xxv and highlighting should be clues to jog your memory. Here are two examples taken from the previous edition of this text-of what not to do and of what would help you actually learn the material: See the difference? F1GUllfU A Son he..". (lo/il "'. """"e",",stud;,,,,,,,, 1heoou«arlheot!>er
m.n’,l'”””
in rolygynou. marri,ge’ ore ~ealer” men po<>e”ing ,pee;al puwers ‘ha’
allow them ro “u'” ill”,,><(FigLlre9.6). Thi, i, one of rhe few symbol, of differential ,tJlu, seen among toc San. Women, by [~e "'"y. may al'o oc heolers, b,n ,h ... wOmendo nm ... m 10 have "ny ,peciol privik'j;<>.
50″ religion recognizes multiple .”pern”””,1 heing” including two
very impo”,nt, powerful god, “‘~o are largely re’pon,ible for ‘he cre-
LH;onof the world ond for keeping i[ running. Ther< are .1", 101> of
incli”idllol spiri.. , as well ., ,h,. ghost< of d,'Ce.",d people, who rel1d 10 he mob·olem. n'e healers are ,hought '0 po"." a 'ub",,,c<, or heoling power, ,h" rhe~'(-an invoke ,hrough • d,1nee, h ClIu.... rhem to go in'o a ""nee during which tltey arc able '0 cure ill"e"'" und ,peak wi,h ,he ghos" of [he dead. T~e la" "ai' uf foragers I nored earli" ;, theiT lack of 0 wneep' of land and rcSourco ownership. Thi' i' ",," fur 'h" Son. !t', no' that eac~ bn"d of San roam wlterever ,hey want. Each h,nd has an " .. in "'hieh i' normally hunt' ,"d go,n«., and ,hi, area i, acknowledged hy u'her bond,. If. however, 'he home range of one hand runs out of • resource-say, if i" w,,,er hole dr,es up or hecom., co""",ina"d-th" 232 PARTTIIRE. ,Id,'p'illl; '0 Ou, World' FICiURE'I.6 AS,n he.ller(Jef') io" It,." an area in
which i’ normally hun” and gaohers, and th;, area is ,cknowledged by
mher I>””d,. If, however, rhc Itom. “”’g< of one hond ru,,, ou, of " rc,ourc,,~y, if its w'ler hole dries "p Or b<.~·ome,""numi"".d_,hoo xxvi To My Readers Use the Anci lIary Material as Support. The text in the book, with the illustrations and captions, is the main part. The running glossary entries (in the margins), opening questions, material at the ends of chapters, the main glossary, and the Online Learning Center Web site are all there to help you make sense of and learn the material in the book. Use all these things to help you define words and test your knowledge of the material, but don't start with them or rely on them. The text I had when I took introducrory anthro- pology had none of these things. They are helpful but not necessary. Organize Reviewing and Studying for Exams. For this book, I'd suggest first rereading the opening questions and then the summary for each chapter. These will remind you of the themes of the chapter, the general ideas that the facts are supporting. Then, review your highlights and notes. Finally, see if you can answer the opening questions. Ask Questions! If you miss one idea, you may well miss many ideas that follow from it. Write down questions that occur to you, or make notes in the mar- gins of the book. Then get answers to them as soon as you can. And while it's a cliche, it's true: No question is stupid. Someone else in the class may well have the same question. And if you would like my input, feel free to email me at: ParkM@ccsu.edu. Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species 1 Doing Anthropology: Defining the Discipline A brief description of the author's fieldwork experience. A sketch of the Hutterites, the sub- jects of that fieldwork. A definition of anthropology and a description of its subfields. A brief description of the logic and structure of the book. 2 How Anthropology Works: Methods of Inquiry A definition and description of science and how it contrasts with belief systems. The impor- tance of each of these methods of inquiry within cultural systems. The nature of anthropology as a scientific and humanistic discipline. 3 Themes of Anthropology: Evolution A brief history of evolutionary thought. A discussion of basic genetics, adaptation, and descent with modification-eoncepts at the heart of evolutionary theory. Natural selection and other processes of evolution. The result of evolution: the origin of new species. 4 TItemes of Antltropology: Culture A definition of culture, a discussion of culture among nonhumans, and some ideas about the cerebral basis of culture. A model for the study of culture and cultural variation and some examples of how it works. An introduction to the study of material culture and the recon- struction of past cultures. DOING ANTHROPOLOGY Defining the Discipline CHAPTER CONTENTS In the Field • The Hutterites • Anthropology • Contemporary Issues: What ResponsibilitiesDoes the Anthropologist HaveWhen Studying Other Cultures? • Plan of the Book • Summary • Questions for Further Thought • Notes. References, and Readings 3 4 PART ONE Anthropology; The Bioculrural Study of the Human Species If you asked ten people to define anthropology, you would probablyget ten answers, each partially correct but not covering the entire , definition of the field. This is understandable. Anthropology IS such a broad discipline that many people-including me when I took my first anthropology course-conceive of the field in terms of the one or two aspects they are familiar with. In this chapter, we will define anthropology as a whole, discuss the major subfields of the discipline, and then show how all these subfields interact and work together. Then 1will bnefly describe how the rest of the book is organized. But first, because I think fieldwork is perhaps the best-known aspect of all areas of anthropology, I will begin with a brief description of one of my own fieldwork experiences and the people and society I studied. This introduction will also help you become familiar with a cultural system that we can examine throughout the book. ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: I. Who are the Hutterites, and why did the author study them) 2. What IS the general definition of anthropology? 3. What are the major subfields of anthropology, and how do they integrate with one another? IN THE FIELD We had left behind the spacious wheat fields surrounding the small . town in western Saskatchewan, Canada, and were now driving a straight, flat, two-lane road through the open, rolling plains. Lyrics of old songs came to mind as I saw mule deer and pronghorn antelope playing in the "amber waves of grain." In fact, on that June day in 1973, I was desperately trying to think about anything other than where I was going. I was on my way to meet my first real anthropological subjects, a colony of people belonging to a 450-year-old religious group called the Hutterian Brethren, or Hutterites. Up to this point I had not felt much anxiety about the visit. My situation was quite safe. Whereas other anthropologists had contacts with Amazon rain-forest warriors and highland New Guinea headhunters, I was in an English-speaking country, preparing to study an English-speaking people of European descent who practiced a form of Christianity that emphasized pacifism and tolerance. anthropology The holistic, sceotitic study of humankind. CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 5 Such thoughts, however, were of no help. Nor was the fact that I was accompanied by the wife of a local wheat farmer who was well known and liked by this Hutterite community. I had that unnamed syndrome that affects many anthropologists under these circumstances. The road turned from blacktop to gravel and then to dirt. After about 10 miles, it curved abruptly to the right, ran through an authen- tic western ghost town, and crested a hill. I saw below me, at the literal end of the road, a neat collection of twenty or so white buildings sur- rounded by acres of cultivated fields. This was the Hutterite colony, the Bruderhof, or "place of the brethren" (Figure 1.1). As we drove into the colony, I became more anxious. There was not a soul to be seen. My companion explained that it was a religious holiday, requiring all but essential work to cease. The colony minister and the colony boss, however, had agreed to see me. 100 50 0 I I J 100 200 300 400 500 Ft. t I I I ! r N I FIGURE 1.1 Diagram of a typical Hutterite colony. The variety of buildings and their functions are indicative of the Hotterites' attempt to keep their colonies self-sufficient and separate from the outside world (In reality: there would be many more buildings designated as living quarters.) 6 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 1.2 Hutterite women in typical dress. We knocked at the door of one of the small buildings I assumed was a residence. We were greeted formally but warmly by an elderly man dressed in the Hutterite fashion-black trousers and coat over a white shirt-and with a full beard. The room we entered, clearly a living room, was darkened in observance of the holiday. That darkness, combined with my nervous excitement, has erased all impressions of the next few minutes from my memory. My recollections of that day resume moments later, with my bear- ings straight and introductions made. I explained the reason for my visit to the man who had greeted us, a younger man, and a woman. The older man was the colony minister; the other man, who happened to be his son, was the colony boss. The woman, the minister's wife, was also dressed in the conservative style of the Hutterites. She wore a white blouse beneath a nearly full-length sleeveless dress with a small floral pattern on a black background. Her head was covered by a polka-dot kerchief, which they call a shawl (Figure 1.2). CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 7 The three listened in silence as I went through my well-rehearsed explanation. My contacts, the wheat farmer and his wife, had briefed them about what I wanted to do, and I had already written them a letter introducing myself. But I realized that if they didn't like me or my explanation, they could stilldecline to cooperate. So I started from the beginning, reviewing that I wanted to take their fingerprints-which are partially influenced by genes-and collect genealogical data to document genetic changes between populations and across generations. When I had finished, they asked me a few questions: Was I from the government? (They apparently knew about fingerprints only in the context of law enforcement and personal identification.) Did I know Scripture? (My equivocal answer seemed to create no problem.) What would I use this study for? Was I going to write a book? Did I know Dr. Steinberg, who had been there two years earlier collecting medical data? (I had taken a course from him.) When they had exhausted their questions, I expected that they would confer with one another or ask me to come back when they had decided. Instead, the minister, who was clearly in charge, simply said, "Today is a holiday for us. Can you start tomorrow?" And so, for the next month I took part in my personal version of the anthropological fieldwork experience-taking fingerprints, recording family relation- ships, observing colony life, and befriending the Hutterites of this and a related Bruderhof in Alberta. What exactly had brought me 1,300 miles from the university where I was doiug graduate work to this isolated community of peo- ple whose way of life had changed little over nearly half a millennium and whose lifestyle and philosophy were so different from that of North American culture in general? Essentially, it was the same thing that takes anthropologists to the savannas of East Africa, the outback of Australia, the caves of southern France, and the street corners of New York City: the desire to learn something about the nature of the human species. In my case, I was pursuing an interest I had developed early in graduate school. I was curious about certain processes of evolutionary change and how they op\rate in human populations. To examine them and their roles in our evolution, I needed to fiud a human group with a few special characteristics. First, the group had to be fairly genetically isolated, meaning that most members found their mates from within the group. The group had to be fairly small as a whole, but with large individual families. I was also looking for a group that had knowledge of their genealogy and in which family relationships reflected genetic as well as cultural categories. (Aswe will see in Chapter 10, all societies have systems of family relationships, but few of these coincide completely with biological relationships.) Finally, I was hoping for a community in which individual units within the group were created through the splitting up of existing units. 8 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species The Hutterites fit this description very well. I had learned of them through library research on genetically isolated populations. My oppor- tunity to study them was greatly enhanced by a stroke of luck: a fellow graduate student was the daughter of the wheat farmer and his wife who became my contacts. Let's briefly look at the Hutterites, whom we will use as one example of a cultural system throughout this book. THE HUITERITES The Hutterian Brethren is a Christian religious sect founded in Moravia (part of the present-day Czech Republic) in 1528 by peoples from southern Germany and Austria. They were part of the Anabaptist move- ment, whose doctrines shunned the idea of infant baptism and advo- cated a church free from the control of the state. Because of their doctrines, the Anabaptist groups were disliked by the mainstream Catholics and Protestants of their time. Many Anabaptist sects formed during this period, but only three remain today: the Hutterites; the Mennonites; and a Mennonite branch, the Amish. All now live mainly in North America. One additional aspect of some of these groups' nonconformity was their belief in communal living and ownership. The biblical passage that forms the basis of the Hutterite lifestyle is Acts 2:44, which reads in part: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common." But the nonconformity of the Anabaptists also led to persecution. Many members of the various sects were imprisoned, and some were tortured and burned at the stake. One of those executed was Jacob Hutter, an early leader of the group that, after his martyrdom, took his name. This persecution resulted in the demise of most Anabaptist groups, but through continual migration and sheer persistence, the Hutterites managed to survive. Over the next 300 years they lived in Slovakia.. Romania, and Russia, coming finally in the 1870s to the United States. Later problems connected with taxes and with the military draft (the Hutterites, remember, are pacifists) led many Hutterites to move again, this time to Canada. Today there are over 45,000 Hutterites in 462 colonies located in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia; the rest are in Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Washington (Figure 1.3). (We'll cover more of Hutterite history in Chapter 12.) The sect is now divided into three subsects descended from the three original colonies founded by the Hutterire migrants to North America. The subsects have been genetically isolated from one another since World War I; that is, members find mates only from within their subsect. The differences among the subsecrs include degree of cultural conservatism, which is manifested in, for example, clothing styles. CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 9 I HUDSONBAY ALBERTA CANADA BRITISH Edmonton.~./ SASKATCHEWAN r COLUMBIA r \ ~. "--; t MANITOBA 2 , ~c",,:68 ~oor-:o, 107 ,/ \f'~ I ! • I Regina J _ _ .Winnipeg .6,,,, ',II, "",~" '''' 7 r ~ ~ . ~ MONTANA ~ Grand Fo 1 rs Lake \,~ -:ORTH.DAKOTA MINNESOTA 5"::0' PNITEP ~TIIl.TES.L ( ~1 I -- ~~ISCONSIN -\ I WYOMING SOUTH~ OTA \- 100 /100 _ 300 Mile' .Sioux Falls"'/','---'1 ~ r --- - ----- 100 200 ]00Kllome,e7 "-1. IOWA ONTARIO IDAHO The Hutterites live in Bruderhofs, colonies of around 100 people. The lifestyle is communal in almost every sense of the word: all land, resources, and profits are colony property. An individual's personal belongings are all contained in a hope chest. Decisions concerning the colony are made by elected officials headed by the colony boss. The colony minister, in charge of the group's religious welfare, is also elected. Work is divided along sexual lines and among a number of specialists-chicken men, teachers, cooks, and so on-but the division is not absolute. The community views the completion of required tasks as a community responsibility; when work needs to be done, there is someone to do it. The Hutterite economy is basically agricultural, and the specific crops and animals raised depend on the geography and economy of the area occupied. Although the Hutterites (like the better-known Amish) have traditionally shunned such worldly items as television, radio, and personal ornamentation, they will readily accept any modern technol- ogy or any contact with outsiders that aids them as farmers. Because of this attitude and the relative wealth of most colonies, the members of a Bruderhof look like people who have stepped out of the past but who use modern tractors, milking machines, fertilizers, antibiotics, telephones, and computers (Figure 1.4). Traditionally, children have been educated at the colony in the "English school" by a state or provincial teacher until the legal age at which they can leave. The most important schooling, however, given FIGURE 1.3 Map showing the number of Hutterite colonies in each state or province as of 20 12, 10 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 1.4 Scenes of colony life. Top: A kindergarten for young ~ children after they no longer spend all day with their parents and before they begin regular schooling- a Hutterite invention. Bottom: A young woman packaging eggs in a colony that specializes in this product. Note the mechanized equipment, by the colony teacher in the "German school," transmits the ways of Hutterite life and religion, which are one and the same. In addition, practical education is given in the form of an apprenticeship in one of the jobs vital to the colony's existence. This training prepares the child to become a working member of the community when schooling is completed. The Hutterites are almost completely isolated in genetic terms. Few Hutterires ever permanently leave the group, and converts entering their communities have numbered only a few dozen since the original colonies' CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology I I migration to North America. Moreover, on average about half of all Hutterite marriages take place between members of the same colony. The rest involve members from another colony of the same subsect. Hutterites restrict marriage to individuals who are second cousins or more distant relations.Tn fact, because individuals within a subsect are all fairly closely related, the most common unions involve second cousins. The average age at marriage is twenty-four years for men and twenty-two years for women. Only abont 2 percent of Hutterite men and 5 percent of women never marry. An interesting phenomenon within the Hutterires' breeding structure is the frequency with which siblings (brothers and sisters) marry other sets of siblings. In one sample, 20 percent of all marriages were "double sibship" marriages (two brothers marry two sisters or a brother and sister marry a sister and brother), and 8 percent were triple or quadruple sibship marriages. Hutterite families are large, but family lines are relatively few.There are only twenty surnames among all Hutterites, and five of these belong to a small percentage of families. The average family has ten children, the highest substanriated per-family birthrate recorded for any population. Hutterites maintain a great interest in their genealogies, and they have kept family records with great accuracy. It is thus easy to trace degrees of biological relationship among individuals, even back to the sixteenth century, a fact that has been important for much research on the group, including my own. Completing the match of the Hutterites to my ideal research pop- ulation is their practice of regularly dividing their colonies, or "branching out" as they call it. When, after fifteen or twenty years, a colony becomes so large (about 130 to 150 people) that social and administrative problems arise and there is increasing duplication of labor specialists, a colony will purchase a new tract of land and divide its population. Usually the minister simply makes two lists, each with abour half the colony's families. Family units, of course, are never broken up. The ministers do manipulate the lists to equalize age and sex distributions and to ensure that each new colony has the required specialists. At last, lots are drawn to determine which group of families will remain and which will move to the new land as founders of the new Bruderhof. The two Hutterite colonies I visited in the summer of 1973 were the results of a branching out that had taken place in 1958. Enough time had elapsed for a new generation to be born. Using fingerprint patterns as genetic data (these were the days before so-called DNA fingerprinting), I was able to estimate degrees of genetic relationship within and between the colonies and, most important, to trace changes in genetic makeup from generation to generation. These analyses would help me answer some of the questions I had posed about specific evolutionary processes and their role in human evolution. ANTHROPOLOGY 12 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE I.S The major subfields of anthropology and some of the topics included in each. In addition, the topics of each subfield may be applied to various social issues; this is known collectively as applied anthropology. These topics will be described later in the book biological anthropology The subfietd of anthropology that studies humans as a biological species. physical anthropology The traditional name for biologi- cal anthropology. species A group of organ- isms that can produce fertile offspring among themselves but not with members of other groups. cultural anthropology The subfield of anthropology that focuses on human cultural behavior and cultural systems and the variation in cultural expression among human groups, culture Ideas and behaviors that are learned and trans- mitted. Nongenetic means of adaptation, Anthropology Archaeology Culture as species trait Variation in cultural systems Processes of cultural change Descriptive linguistics Language evolution Prehistoric archaeology Historic archaeology Cultural resource managementEthnosemantics When many people think of anthropology-when T think of anthropology- the image that first comes to mind is the sort of thing I've just been describing: the fieldwork experience, when the anthropologist visits a land or a people usually very different from his or her own. This is the romantic and exciting part of rhe discipline that shapes the public image and makes for interesting films (dramatic as well as documentary). It is also the part that brings out the humanism of anthropology-rhe need to understand, to get to know, to communicate with other peoples from their perspective. Fieldwork is certainly one of the things thar attract people to anthropology as a career. And fieldwork is important. It is the part of the science of anthropology where basic observations are made, data are collected, and ideas about humans are tested. But does it tell us what anthropology is really about? Does ir define the field? The first problem in trying to define anthropology is accounting for the great variety of activities that anthropologists engage in. In fact, the field is so broad it is traditionally divided into four subfields (Figure 1.5). Biological (physical) anthropology. Biological anthropologists focus on humans as a biological species and study such topics as human genetics, human evolution, the fossil record, and the biology of living populations. Some even study nonhuman species such as our close relatives, the monkeys and apes (Figure 1.6). Cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropologists focus on our species' unique ability to create ideas, behaviors, and technologies that we share with one another-that is, our culture. They study the nature of culture as a characteristic trait of OUf species and how and why cultural systems differ among human societies (Figure 1.7). FIGURE 1.6 Biological anthropologists at work. Clockwise from top left: The author identifies bones from an early New England grave. excavated at the family's request A macaque on Gibraltar is observed by primatologist Agustin Fuentes. Paleoanthropologist Bill Kimbel uses dental tools, a small drill. and a microscope to free fossil fragments from the surrounding stone. Richard Wrangham and Robert Bailey watch Elizabeth Ross measure the stature of an Efe man from the Democratic Republic of the Congo 13 FIGURE 1.7 Cultural anthropologists at work. Clockwise from top left: Raymond Hames uses a battery-powered computer to collect data about settlement patterns among the Yanornarno of Brazil. l-larjorie Shostak talks with two San men, members of a foraging (hunting-gathering) people of southern Africa,As part of her research on the Nuer a pastoral society of Sudan, Sharon Hutchinson studies some of their cattle, 14 CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 15 Linguistic anthropology. Linguistic anthropologists study language as a human characteristic and attempt to explain the differences among the 3,000 or so existing human languages. They also look at the relationship of specific languages to their cultures. ~Archaeology. Of all the cultural systems that have ever been, most are no longer in existence. And because for most of human history there were no written languages, all that these extinct cultures have left behind are their material remains, often literally their garbage- broken pottery, abandoned dwellings, used tools, and the like. Archaeologists study the relationships between such artifacts and the cultures that manufactured and used them and then expand their findings to reconstruct past cultural systems. Archaeology might be seen as the anthropology of the past. Archaeology also develops the techniques for locating, recovering, dating, and preserving the often fragile remains of past cultures (Figure 1.8). In addition to the topics listed under each subfield in Figure 1.5, the data and concepts within each subfield have certain practical applications- social welfare concerns, legal and crime-related matters (forensic anthro- pology), preservation of cultural resources, and health issues, to name a few. Such activities are referred to as applied anthropology, and we will discuss them in more detail in Chapter 15. Now, how can these sorts of studies all be anthropology? What is the common theme that ties together such things as the fingerprints of Hutterites, the behavior of chimpanzees, a 3-million-year-old fossil, the culture of a highland New Guinea society, the languages of the Eskimo, and the material culture of ancient peoples of southern New England? The answer to that question reveals what anthropology is all about. What all anthropologists do is try to answer questions about the human species. All anthropologists want to know why we humans behave as we do, how we evolved to look like we do, why we don't all look the same, and why there is such variation in our cultural behaviors. We may start answering these questions from points as different as ancient fossils and modern Hutterite farmers, but if our goal is scientific knowledge about the human species, then we're doing anthropology. Thus anthropology, as its name indicates, is the study of human- kind. But, you might be wondering, don't history, political science, sociology, and even mathematics all study something about humans? What makes anthropology different? The answer is that anthropology is the holistic study of humankind; it searches for interrelationships among all the parts of its subject. Primary among those relationships is what we term the biocultural perspective. Humans are a complex species. Like any species, we have an anatomy, a physiology, a set of behaviors, an environment, and an evolutionary history-all of which are interrelated. But unlike any other species, we also have culture. We can consciously invent and change our behaviors, and linguistic anthropology The subfield of anthropology that describes the charac- teristics of human language and studies the relationships between languages and the cultures that speak them. archaeology The subfteld of anthropology that studies the human cultural past and reconstructs past cultural systems. artifact Any object that has been consciously manufactured. holistic Assuming an inter- relationship among the parts of a subject. biocultural Focusing on the interaction of biology and culture. 16 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species CONTEMPORARY ISSUES What Responsibilities Does the Anthropologist HaveWhen Studying Other Cultures? Living peoples are not chemicals in a test tube or electrons in a particle accelerator. When anthropol- ogists visit,observe, and eventually analyzethe be- haviors of another culture, we have important ethical responsibilitiesthat go beyond those of the chemist or physicist There are three overlapping and mterre- lated areas we must be aware of. We have a respon- sibility to our subjects, a responsbfity to the science of anthropology and a responsibilityto ourselves. Any time scientists observe a subject they risk affecting that subject. With people, the changes can be profound. When anthropologists visit another society, we may introduce its people to new technologies that may bring about subtle changes in their culture. For example, offering a previously unknown or unavailable tool-say, a metal knife or a cigarette lighter-to one individ- ual but not another may cause jealousies or even alterations in the community's power structure. Likewise, new behaviors introduced by anthropol- ogists, ifadopted by some of the people being studied, could disrupt the harmony of the cultural system. We may also inadvertently introduce new diseases,with obvious potential consequences. Some influence from our presence is unavoidable, but we must be conscious of the possibilities and try, as much as possible, to limit them. At the same time, we should not withhold knowledge that could be of use to the people we study. When, for example, anthropologists and medical researchers visited the Yanornar-io of the Amazon rain forest, they discovered that previous contact with outsiders had started a measles epi- demic. Never having been exposed to measles before, the Yanomarno had no natural defenses. The SCientistsbrought In a vaccine to try to fight off the disease. A controversial book published in 2000 accused these scientists of unintentionally causing a measles epidemic among the Yanornarno through their use of a certain vaccine. It also blames anthropologists specifically for disrupting Yanornarno economy by introducing goods and for mischaracterizing the group as violent and thus fueling abuses by outsiders. The charges regarding the measles vaccine and ethical violations were eventually discredited by,among others, the American Anthropological Association. As this example demonstrates, we have a respon- sibil~ to treat and respect our subjects as equals. This sounds obvious, but some anthropologists have a tendency to think of their subjects, especially if they are from a less technologically complex culture, as childlikeand in need of almost paternal- istic protection. Such an approach is patronizing and insulting, not to mention counterproductive. A scientist who is able to gain the respect of his or her subjects stands a greater chance of conducting" fruitful study When I arrived at one of the Hotterrte colonies, for example, I found the colony leaders suddenly reluctant to let me conduct my study, despite a previous arrangement because they had been interviewed by a journalist whose subsequent we can think about those behaviors and even about our own conscious- ness. Thus, all the other academic fields I mentioned, and more, are necessary in order to fully undersrand every aspect of human biology and culture. However, also necessary is a field that seeks to understand how all the aspects of our species are related-how our biology and our cul- ture interact; how our past has influenced our present; how one facet of • CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 17 magazine article was inaccurate and somewhat demeaning. My initial inclination was to simply back off and quietly leave. Instead, I decided to argue for my position, indicating that I was not a journalist but a scientist and educator and, as such, that my job was to present their culture accurately and from their point of view. Although they said no several times more, I persisted. In the end, they agreed, we got along fine, and they provided me with important information. We also have a responsibility to anthropology itself.As IJust noted, we must describe another society from its point of view, without imposing our own cultural values on our description and analysis. We callthis cultural relativity. While we may not agree with everything another culture believes and does-and may even be repulsed by it-we are obliged as soennsts to assume that the behaviors of others fit somehow into their cultural systems, that is,are acceptable relative to their cultural beliefs.We may for example, find the ritual warfare and killing by the Dani of New Guinea (see Chapter 14) abhorrent by our cultural standards, but we under- stand that within their cultural system, it makes sense. We can only understand human culture and human cultures Ifwe study them objectively Still, we have a responsibility to ourselves, in two basic ways. First, in the process of practicing cultural relativity,we need not shun or deny our own beliefs and standards. A culture persists be- cause its members adhere to certain standards and, indeed, take them on faith.While one benefit of anthropology is the opportunity to learn about alternative ways of thinking, we anthropologists should not simply jettison the beliefs that make us part of our own societies. Moreover; by acknowl- edging reactions to the behaviors of others--even repulsion-it is easier to set these reactions aside for the purposes of objective science. Second, the concept of cultural relativity has limitations. While certain behaviors may make sense within specific cultural systems and while we must practice cultural relativity in order to under- stand those systems, the nature of the contempo- rary world as a global village suggests the presence of and need for widely accepted universal stan- dards of behavior Not everything every society does is universally morally acceptable, and we have a responsibility to try as best as we can to speak out about such practices in the hopes of changing them. For example, the subsistence farmers who are burning large areas of the world's rain forests may have perfectly sound personal reasons for their activity but lack the big picture in terms of its effect on our global ecology. We should be trYing to provide these farrners with other less destruc- tive ways of pursuing their livelihoods. Another example is a society that denies its women equal medical care simply because they are women. The reasons for doing so may be culturally consistent and long-standing, but such a practice is contrary to basic, widely accepted human rights. Considerations likethese make anthropology a difficult profession, fraught with debatable and even contentious issues. But they also make anthropology-the discipline that possesses the broad perspective needed to make these considerations-a very important science. culture, such as economics, is related to some other facet, such as religion. Trying to understand these relationships is what anthropologists do, Think of it this way: If you were a zoologist interested in, say, honeybees, you couldn't possibly understand that insect fully unless you understood its anatomy, its physiology, its behavior, its environment, and its evolutionary history. You might specialize in one aspect of its cultural relativity Studying another culture from its point of view without imposing our own cultural values. 18 FIGURE 1.8 Archaeologists at work, Clockwise from top left: Ken Feder shifts soil and examines potential artifacts at an excavation near the Farmington River in Connecticut. Connecticut State Archaeologist Nick Bellantoni excavates an early New England grave (see Figure 1.6), Margaret Conkey. a specialist in prehistoric European art examines an ancient painting at the cave of Le Reseau, France, Terry del Bene studies ancient toolmaking techniques by producing replicas, CHAPTER 1 Doing Anthropology 19 life-say, its complex communication system-but to know just what a honeybee is, you would have to understand the interrelationships among all aspects of its life. Anthropology is much the same-but with the important distinction that what sets humans apart from all other living creatures is OUf cul- tural behavior. Culture adds a dimension to our species that is beyond the purely biological. A bee can't change its behavior at will. We can. Thus the biocultural focus of anthropology. PLAN OF THE BOOK This chapter has given you a brief and basic introduction to anthropol- ogy. In the next chapter, we'll delve deeper into the nature of anthropol- ogy as a scientific and humanistic discipline. In the rest of Part 1, we'll examine the two major themes of anthropology: evolution and culture. Part 2 will focus on how anthropology studies and defines its subject, the human species. We will see where humans fit into the world of living things, with particular attention to our identity as one of the living spe- cies of primates. We will then examine how we evolved from our earliest apelike ancestor to become the unique large-brained, cultural primate we are today. A key aspect of our identity is our sexual behavior-which not only is how we reproduce and thus perpetuate our species, but also is a perfect example and reminder of the biocultural perspective of anthropology. Finally, another major characteristic of our species, and one with many social implications, is our biological diversity and the categories into which different societies organize that diversity based on cultural precepts-in other words, the thorny issues of race and racism. With the biocultural perspective as our organizing principle, in Part 3 we will look at the categories into which anthropologists typically divide our cultural behavior and show how the subfields of anthropology interact in pursuit of that perspective. We'll look at how we obtain and distribute Our food and other economic resources, how we organize our families and societies, how we share knowledge through language, and how we main- tain order through religious and secular rules. We'll then examine some of the various ways anthropologists try to organize the data on human soci- eties and to explain how behaviors change over time-how they evolve. In Chapter 14, using several specific examples, we'll merge all the aspects we've covered into a coherent theoretical framework. Remember, what anthropologists are attempting to accomplish-no matter where their individual research begins-is to understand how and why the human species looks, thinks, and behaves the way it does. We will end with a chapter on anthropology in the modern world, showing how anthropology can be applied to real-world issues and what the anthropological perspective has to tell us about our lives today and in the future. - 20 PARTONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species SUMMARY Anthropology can be defined as the biocul- rural study of the human species. Its centra] focus is the feature that is unique to humans- our cultural behavior. Culture is the way we as a species deal with our world and with one another. Understanding a species' behavior- QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT even when that behavior is largely cultural-i- necessarily requires an understanding of all aspects of that species' identity, from its biol- ogy to its environment to its evolutionary past to the cultural behaviors that come In many different forms. I. What specific responsibilities do you think I had to take into account when planning and conducting my research among the Hutterites? Consider another culture, and imagine what particular responsibilities would be involved in studying that culture as an anthropologist. 2. Because of anthropology's wide range of interests and its overlap with other scholarly disciplines, anthropologists have sometimes been characterized as "jacks of all trades and masters of none." Do you agree? Explain. 3. Think of a real-life example of a society with a practice entirely antithetical to your cultural beliefs but quite consistent with and integral to thot society's cultural beliefs. How would you deal with this. both as an anthropologist doiog fieldwork there and as an individual? NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS Perhaps the most complete work on the Hutterites is John A. Hostetler's Hutterite Society. (All refer- ences and reading suggestions are listed, with complete information, in the Bibliography at the back of the book.) See also the Hutterites' Web site, www.hutterites.org/index.html. and "Solace at Surprise Creek," by W. A. Allard, in the June 2006 National Geographic. There are many good descriptions of anthropologi- cal fieldwork. Among my favorites are Nigel Barley's The Innocent Anthropologist and Katherine A. Dettwyler's Dancing Skeletons: Life and Death in West Africa. If you like novels, try Return to Laughter, by Elenore Smith Bowen (the pseudonym of anthro- pologist Laura Bohannon). Among the most famous descriptions of field- work is Studying the Yqnomamo, by Napoleon A. Chagnon. Chagnon's research is also at the center of the controversy about the scientific study of that group. The book that makes the accusations noted in the Contemporary Issues feature box earlier in the chapter is Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon, by Patrick Tierney. For an update on the issue, see "Chagnon Critics Overstepped Bounds, Historian Says" by Charles C. Mann in the September 11,2009, issue of Science, p. 1466. For more discussion, read "Guilt by Association," by Thomas Gregor and Daniel Gross, in the December 2004 issue of American Anthropologist. HOW ANTHROPOLOGY WORKS Methods of Inquiry CHAPTER CONTENTS The Scientific Method • Belief Systems • Anthropology as a Science • Contemporary Issues:Are Science and Belief Inherently in Conflict with One Another? • Anthropological Methodology: Fieldwork • Summary· Questions for Further Thought • Notes, References, and Readings 21 22 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultura] Study of the Human Species From books, movies. and television comes our popular image of thescientist as a walking encyclopedia of facts, Science, indeed, is often understood as a process of fact-collecting, Yet while it's fair to say that scientists certainly need to know a lot of facts, so do a lot of other people, Champions on the TV quiz show Jeopardy are seldom profes- sional scientists. Facts are the raw material of science, the data scientists use, But what scientists really do is explain facts, not simply collect them, Science is a process of inquiry, a way of answering questions about the world, ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: I, How does science work? 2, Is science the only valid method of explaining the world around us? How does science differ from other methods of inquiry? 3, Can sccr-ce and other methods of inquiry operate in harmony within a cultural system? 4, How is anthropology-the study of human culture and blology- a scientific discipline? THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD The world is full of things that need explaining, We might wonder about the behavior of a bird, the chemical composition of a star in the night sky, the identity of a fossil skeleron, the social interaction of stu- dents in a college classroom, or the rituals of a society in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa. As people, we strive to understand such phenomena, to know why and how these things occur as they do, As scientists, we must try to answer these questions according to a special set of rules-the scientific method, The "Rules" of the Scientific Method science The method of inquiry that requires the generation. testing. and acceptance or rejection of hypotheses. scientific method The formal process of conducting scientific inquiry. The central rule of science is that a scientific idea must be empirically testable, That is, one must be able to gather tangible evidence in support of, or in opposition ro, a proposed idea. It works like this: We normally begin with a question we wish to answer about observed facts, or something we wish to explain about patterns of phe- nomena we see. Charles Darwin, for example (as we'll see in the next chapter), was trying to explain the nature of the fossil record and the patterns of variation he saw in living species. CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 23 We then attempt to generate a general explanatory principle that will account for the specific patterns of real data we observe. Such a general explanation is called a hypothesis, and this process of reasoning, from the specific to the general, is called induction. It is important that the inductive process of generating a scientific hypothesis fulfills two criteria. First, data must be real and tangible (not imaginary), and a hypothesis must be built on existing data (not data that might someday show up). Second, the hypothesis that develops must be testable using real, tangible data. Put another way, a hypothesis must be disprovable and be an answerable question. Darwin spent a whole chapter of The Origin of Species detailing the data that could refute his hypothesis. (Obviously, he successfully disputed those data!) Testing a scientific hypothesis uses the process of deduction, which goes from the general to the specific. It asks: If my hypothesis is correct, then what specific things should I find? We look, for example, for: • Repetition: Does the same phenomenon occur over and over? • Universality: Does the phenomenon occur under all conditions? If we vary some aspect of the situation, will the phenomenon still occur? How might different situations change the phenomenon? • Explanations for exceptions: Can we account for cases where the phenomenon doesn't appear to occur? • New data: Does new information support or refute our hypothesis? Our ultimate goal in science is the development of a theory. Popularly, the term is used as a synonym for hypothesis, or even a guess. But in science, theory is a positive term. A theory is a general concept-made up of interacting and well-supported hypotheses-that coordinates, explains, and interprets a wide range of factual patterns. The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution are called theories because they do just that. All facts of biology, for example, make sense only within the general theory of evolution (which we'll examine in the next chapters). Some Common Misconceptions about Science "Science Proves Ideas for All Time" We try to avoid the word prove in science. Rather, our approach is to determine the degree of support for hypotheses and theories, and, ideally, we always look for new evidence and are always open to and, indeed, inviting of change. This is how scientific knowledge progresses. The best science can do is paint the most accurate picture of the world possible at any time. That said, there are some scientific theories so well supported over time that they are, for all intents and purposes, proved. They have become fact. Darwin's natural selection-which at first was a hypothesis A proposed explanation for a natural phenomenon. induction The process of developing a general explanation from specific observations deduction Suggesting specific data that would be found if a hypothesis were true theory A general idea that explains a large set of factual patterns 24 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 2.1 Light bent by gravity, Einstein predicted that a strong gravitational field could bend light His prediction was verified when light from stars that should have been blocked by the sun could be seen during a solar eclipse. The effect is greatly exagger- ated in this drawing. hypothesis requiring evidence-is now observable fact. So, for that matter, is the theory of evolution (the common ancestry of all living things, changing over time). "Once We Have a Theory about a Particular Topic, We Don't Need to Do More Science" No theory is complete. The theory of gravity, for example, establishes that such a force exists, and we know a great deal about its effects. But we still debate how it works and how it originated in the early universe. We still debate details of evolutionary theory. The process of science, even with regard to theories so well supported they are facts, never ends. "Science Studies Only Visible, Tangible, Present-Day Things" Gravity is not visible or tangible. We can't touch it. But we know it exists, and we can measure it and predict its actions because we can deductively test its effects. We see it at work constantly. We logically predict that if gravity is the property of objects with mass, then the bigger the object, the more gravity. We saw this clearly when we watched the astronauts walk on the moon; they were literally lighter there (about one-sixth their earthly weight) because the moon is smaller than earth. On the other hand, very massive objects have more gravity (Figure 2.1). We can even explain exceptions within the context of the theory of gravity: The rea- son a helium-filled balloon seems to violate gravity is because the helium CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 25 trapped in the balloon is less dense than the surrounding air and so responds relatively less to the earth's gravity; the balloon floats on the air as a boat (filled with air) floats on the denser water. Similarly, past events can't be directly seen or touched. They can't be directly experimented on or repeated. The evolution of living organisms is an example. But again, we know that evolution occurs because we see the results, which can only be explained by the theory of evolution (which we'll detail in the following chapters). Science Is Conducted ill a Cultural Context Don't scientists search for truths that are objective and not influenced by preconceived notions or prejudices? Ideally, yes. But keep in mind that scientists are members of their societies and participants in their cultures, and science is always conducted within the context of a par- ticular culture at a particular point in time. Thus, science-as objective as we try to make it-is always affected by what we already know, by what we still don't know, by the technology available to us to gather and test data, and even by certain influential social or cultural trends. For example, I remember my elementary school teacher back in the mid-1950s pointing out that the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa seemed to fit together like pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle (Figure 2.2). Of course, she said, there's no way the continents could move around, so it must just be a coincidence. In fact, she was reflecting the scientific knowledge of the time. There was plenty of geological and fossil evidence that the continents had moved around, and the idea of continental drift had been proposed in 1912, but there was no mechanism to explain it. Beginning in the 1960s, however, new technologies gave us new evidence that explained such a mechanism. We now have a well-verified theory of continental drift by the process of plate tectonics. Let's consider an example of one influential cultural period that generated a hypothesized explanation for a famous historical event-the Salem witch trials of 1692, when a group of young girls in Massachu- setts accused some adults of witchcraft, resulting in the execution of twenty people. The hypothesis suggested that the people of Salem had consumed bread made from grains tainted with ergot, a fungus that contains alkaloids, some of which are derivatives of lysergic acid, which in turn is used in the synthesis of the hallucinogenic drug LSD. In other words, maybe the young girls who made the witchcraft accusations were inadvertently having an "acid trip." Not surprisingly, this expla- nation arose and found popularity in the 1960s, a period associated in part with the so-called drug culture. Although the idea showed up as recently as 2001 on a public television documentary, there is no evi- dence to support it. It's not even logical: Why would only those girls have eaten the tainted products? - 26 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 2.2 Topographic map of the Atlantic Ocean floor show- ing the correlating outlines of the edges of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Also shown isthe l-lid- Atlantic Ridge-evidence for the plate tectonics that pushed the once-connected continents apart. So, science answers questions about our lives and about the world in which we live. For an answer to be defined as scientific, however, it must be testable-and must be tested. For an answer to be accepted, it must pass all those tests and be refuted by none. Thus, science tells us what the world is really like and how it really works. In contrast to science are belief systems. They tell us how we think the world should he. Belief systems are also a topic studied by anthropology. CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 27 BELIEF SYSTEMS Some questions about the world, even in a technologically complex society like ours, remain beyond the scope of science. Scientific inquiry, as powerful and important as it is, doesn't answer everything. In our society, for example, we treat medical matters scientifically. But science does not, and cannot, inform us how best to apply medical knowledge. Who should practice medicine? How are medical practitioners trained and administered by society? How should they be compensated? What should their relationship be with their patients? Is everyone equally entitled to medical care? Society answers these questions through tra- ditions, laws, and regulations-formalizations of beliefs. For example, one version of the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors says in part, "I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient." And then, there are questions that can never be answered by science- matters like the meaning of life, the existence of a higher power, the proper social relationships among people within a society, or the purpose of one's own life. All these sorts of questions are addressed by belief systems- religions, philosophies, ethics, morals, and laws. Belief systems differ from science in that the answers they provide cannot be tested and cannot be disproved. They are taken on faith, and that, of course, is the source of their power. They provide stable bases for our behaviors, for explanations of what is beyond our science, and for the broad, existential questions of life. Belief systems change, but they only change when we decide to change them, either as a society or as individuals. The existence of a supreme being is an example of an idea held by a belief system. Two of us with opposite views on the subject could debate the issue endlessly, but no scientific test could support or refute either view. If I were to change my mind on the matter, it would be a matter of personal faith, not reason. The supreme being is not to be found in a test tube or seen through a telescope. Belief systems don't apply only to these big questions. I had a friend in graduate school from a West African society in which men could have several wives. That tradition is normal for his society, whereas in mine, one wife (at least, one at a time) is the norm. We discussed the pros and cons of these two systems at length one day but never, of course, arrived at any "answer." His belief was right for his society, as was mine for my society. We each took it on faith that this was so. Although we often perceive science and belief systems as being eternally and inevitably at odds with one another, nothing could be further from the truth. Conflicts between the two realms do arise, most commonly when a belief system makes a statement about the real world that is not supported by empirical evidence. But it should be apparent belief systems Ideas that are taken on faith and cannot be scientifically tested 28 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species that for a society to function, it needs both scientific knowledge and beliefs. Neither, by itself, addresses all the questions. (See the "COI1tem- porary Issues" box for this chapter.) Understanding the distinctions and the interrelationships between science and belief systems is important for each of us as members of our own culture. It is particularly important for us as anthropologists, because among the things we study are the belief systems of other people. Scientific knowledge and beliefs are a part of every culture, but their identity and interaction may well be different from what we are used to in our culture. Furthermore, we need to be aware of the influ- ences of our own cultural background on the science we conduct as we study other societies and their cultures. To use a metaphorical statement once made by Galileo, while science tells us "how heaven is," belief systems tell us "how to get to heaven." Or, in the words of biologist John Maynard Smith, science tells us what is "possible," and beliefs tell us what is "desirable." No culture can function without both. ANTHROPOLOGY AS A SCIENCE Given anthropology's wide range of topics, including such complex areas as human culture and cultural systems, some may wonder how anthropology can be defined as a science. Some facets of our field, of course, are clearly scientific-my study of evolutionary changes among the Hutterites, for example, or what we now understand about the distribution of skin color among indigenous populations (see Chapter 8). Less clearly scientific at first glance are other areas of anthropology. Studying the Past Many anthropologists deal with the past-some biological anthropol- ogists study extinct species and premodern forms of humans, and archaeologists study past human societies and cultural systems. How can we examine something that we can't directly observe and can't replicate? As noted earlier, we can still collect data related to those things past and extinct, data from fossils of extinct species, often found in datable layers of soil; comparative studies of the anatomy and genetics of living species that have descended from previous forms; the material remains of past cultures, sometimes complete and well preserved enough to present us with a picture frozen in time (Figure 2.3); and our knowledge of how living peoples exist and create and use material culture. We also look for repeated patterns in our evidence from the past. For example, we might note some similarities among the cultures that indigenous Native; refers to a group of people with a long history in a particular area. first began to grow food instead of collecting it. From these similari- ties, we can generate ideas to explain why people made this transition (see Chapter 9). All these sorts of data, and more, can be used to deductively test the hypotheses we have generated to explain the past. It is really no different from OUf ability to scientifically examine things we cannot see directly, like gravity or subatomic particles. We know they exist, and we know a lot about them because we can observe the results of their existence. FIGURE 2.3 A moment frozen in time. Natural casts of victims of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD, 79 that destroyed the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum Studying Culture Culture is not a thing like a chemical in a test tube or an electron or even an ancient fossil. Culture is the result of the decisions and actions - 30 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species CONTEMPORARY ISSUES Are Science and Belief Inherently in Conflict with One Another? The simple answer is that. no, they are not. As we discussed, any society, in order to function, needs both rational knowledge of the world and beliefs. But the assumption that generates the above question is not without foundation; there are conflicts between SCience and belief systems. These conflicts most often arise when someone tries to address scientific questions with concepts or approaches from belief systems. This is known as a pseudoscience. The term has several working definitions, but here I use it to refer to a scientificallytestable idea that is taken on faith even if there is no evidence to support ft-and even if it is tested and shown to be false. The idea is treated as a tenet of a belief system. Let's consider a simple example. Some people believe that the lines in the palms of my hands and on my fingertips hold information about my personality, talents, and even my future. This is the pseudoscience called palmistry. Why does it qualify as a pseudoscience? Because there is no empirical, scientific evidence in support of this testable idea, and yet proponents (palm readers and their clients) accept the idea, take it on faith, and apply it as if it were valid, Other pseudosciences include astrology, crystal power, and mental telepathy. This is not to say that there is no potential validity to these ideas, just that at present there is no scientific evidence in their support, either in terms of objective data and testing or even in terms of a theoretical context In other words, so far as we know, palmistry couldn't be valid givenwhat we understand about the nature of anatomy, genetics, and personality. Now, while the above examples may seem relatively harmless, other ideas-in the guise of religious schclarship-s-call into question some of the most basic principles of science. Sometimes the idea in question comes directly from an estab- lished, mainstream belief system. For example, there are people who still seriously think the earth is flat. despite COpiOUSamounts of evidence to the contrary. The major source for this belief of people. Are there scientific theories to account for the behavior of groups of people any more than there are scientific theories for our own personal behavior? A cultural system, after all, is an incredibly complex web of relationships. And this web is the creation, conscious and unconscious, of real people making decisions, responses, and actions for all the complex reasons people do such things. Some actions of groups of people have obvious explanations. People, for example, have certain direct responses to their natural environments. They eat what foods their environments provide, and they build their shelters from available materials in designs that make sense for a given set of climatic conditions (Figure 2.4). But many aspects of culture are related to something other than the natural environment. People in Beijing and Philadelphia, for exam- ple, have very different cultures despite living at the same latitude pseudoscience Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith without scientific evidence to support them or even when tested and shown to be false. CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 3 I is a very literal interpretation of several biblical passages,for example Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him [Jesus] up Into an exceedingly high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." How, the "flat-earthers" ask-ignoring the metaphorical intent of the passage-could Jesus have seen all the kingdoms of the earth unless the earth were flat? Here's another example. On a certain Web site, physicist D. Russell Humphreys is quoted as claiming that the new data in support of the presence of water in the past on Mars is "evidence ... for a global flood on Mars. Many creationist scientists, Including myself, think the Genesis flood on earth was part of a catastro- phe which affected the whole solar system." Not only is there no evidence for a global flood on either Earth or Mars, but a flood affecting the entire solar system is simply inconceivable; it couldn't have happened given what we under- stand about astronomy, physics, and chemistry. But, as With the flat-earth idea, this idea comes from one literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis; the Web site in question is, in fact, called Answers in Genesis and represents a point of view that considers the creation story and those that follow in the first book of the Bible to be literally true, despite a total lack of evidence for the empirical parts- the simultaneous creation of everything in the universe, the great flood, and so on. The concem here. relative to our topic, is that both science and religion suffer when thrown into conflict as a result of such ideas. Proponents of these ideas ignore modem science (only when it suits them, of course; I'm sure they still fly on airplanes, whose designs are based on modem, mainstream physics,and make use of modem medical techniques based on mainstream biology). At the same time, they seem to make adherence to a belief system dependent on the veracity of their SCientifically unsupported claims. Little wonder that these claims leave many people confused and thinking that they have to choose between their religious beliefs and science. It is a choice they do not have to make. Science and belief are both vital for the func- tioning of any society but they are not equivalent. As discussed in the chapter, they address different types of knowledge in different ways. There IS no inherent conflict. / Ventilation hole .../"-;- Sleeping platform Floor Entrance chamber faces east or south /----,-- FIGURE 2.4 The well-known igloo of the Inuit, made from the only material readily available in the Arctic winter and including many ingenious features that make it remarkably adapted to life in a harsh climate Curved wall to keep out ,now andWf Removable door 32 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of rhe Human Species and having similar climares. Languages, beliefs, clorhing sryles, political systems, family organizations, and so on obviously require complex explanarions. Such complexiry may lead us ro wonder if any scientific explanation is possible at all. Theories of culture may be more elusive than theories about concrete entities such as fossils and genes. This doesn't mean, however, that we should not try. Remember that an important step in the scientific method is to look for patterns, asso- ciations, and repetitions. We do find these when we gather data about culrural systems-s-a process called ethnography. For example, in Chapter 4 we'll discuss an observed connection between a culture's subsistence patrern (how a group of people acquires food) and the number of supernatural beings (gods, spirits, and ancestors) it recognizes. Such a connection holds true often enough to allow us to make a generalization and to propose a reason for it-to generate a hypothesis. We can then test our general hypothesis by seeing if all cases show the same association or, if there are exceptions, seeing if we can make sense of the exceptions in terms of our hypothesis. Now, we may discover-at least for some aspects of culture-that such hypotheses don't pan out, that no overall idea explains all cases and exceptions. But when we do find generalizations, we consequently learn more about our own behavior and the behavior of other societies and are able to at least make educated predictions that might help us cope with all the changes and challenges that the modern world imposes on human societies and their ways of life. It should be pointed out that alrhough anthropology is a science, it is also a humanistic endeavor. Indeed, this is what draws many into anthropology as a profession, and in fact, many anthropologists see humanism, rather than the scientific approach, as the major focus of at least cultural anthropology. (See the "Contemporary Issues" box in Chapter 13.) For in the process of observing, learning about, and trying to understand culture in general and other cultures in particular, we come to better understand humanity as a whole. We appreciate our species' unique position in the world. We better understand our own society, and perhaps most important, we come to understand other societies, other cultures, and other people. We see that despite all the striking differences among us, rhere are deep similarities in those things that really matter-the needs, desires, potentials, and limitations shared by all people. We may have our different ways of thinking and of doing things-and these certainly can lead to unfortunate and even tragic misunderstandings and conflicts-but the goals of all these behaviors are, in the end, the same for all of us. The fundamental connection of all humanity, past and present, is perhaps anthropology's most socially important contribution to knowledge. ethnography A description of a cultural system based on fieldwork within that culture. CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 33 ANTHROPOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY: FIELDWORK Data CoJJection Obviously, the four major subfields of anthropology (see Chapter 1 and Figure 1.5) have different specific methods of conducting their science. Even though anthropology is holistic, the starting points for a biological anthro- pologist, cultural anthropologist, archaeologist, and linguistic anthropolo- gist are different and require different skills, have different problems, and use different technologies. Particularly important are the ways in which anthropologists collected their primary data. These are their field methods. As my colleague Roger Ivar Lohmann nicely points out, there are five methodological categories that all anthropological field research falls into: (1) material observation, (2) biological observation, (3) behavioral observation, (4) direct communication, and (5) participant-observation. Material Observation This is the collection of information about "objects and settings." For a biological anthropologist, it might include the basic material factors of an ecosystem, or human-made objects that have some impact on human or nonhuman primate biology. For the cultural anthropologist, artifacts, architecture, natural and manufactured landscapes, and spatial relationships in a village would fall into this cat- egory. The linguistic anthropologist might be interested in written records. For the archaeologist, material observation is sometimes the only record of past societies and their cultures, so archaeological method- ology is focused on the locating, recovery, preservation, dating, and analysis of material remains. Here, the utmost care is required because once an archaeological site is excavated, the context of the materials is lost, so the science of archaeology is far more precise than as often depicted in television and movie stereotypes. (We'l1 talk more about archaeology in Chapter 4.) Biological Observation Clearly, observation is important for the bio- logical anthropologist, who collects and analyzes data on human anat- omy, genetics, and physiology; on primate fossils; and on the biology of living nonhuman primates. Foods eaten by us and the other primates, as well as biological pathogens, also fall into this category. The fossil record is one area where this category and that of material observation overlap, because many of the specific methods of the archaeologist are applied to paleontological research. The cultural anthropologist and the archaeologist will, of course, also collect biological data-about food, interacting species, disease-causing organisms, and so on. Behavioral Observation Obviously, whether studying nonhuman pri- mates or other humans, observing behavior is vital. As we will discuss 34 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species in Chapter 3, behavior is how organisms adapt to their environments, whether those environments are natural or cultural. The trick, of course, is to observe behaviors without your presence influencing them; this is a constant concern for the anthropologist. Direct Communication This includes surveys, formal and informal interviews, and focus groups, but perhaps the best form is simply the conversation between anthropologists and their sources of information, known as informants. An informal conversation can best bring out the informants' ideas and emotions, his or her worldview (see Chapter 4). This is why learning the language of one's subject society is so impor- tant. There are also nonlinguistic communications-gestures and body language-and this is also how the primatologist gathers some data on nonhuman primates. Participant-Obseruation The anthropologist's participation in the cultural activities of the group he or she is studying is the norm for cultural anthropological research because it gives the anthropologist the best, most intimate insight into the minds of another society and its culture. There are limits, of course-not having grown up in that culture, an anthropologist cannot possibly truly understand all that is going on, and, of course, the anthropologist is participating for the reason of gathering data and so will not be a participant in the same way natives are. Yet, by even attempting to be part of another culture, one can gain a depth of understanding not possible by more objective, remote study. This category usually applies to humans, but in some ways one can also gain insight into the lives of nonhuman primates this way. Jane Goodall, for instance, made and slept in a chimpanzee nest and ate termites, a favorite chimp food! Some Other Considerations In the "Contemporary Issues" box in Chapter 1, we discussed some of the ethical concerns involved in fieldwork-the care that must be taken not to have the mere presence of the anthropologist unduly affect the subjects and their culture; the need, at the same time, however, to use our knowledge to help our subjects, in the case of medical treatment, for example; and the need to practice cultural relativity, that is, to not let our cultural prejudices influence the objective science of our analysis. But as Lohmann also points out, some subjectivity is also impor- tant, because first, it helps us understand our own prejudices and biases and, second, it can "deeply enrich the humanistic engagement of the researchers with the topic or people under study." Studying people cannot be the same as studying chemicals or sub- atomic particles. We'll return to this topic in the "Contemporary Issues" box in Chapter 13. SUMMARY Science is the method of inquiry that generates testable hypotheses to explain the real world and then tests those hypotheses with the goal of deriving theories-broad explanatory principles. Belief systems are another method of inquiry. Beliefs are taken on faith. They are not open to testing in a scientific way, though many of us regularly test our beliefs on a personalleve!. Although it may seem that belief and science are eternally at odds with one another- and while conflicts between the two do arise- both methods of inquiry are essential for the smooth operation of any cultural system. Any culture requires both scientific knowledge (what QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT CHAPTER 2 How Anthropology Works 35 is possible) and belief (what is desirable) in or- der to function and survive. Anthropology is a science in that it attempts to explain observed phenomena of human biol- ogy and culture, and it does so by generating and testing hypotheses. In the process, we achieve a better understanding of ourselves and others, and we become more likely to learn how to cope with the numerous and rapid changes that confront us in the modern world. At the same time, the humanism of anthropology provides us with a better personal and philosophical un- derstanding of our species, its nature, and its wealth of diversity. I. We sometimes forget that much of what we accept as "fact" was generated by the scientific method and that it is the scientific method, still, that supports it. For example, we "know" the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. But how do we know? List some pieces of evidence for this fact and some ways you could test it scientifically. 2. The famous Shroud of Turin is another example of a perceived clash between science and religion. Do some research on your own regarding the two sides of the supposed debate. Start with two Web sites: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/John_calvin_and_the_shroud_oUurinl and wwwshroudcom. Do you think there's a real conflict here? 3. Science and belief systems are different, and yet they are both aspects of culture and, thus, neces- sarily have some influence on and interaction with one another Consider some current ethical debates-abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research. What points of view do science and belief bring to these debates? Do you think it's possible to reconcile some of the seeming differences of opinion on how to deal with these issues in the "real world"? Does our discussion in this chapter help answer this question? NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS One of the best complete discussions of the scien- tific method is chapter 2 in Kenneth Feder's Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, seventh edition. This book also, as the title Indicates, describes and scientificall y exam- ines various claims within archaeology, clearly showing how science works and how it can be mis- used and misunderstood. Another good discussion of the scientific method is in chapter 1 of The Sci- ences: An Integrated Approach, by James Trefil and Robert M. Hazen. The quote from John Maynard Smith appeared in the November 1984 Natural History in an article titled "Science and Myth," which nicely discusses the differences and relationships between science and belief systems. Anthropology as a science is the topic l 36 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species of "Science in Anthropology," by Melvin Ember and Carol Ember, in The Teaching of Anthropology, edited by Conrad Kottak et al. For objective scientific examinations of pseudo- scientific ideas, see the articles in two popular jour- nals, The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic. Specifically, for more on palmistry, see my "Palmistry: Science or Hand-Jive?" in the winter 1982-1983 Skeptical Inquirer. The flat-earthers are examined by Robert Schadewald in "Scientific Creationism, Egocentricity, and the Flat Earth" in the winter 1981-1982 Skeptical Inquirer. See also www.theflatearthsociety.org. The Web site with the statement about a solar- system-wide flood is www.answersingenesis.org/ docs2/4412news12-6-2000.asp. For a discussion of the biblical flood, with more references, see the Feder book noted above. Sam Harris provocatively addresses the issue of the conflict between science and religion in The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation. The discussion of fieldwork is elaborated on in the entry "Field Methods" by Roger Ivar Lohmann in Encyclopedia of Anthropology edited by H. James Birx. THEMES OF ANTHROPOLOGY Evolution CHAPTER CONTENTS The Evolution of Evolution • Species • Modern Evolutionary Theory • The Origin of New Species • Contemporary Issues: Is Evolution a Fact, a Theory, or Just a Hypothesis? • Summary • Questions for Further Thought· Notes, References, and Readings 37 38 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species Each of us lives in a world made up of our society and of that soci-ety In interaction with all the societies on earth. We live, in other words, in a social and cultural environment. In addition, even with all our technological achievements, we humans are still part of another world-the natural world. We are, after all, a type of animal. Even though we sometimes forget it, we, like all life on earth, interact con- tinuouslv with the natural environment. We affect it, It affects us, and we are dependent on it.The actions of the natural processes that have affected every other living organism have also affected our evolution. Our species has descended from nonhuman ancestors, has changed over time into modern Homo sapiens, and is still changing-in other words, we are still evolving. ASYOU READ. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: I. What is the cultural context of the history of the theory of evolution) 2. What are the baSICconcepts of modern genetics and inheritance, and how do these contribute to our understanding of evolution? 3. In what way ISadaptation at the heart of evolutionary theory) 4. What is the evicence for biological evolution, and what are the major processes of evolution) 5. How do new species evolve from existing ones) THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION The idea that biological species, including humans, have changed over time and have given rise to other species can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Our present-day understanding of evolution, however, begins in Europe in the late 17005. Before Darwin The Biblical Context Before the 1700s, the study of biology was limited by two assumptions, derived in part from literal interpreta- tions of the Bible, in part from ancient philosophical ideas, and in part from a simple scarcity of data. First, living things were thought to have undergone no change since they were divinely created. They were thought, in other words, to be "fixed" or "essential" in terms of both their appearance and the number of existing kinds of evolution In biology, the idea that species change over time and have a common ancestry. CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 39 organisms. Moreover, the variety observed among living things was thought to represent a great chain of being, a hierarchical organiza- tion leading from simplest and least perfect to most complex and most perfect-with the Supreme Being, of course, as the last link in that chain. Second, the earth was thought to be very young. This idea was formalized in 1650 by Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), who calculated-using passages in the Bible as well as some historical records-that the biblical creation had begun on Sunday, October 23, in the year 4004 B.C. Thus, Ussher calculated that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. The Evidence for Change Accumulates By the latter half of the eigh- teenth century, however, ideas began to change. Scientists were beginning to recognize fossils as the remains of creatures that once existed but existed no longer, or at least not in that particular form. Previously, they had interpreted fossils as everything from the remains of deformed individuals of existing species to mere "tricks of nature." The nature of the geological record was also becoming clear, and scientists realized that the earth itself had undergone enormous change over what must have been more than 6,000 years. The evidence came from the recognition of the layers of rock and soil beneath the earth's surface. These layers are strata (singular, stra- tum), and their study is stratigraphy. The idea is that the strata represent a sequence of events, the lower layers earlier and then higher layers later. The nature of the rock and soil of each stratum, as well as its fossil contents, shows the natural conditions at the time the layer was deposited (Figure 3.1). It was clear that neither the earth nor its inhab- itants were stable and unchanging. Catastrophism Offers an Explanation for Change The fossil and stratigraphic records are imperfect. They seldom record the usually slow change that we now know characterizes the history of the earth and its life. Rather, the record of the fossils and rock layers seems to show abrupt changes. Look at Figure 3.1 and the seemingly distinct layers, with sometimes distinct fossils. A number of scientists of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most notably the French naturalist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), felt the obvious explanation was that the earth had undergone a series of worldwide cataclysms-floods, earth- quakes, volcanoes, changes to the crust-that changed the surface of the earth and brought about the mass extinction of life forms. New life forms then appeared. Cuvier probably would have accepted that some divine creation produced those new life forms, but this was not a part of his model. Indeed, he thought many of the new forms seen in subsequent layers migrated from other areas. So catastrophism was not a religious idea, strata Layers; here, the lay- ers of rock and soil under the earth's surface stratigraphy The study of the earth's strata, catastrophism The idea that the history of the earth and its life is accounted for by a series of global catas- trophes 40 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species Flagstaff 6,800 ft. Formation Thickness Basalt ----I .. Gravel--- Moenkopl-- r-.....-: Sandstone Kaibab Limestone Toroweap Sandstone Coconino Sandstone 500 ft. Schnebly Hili Sandstone Millions of Years Conditions! Composition 7 12 Volcanic lava and cinders River Silica and petrified wood I 65 Age of Mammals, Sedimentary erosion Extinction of dinosaurs Rivers carry large number of evergreen logs, which eventually petrify Reptile tracks left by direct ancestors of the dinosaurs Hot arid climate 200 Tidal flat Sand and mud 225 Permian Extinction (50% of sea-life dies off) 240 250 Ocean floor Inland sea, sand, and shells 260 Desert, wind erosion ---- 270 Wind-blown red sand Hermit Shale Supai Sandstone Red Wall Limestone FIGURE 3.1 Geological cross section of the area around Sedona and Flagstaff, Arizona, showing the variation in composition and thickness of the strata and some of the events represented In those strata. Sedona 4,500 ft. Coastal floodplain with orange-red sand dunes Swamp, fossils of ferns, salamander tracks and worm trails Shallow sea Gray and red silt as it is often said to be. It was, in fact, scientific, posing a logical model for a literal interpretation of what the fossil and geological records appeared to show. The religious connection comes from the idea that the most recent in the series of catastrophes was Noah's Flood as depicted in the Bible, which was still taken as a literal, but perhaps j CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 41 incomplete, record of earth history. The catastrophists thought that his- tory went back in time far beyond 6,000 years. We know now, it should be added, that in fact five times in the history of the earth, there have been major and worldwide catastrophes that have, indeed, changed the face of the earth and brought about mass extinctions. A prime example is the asteroid impact 65 million years ago that wiped out, among other life forms, all of the dinosaurs. But most change is Jess dramatic, slower, and more steady over spans of geological time. Uniformitarianism Answers Catastrophism It was another FTench scholar, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), who first coined the term Uniformitarianism. He said that catastrophes are rare and localized and that earth's history is mainly explained by "operations uniformly repeated, motions which succeed one another without interruption" (emphasis mine). In other words, earth's geological history could be explained by normal, everyday processes such as erosion and depo- sition of sediments in water. All you needed was enough time and the recognition that the fossil and geological records are imperfect, that they don't record every step along the way. It was the Scotsman Charles Lyell (1797-1875) who formalized this concept and made the idea seem sensible and applicable to the history of life as well. Even so, by the beginning of the 1800s, what was at issue was not whether change had occurred in the earth and its life, but how it had occurred. Lamarck Explains Biological Change Numerous models were pro- posed to account for the fossils and for the obvious lack of fixity in species that they demonstrated. One of the best-known models was proposed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829). Lamarck said that living things are adapted to the environments in which they live. Since the geological record, as well as simple observa- tion, shows that environments continuously change, it stands to reason that living things must change over time in order to survive. No prob- lem there. But Lamarck went on to propose a mechanism to explain how ani- mals and plants change in response to changing environments. His idea, which he refined from earlier, similar proposals, is called the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Figure 3.2). Species, said Lamarck, have a "will" that enables them to recognize that some environmental change has taken place and to carry out the proper adaptive actions. The organs necessary for these adaptations then change accordingly. Species can even develop new organs if needed. These new or changed traits are then passed on, in their new form, to the organism's offspring, thus the "inheritance" of characteristics "acquired" during an individual organism's lifetime. Furthermore, Lamarck proposed that this evolution was progressive, always working toward producing more-complex and uniformitarianism The idea that present -day geological processes can also explain the history of the earth, Can be applied to biological change as well. inheritance of acquired characteristics The incor- rect idea that adaptive traits acquired during an organism's lifetime can be passed on to its offspring. 42 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 3.2 Lamarck's model of inheri- tance of acquired characteristics applied to the evolution of long necks and tall bodies in giraffes. In the past. giraffes were short. but environmental change altered their food source. placing the foliage they ate high up in the trees. Confronted with this problem, each giraffe was able to stretch its neck and legs enough to reach the leaves. This greater height was automatically passed on to the giraffes' offspring. which had to make themselves even taller, and so on. giving rise to the IS-foot-tall giraffes of today: (Compare with Darwin's model, Figure 3.4,) Change in food source leads to development of greater stature in individuals Future generations born with increased stature thus more-perfect forms. You can guess what species he thought the most complex and perfect. Lamarck's model, or something like it, maintained some accep- tance, both within science and among the general public, into the twen- tieth century. There was, after all, a certain comfort in his idea. If we had to accept that living things have changed over time, at least they changed in a particular (and human-oriented) direction, and they changed by a process dependent on something within the organism itself-Lamarck's "will." It was also a process that was unfailing. There was, in other words, no extinction. Creatures represented only by fossils were simply creatures that had undergone so much change that they now looked very different. But Lamarck's model doesn't work. We know of no way in which traits can arise automatically when they are needed, whether through the organism's own will or some action of the environment. Further- more, traits that are acquired during an organism's lifetime cannot be passed on to its offspring. The blacksmith's strong right arm, in contrast to what Lamarck himself suggested, will not be inherited by his sons. It should also be clear that species can't just create new organs as needed. So, although Lamarck's model was popular, many scientists at the same time searched for a better mechanism for evolution. Enter Charles Darwin (Figure 3.3). Charles Darwin CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 43 FIGURE 3.3 Charles Darwin in 1869, by famed photographer Julia Margaret Cameron. Charles Robert Darwin was born into a prominent British family on February 12, 1809 (the same birthday as Abraham Lincoln's). As a boy and a young man, Charles seemed to lack a direction in life, at least one that pleased his father. Careers in both medicine and the clergy failed to interest him. Natural history was his passion. It was with some reluctance that Charles's father gave him permission in 1831 to join the HMS Beagle for its voyage of discovery around the world. The elder Darwin, unknowingly, changed the history of science. The story of the voyage of the Beagle is itself a fascinating one. For our purposes here, suffice it to say that the journey provided Darwin with a perspective, rarely available to men of his time, on the nature of living creatures. Darwin was able to observe and collect data, literally from around the world, on geological formations and the fossils they contained, on the geographic distributions of species, on the adaptations of various creatures to their environments, and on how individual populations varied from one another according to environmental differences (Figure 3.4). The data not only indicated to Darwin that organisms changed over time (which was generally accepted by then) but also hinted that species could give rise to other species. Perhaps it hinted as well at the mechanism that brought about these processes. In addition, the works of other thinkers, especially geologists - 44 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species PACIFIC PACIFIC o C E A N • INDIAN OCEAN • t" OCEAN :; \!f.'~, Straits of Mogellon • Tierra del Fuego Cope Hom, Outward voyage Return voyage FIGURE 3.4 The route of Darwin's voyage aboard the HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836 This trip provided Darwin with observations and thoughts vital to his formula- tion of the theory of natural selection. Especially famous and important was his visit to the Galapagos Islands in the eastern Pacific like Charles Lyell and social philosophers like Thomas Malthus (see "Contemporary Issues," Chapter 9), contributed to Darwin's thinking by introducing new perspectives on natural and social change. Oddly, rather than writing about the transmutation of species-as it was then called-on his return from the Beagle voyage in 1836, Darwin turned his attention to other scientific subjects. He mentioned what we now call evolution only privately to friends and wrote about it only in his personal notebooks and in two trial essays published in the early 1840s. Darwin's silence can probably be attributed to his fear that science and society were not ready to accept his explanation. He may have felt that the process he had discerned was too dependent on random, fortuitous events. Recall the popularity of Lamarck's idea at the time, which appealed to people because it said that when change was needed, it occurred, and that there was no extinction. But history was not to leave Darwin alone. In 1858 Darwin received a brief paper from a young, lesser-known British naturalist named Alfred Rnssel Wallace (1823-1913). Wallace, suffering from a malaria-induced fever during a collecting trip in Indonesia, had glimpsed the basics of a mechanism that might explain, better than had Lamarck, the transmutation of species. Later, working it out in more CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 45 • detail, Wallace felt his idea had merit, and he decided to check it out with the most renowned of British naturalists, Darwin. Upon reading Wallace's paper, Darwin's hand was called, for Wallace had described the same idea, in nearly the same terms as Darwin had. Darwin was urged to publish, and in the following year, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life hit the bookstores and sold out in a single day. Possibly to Darwin's surprise, the time was ripe for his idea of natural selection, which was heralded by most of the scientific community (Figure 3.5). "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!" one colleague is reported to have remarked. Charles Darwin died in 1882, but not before authoring numerous volumes on various scientific topics, including a second major work on evolution, The Descent of Man (1871). In this book Darwin did what he dared not in 1859. He applied his ideas explicitly to humans, and by that time his views were well accepted within the scientific community. But Darwin died without ever finding the answers to two impor- tant questions. First, he did not understand exactly how traits in living organisms are passed on. Obviously, the ability of adaptively success- ful parents to give their traits to their offspring was vital to natural selection. There were, at the time, some vague ideas about a blending of substances from father and mother, but no substantial theory. Selection continues FIGURE 3.5 Darwin's model of natural selection applied to the evolution of long necks and tall bodies in giraffes, An environmental change, per- haps in the location of food sources, made the taller giraffes within a variable species relatively more re- productively successful, These giraffes thus passed on their stature to a greater number of offspring, making succeeding generations taller on average, (Compare with Lamarck's model, Figure 3.2.) natural selection Evolu- tionary change based on the differential reproductive success of individuals within a speoes. 46 PART ONE Anthropology: The Bioculrural Study of the Human Species genes Technically. those portions of the DNA mole- cule that code for the production of specific proteins. gametes The cells of repro- duction. which contain only half the chromosomes of a normal cell. mutation Any spontaneous change in the genetic code Second, Darwin did not know where variation came from. Without variation, selection cannot operate; there is nothing to select from. He recognized that variation was always present in a species, even after years of selection to the same environment-even after years of selective breeding. But as to the origin and maintenance of that variation, Darwin had no explanation. Ironically, the basic answers to both questions were available during Darwin's lifetime, and they came from the same source. At about the time Darwin was writing Origin of Species, an Austrian monk named Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), working in a monastery in what is Aow the Czech Republic, described the basic laws of inheritance. Experi- menting with pea plants, no doubt the culmination of many undocu- mented years of research, Mendel arrived at a number of important conclusions regarding the origin of and passing on of traits. First, he realized that rather than being carried in some substance (as was then thought), traits are controlled and passed on by individual particles or factors-we now call them genes. Moreover, individuals carry these factors in pairs, both members 6f a pair not necessarily coding for the same expression of a trait. Of course, if both parents passed on both genes, the resulting off- spring would have twice the proper number of genes. What prevents this from happening occurs during the production of the sex cells, or gametes (for example, sperm and egg in animals); the gene pairs sepa- rate so that each gamete has only one genes from each pair. Then, when fertilization takes place, the new individual will again have a pair of each gene, one allele of each pair from each parent. Here, then, were the answers to how inheritance takes place and to why there is variation within species: traits are controlled by indi- vidual factors, and these factors are shuffled during reproduction to produce new combinations. In 1900, almost twenty years after Darwin and Mendel died, Mendel's work, which had fallen into obscurity, was rediscovered. In that year three investigators, working independently, came upon the monk's obscure paper and realized what they had found. One of the people involved had been trying to explain the rare variations that sometimes appeared in plants and animals-things like a single flower of the wrong color or a plant that was far smaller or larger than other members of its species. (Breeders called these oddities "sports.") He called them mutations. Now, with his discovery of Mendel's work, he understood that his mutations were the results of sudden changes in Mendel's factors. With this, a link in a basic theory of evolution was in place, for mutations explained the source of new variation-where the different versions of factors or genes came from in the first place. The interaction of Darwin's natural selection and Mendel's genetics is known as the Synthetic Theory of evolution. \ CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 47 SPECIES Consider two familiar animals (Figure 3.6). Although humans and chimpanzees look different, they are surprisingly similar in other respects. They differ in relatively few genes. Thus, many products of their genetic codes are identical; for example, the ABO blood types. They can contract many of the same diseases. They also share striking anatomical and behavioral similarities. It has been concluded, in fact, that a mere 5 million years ago these two had a common ancestor; that is, they were the same creature. And yet, they cannot interbreed now. They are clearly different species. A species (notice that species is both singular and plural) looks and behaves the way it does because, as Lamarck observed, it is adapted to its environment. In other words, it possesses physical characteristics and patterns of behavior that help it survive in a given set of natural circum- stances. It is able to find shelter, acquire food, locate mates, produce offspring, keep from being something else's food. Different species exist because in the continuous process of adap- tation, species can and do give rise to new species. Environments to which species are adapted are always changing. Organisms are always moving around. Populations of living things sometimes split up, and the resulting subpopulations become adapted to different environments and, under the right circumstances, evolve into different species. Thus, any two species will have a common ancestor somewhere in the past. How far back in time this common ancestor existed determines to a great extent how similar any two species are. Here's an analogy: You are biologically related to all members of your family. But you and your sister are very closely related because you FIGURE 3.6 Chimpanzee conservation center. Member of the HELP-Congo sanctuary with three baby chimpanzees. The HELP sanctuary was founded in 1990. It protects and cares for chimpanzees orphaned through illegal poaching and trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRe). The center was the first of its kind in the DRC and the first to show that chimpanzees could be reintroduced to the wild. It also campaigns against the illegal trafficking and poaching of these animals. Photographed at the HELP-Congo sanctuary, Pointe-Noire, Congo, in 2003 adapted When an organism has physical traits and behaviors that allow it to survive in a particular environment. ... 48 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species ecology The science that studies the network of rela- tionships within environ- mental systems. niche The environment of an organism and its adaptive response to that environment. both have two immediate ancestors in common-your parents. You and your first cousin, although related, are more distantly related than are you and your sister because the common ancestors-either your father's parents or your mother's parents-are a generation further back. Species of living things are related in the same fashion-like a branching tree. In fact, we often depict biological relationships with a tree diagram, just as we speak of and draw family trees (see Figure 3.11). When we consider the adaptation of a plant or animal to its environ- ment, we have two basic questions to ask: (1) To what is the organism adapted? (2) How is it adapted? To What Is the Organism Adapted? The science concerned with this question is ecology. Ecology comes from the Greek oihos, meaning "house." It studies the "houses," or habitats, of living things. More technically, it is the science concerned with discovering and explaining the network of relationships among organisms and all the various aspects of the environments in which they reside. Obviously, we need some way of organizing such a study, and the central organizing concept in ecology is the niche. An ecological niche may be defined as all the environmental factors with which a particular species normally comes into contact and the ways in which that species is adapted to those factors. Niches overlap. Even if we are concerned with a particular species, we must learn about the ecology of the other species that make up its ecological niche. Ecology, like anthropology, is a holistic study. These ideas relate to humans in two ways. First, we are a biological species that evolved from other biological species. We thus have to understand ecological relationships in order to understand our basic nature. Second, this natural model can also be applied to the cultural environment of our species. We can each be thought of as living in a particular cultural niche, which is affected by other cultural niches, which collectively make up the human cultural environment. We are also adapted to these cultural niches and to this general cultural ecosystem. How Is the Organism Adapted to Its Envi ron men t? Each living species has its own unique set .of adaptations to its own unique environmental niche, and these can be described. But is there any general concept we can use to study adaptation, anyone thing we can focus on? We tend, both literally in laboratories and figuratively in adaptation studies, to "take organisms apart," to look at and explain their individual traits. But does a list of features fully describe a species' adaptation? Of course not. A species doesn't survive by having anatomical and physio- logical traits. It survives by using them-by doing something, by behaving. And this is true of any organism, even the simplest single-celled animals, CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 49 even plants. They all function, behave, do something-and this is how they interact with their environments-get food, elude predators, find shel- ter, reproduce, and so on. Anatomy and physiology make behaviors pos- sible. Thus, behavior is the key to understanding adaptation. Behaviors, like physical features, are the results of natural processes. How can this idea be applied to humans? After all, we are not programmed to behave in all the ways we do. In fact, we are unique in that we can consciously change certain behaviors if they are not giving us the desired results. Think of it this way: Our cultural behaviors and the strictly bio- logical ones of other organisms serve the same function. They help us adapt and survive in a given environment. Considered that way, the focus on behavior makes sense whether the environment and adapta- tions to it are natural or are created by the organism. Moreover, our behavior-our culture-is not entirely separate from our biology. We are, in a sense, biologically programmed to have culture in the first place through the structure and functions of our brains. As I'll describe in Chapter 14, there may even be some more direct connections between our biological heritage and some of the general themes of our behavior; and, as I'll point out in Chapter 13, some of the processes of biological evolution may be analogous to those of cultural evolution. So, as long as we keep in mind that there are differences between our cultural adaptations and the instinctive ones of most other animals, a focus on behavior from the biocultural perspective is most appropriate for the anthropologist studying the adaptarions of the human species. MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY If environments always stayed the same, organisms would not change their adaptive characteristics and behaviors. All living things today would be essentially like the very first living things. This, of course, is not the case. Ecological conditions are in a constant state of flux. In addition, organisms don'r stay put. Seeds are blown by wind or carried by birds to new locations. Animals wander or for some reason get pushed into new environments. When environments change or when populations within species move into new environments, species may change. When a species is split up, with some popularions isolated from the parent population and able to thrive under new ecological circumstances, new species may corne about. There are two aspects to this idea that must be considered: (1) the evidence for change over time, which exists in ample quantities, and (2) the processes that bring this change about. 1£ you think about it, evolution is a bold idea. It says that living creatures are not stable, unchanging entities. Such a broad, important idea requires a good deal of supporting scientific evidence. 50 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species Evidence I've already noted one basic piece of evidence: species are not separate and equally distinct but are, like members of a family, similar to and dif- ferent from one another in varying degrees. They are like members of a family line that have descended from earlier members. And there's more. For one thing, despite the great diversity among the earth's living things, there exists a unity of life. All living creatures on the planet are composed of cells, all of which have the same basic structure. All living forms make their proteins from combinations of the same twenty amino acids. All organisms use the same genetic code for building their proteins from amino acids, and this code shows some remarkable similarities across species. Furthermore, living things do not exist independently of one another. In addition to being biologically related, they are all functionally related. They exist within a complex web of ecological interrelationships, each species dependent on the existence of many other species. Of course, it's conceivable that all species could have arisen (or could have been created) at the same time, already exhibiting these similarities and connections. The type of evidence for evolution I've given so far is, as they'd say in a courtroom drama, circumstantial. What we need is not only supporting evidence for what could have happened, but also evidence for what did happen. And we have this too. It's the evidence from the geological and fossil records-rhe story of the earth's history and life, often literally written in stone. The story these records tell is clearly one of evolution. We've already discussed the stratigraphic record (see Figure 3.1), a record of change over time. When you consider that in some areas there are hundreds of strata, it becomes obvious that we are dealing with vast spans of time. Now, if we find fossils in certain strata, we can assume relative dates for them. That is, even if we don't know exactly how old a certain fossil is, we can tell if it is older or younger than some other fossil by noting the number of strata separating the fossils. Fossils, in their stratigraphic relationships, show us biological change over time in a number of ways. For one thing, the fossil remains of a particular group of organisms show change. As we'll discuss in Chapter 6, there is a nice sequence of fossils showing change within the human fossil record. We have similarly good records of change for the horse and elephant families. At a broader level, we can even see the evolution of one major type of organism from another. It was suggested over a hundred years ago that birds evolved from dinosaurs. We now have fossils that give evidence of forms transitional between these groups (Figure 3.7). Similarly, we have transitional fossils showing the evolution of mammals from early reptiles, of whales from land mam- mals, and of humans from apelike ancestors. CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 51 The fossil record of the earth's life also shows an increase in the range of diversity over time. The earliest fossils are all of fairly simple single-celled organisms, and these remained the only kind of organism for over half the history of life. Then, about 1.7 hillion years ago, multicellular creatures arose. As evolution accelerated, we begin to see fossils of early plants, animals with hard shells, animals with skeletons, flowering plants, flying insects-all the amazing array of life we now observe around us. Related to the increase in diversity is an increase in complexity. This does not mean all types of organisms are always evolving to become more complex. Some organisms stay simple. In fact, most species on earth today are bacteria, among the simplest of creatures. Other species may become simpler over time by evolving a smaller size or losing some anatomical structure they once had. But as time goes by, one finds more kinds of more-complex living things. This is the progression you would expect: earlier types of creatures giving rise to new, diverse types of creatures. Just as technological innovations gradually become more complex by building on the base laid down by previous inventions, so too living things increase in complexity over time by adding new struc- tures or functions onto already existing ones. So every individual piece of evidence in the geological and fossil records supports the idea that changes in the earth itself and in its inhabitants have FIGURE 3.7 Fossil of Archeopteryx (t'an- cierrt bird"), about 150 million years old. This IS essentially a small two-legged dinosaur with feathers, clearly showing the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds -- 52 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species taken place over great spans of time and that living things, including us, are related to one another as in an enormous and complex family tree. Within science these ideas are not an issue today, nor have they been for some time. But precisely how all this happens-the processes by which evolution takes place-is still an important area of research and was the real scientific issue in Charles Darwin's day. The centerpiece of these pro- cesses is Darwin's great contribution, natural selection. Processes Natural Selection A good analogy-and one that pointed Charles Darwin in the direction of his theory-is the selective breeding, by humans, of plants and animals (Darwin was particularly interested in pigeon breeding). Here's something from my own experience. In high school I kept and bred tropical fish. One of my favorites was the swordtail, a live-bearing fish (a type of fish that bears living young rather than laying eggs; Figure 3.8). Not quite grasping all the subtleties of natural selection, I decided to try to breed a bright-red strain of the fish, which didn't exist at the time. I started with a pair of the reddest fish I could find and allowed them to mate. From the FIGURE 3.8 Swordtails, CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 53 first generation of this mating-a dozen or so babies that quickly grew up-I chose the reddest and put them in a separate tank to breed. Then, from the second generation I again selected only the very reddest to breed the third generation, and so on. In this way, I hoped to get redder and redder fish until I had a pure strain of bright-red ones. Notice that I was making two assumptions. First, I assumed that reddish swordtails were likely to produce reddish offspring, reasoning that children tend to resemble their parents. But second, I knew that not all the offspring of reddish parents would be equally red. In every generation I had to eliminate from breeding the offspring that were not the reddest (don't worry, I just moved them). Any group of organisms shows variation in certain characteristics, within each generation and from generation to generation. In general terms, I had set up a mini-habitat in which the most important adaptive characteristic was reddish body color. I then selected from the natural variation of the group the individuals in each gener- ation that possessed an acceptable expression of that trait. These were the ones I allowed to reproduce, anticipating that the fish with the favorable expression of the trait would increase in frequency (become a larger percentage of the whole population). If that makes sense, you need only take one more step to have a basic understanding of natural selection. But it is an important step, and it's the one that causes the most difficulty in understanding this process. The example I just gave is of artificial selection. A conscious agent-me-was making choices and taking direct action to implement them. Such an agent doesn't exist in nature. So, aside from the conscious agent, simply translate all the parts of my example to a natural situation. Wild swordtails from Central America live in a habitat that requires the expression of adaptive traits within a limited range of variation. These traits would include things like body color; swimming ability; vision, smell, and other senses; and instinctive behaviors. Selection starts right away. Each female swordtail gives birth to many more young than can eventually survive, and she helps cut down the number herself by eating any newborn she can catch. Thus swimming speed, protective coloration (wild swordtails are a dull green), and per- haps some sort of fleeing instinct are immediately important. As life goes on, various other traits-the ability to find food, to keep from becoming food, to ward off disease, to find a mate and reproduce-"select" the swordtails better able to thrive. We can call these individuals more {it. They are the most successful at producing offspring and thus passing on the characteristics that made them fit. Favorable expressions tend to increase in frequency, unfavorable ones to decrease. That's the essence of natural selection. The primary result of natural selection is the maintenance of a species' adaptation to its niche. But at some time in the life of every species, some environmental change occurs. At that time, different expressions of artificial selection Selection for reproductive success in plants and animals that is directed by humans. Also called selective breeding. D 54 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species gene pool All the alleles in a population. chromosome Strandsof DNA in the nucleus of a cell. certain traits may be more adaptive than they had been previously, and other traits may now be more poorly adapted. Moreover, once-important traits may now be neutral. If sufficient variation exists, natural selection may take a new direction; a species may undergo change over time. It may seem that selection would be able to work any time it's needed. That's not the case, however. Remember that there is no directing force at work in natural selection. The characteristics of a species do not vary according to what environmental changes may happen in the future. Selection can only operate with variations that are already present. It can't make new traits because they are needed or may be needed in the future. I could not make bright-red fish by producing the right genetic combination. All I could do was hope I had redder and redder fish from which to select my breeding pairs. Eventually in the life of all species, some environmental change is likely to occur with which the species can't cope. Faced with extreme and/or rapid change, a species' population would decrease faster than its individuals could produce sufficient generations of offspring to adapt to the change. The result would be extinction: This is the norm, not the exception. Estimates indicate that over 95 percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Selection has its limitations. But it is the central process behind all adaptive evolution. The Other Processes of Evolution Natural selection may be the cen- terpiece of OUf understanding of evolution, but it is not the only process involved. Figure 3.9 lists all the processes of evolution and shows how they are related. Use it as a guide as you read this section. A species is adapted to the environmental habitat in which it lives. This relationship, however, is not static. Environments are constantly changing. Species, if they are to continue to exist, have to undergo change in their adaptations to keep pace. This is accomplished, if it is accomplished, by natural selection, the process of evolution that acts to maintain the adaptive balance between a species and its environmental circumstances. But the species itself is changing as well. There are processes of evo- lution that bring about genetic change by affecting the gene pool of a species, which in turn affects the traits of the species upon which natural selection operates. Evolution is, at its most basic level, genetic change. The first of these processes is mutation. A mutation is any spontaneous error in the genetic code, and it can take place at the level of an individ- ual letter in a genetic word, or it may involve an entire chromosome. Some mutations are caused by cosmic radiation, X rays, gamma rays from radioactive substances, and certain chemicals, but most mutations take place during the two normal but very complex processes when the genes copy themselves during cell division and when the genetic code is read and translated into proteins. Such mutations happen all the time. In fact, some took place in some of your cells as you read this sentence. CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 55 Although many mutations are harmful, mutations are the price living things pay for evolution. Without mutations there would be no new versions of genes and therefore no variation. If the first life-forms on earth over 3 billion years ago had always reproduced themselves absolutely without error, nothing would have changed, and the first type of living thing would still be the only type of living thing. Thus, mutations are the raw material of evolution, adding new genetic variation to a species' gene 1J001 and giving natural selection new choices to select from. After new variation has been added to the species' gene pool, it then gets distributed within the species. Think of this analogy: If I have a gallon can of white paint and add a small amount of red paint to it, the red paint will remain in one spot. If I give the paint a couple of stirs, the red will be distributed in a long streak through the white. If [ stir the paint well, I will end up with a can of evenly colored light pink paint. How, and how much, the new color is distributed within the existing color affects the color produced by the mixing of paints. The same thing is true with new genetic variation: how new vari- ation is distributed within the species will affect what natural selection has to work with at any point in time and in any given individual populations within the species. There are two more processes of evolu- tion that affect this distribution of genes. One process affecting the distribution of variation is called gene flow-genetic exchange among populations within a species. (Remem- ber, genes cannot be exchanged between different species.) Gene flow may result when (1) populations move to new areas, (2) small groups move from one population to another, or (3) mating takes place between members of neighboring groups. The result is new genetic combinations, new variations, and, rhus, new raw materials for natural selection to work with. FIGURE 3.9 The processes of evolution. A species IS in an adaptive relationship with its environ- ment. This relationship is maintained by natural selec- tion. Environments, however, are constantly changing, so the adaptive characteristics of a species change over time. In addition. the gene pool of a species is always changing, altering the traits upon which selection acts. Mutation provides new genetic variation by produc- ing new genes or otherwise altering the genetic code. Flow and drift mix the genetic variation within a species, continuously supply- ing new combinations of genetic variations. gene flow The exchange of genes among populations through interbreeding. 56 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species genetic drift Genetic change based on random changes within a species' gene pool; includes fission and the founder effect and gamete sampling. fission Here. the splitting up of a population to form new populations. founder effect Genetic differences between popula- tions produced by the fact that genetically different individuals established (founded) the populations. gamete sampling The ge- netic change caused when genes are passed to new generations in frequencies unlike those of the parental generation. A human example comes from the Hutterites, the group you read about in Chapter 1. On average, half of all Hutterite marriages take place between colonies, and they involve the bride's moving to her husband's colony. The woman thus brings her genes into the population and contributes them to subsequent generations. Changes from one generation to the next in a Hutterite colony are greatly affected by this continuous flowing and mixing of genes among individual populations. The second process that distributes genetic variation is genetic drift. Actually, there are two processes that are usually included under this label. The first is fission and its resulr, the founder effect. Sometimes populations split up (fission) and found new populations. When this happens, the two or more new populations are not genetically repre- sentative of the old, original population, nor are they genetically the same as each other. In other words, fissioning instantly creates, or "founds," new sets of genetic combinations. Again, the Hutterites provide an example. Recall that Hutterite colonies split, or branch out, with regularity. I found in my study that branching out can produce marked genetic differences between the orig- inal colony, the half that stays in the original location, and the half that founds a new colony. Fission and gene flow are particularly important for our species as a whole. For most of our history we have been divided into many small populations defined by such things as kinship, religion, and politics. But these populations have always mixed genes, and they have split up to found new populations that have then mixed their genes. Over the past few centuries, gene flow has increased enormously as our species' mobil- ity and motivations for moving around have increased. Our history of gene flow and fissioning, then, has resulted in a constant rearranging of genetic combinations and constantly changing distributions of genes throughout the species. The second form of genetic drift is gamete sampling. Just as genes are not sampled representatively when a population splits, they are not sampled representatively when two individuals produce offspring. An organism passes on only one of each of its pairs of genes at a time, with chance dictating which one will be involved in the fertilization that produces a new individual. One gene of a pair, for example, may never be passed on. This process has the most significant effect in small populations, because any chance change in gene variety numbers would have a pro- found impact on the gene pool. In a large population, a change in one direction might well be balanced by a change in the opposite direction. Thus all these processes of evolution are continuously in operation- providing new genetic variation, affecting the distribution of that varia- tion throughout a species, and, through natural selection, maintaining, if possible, a species' adaptive relationship with its environment. CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 57 THE ORIGIN OF NEW SPECIES So far in this chapter we've talked about how evolution takes place within a species. But how do new species evolve? That was the real topic of Darwin's Origin of Species-the "mystery of mysteries" he called it. The evolution of new species-speciation-is based, as is the mod- ification of species, on environment and adaptation. To take the simplest case (Figure 3.10), say a species inhabits a wide geographic range with populations at opposite ends of the range having slightly different adap- tive responses to their environments. Now, say some environmental change-the alteration of a river's course, the destruction of some important resource, or the advance of a glacier-splits the species, speciation The evolution of a new species • .:. ./ ... • /Gene ••• • flOy • •••• ••Two populations of a single species Environmental barrier isolates populations Genetic and phenotypic differences accumulate over time •• •••••••••• Even with barrier removed, populations are reproductively isolated and are separate species FIGURE 3.10 A simple example of specia- tion through environmental isolation. The blue arrow represents time. 58 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species FIGURE 3.\\ A familytree for the fourteen species of birds collectivelyknown as Darwin's finches, named for the naturalist who described seeing them in the Galapagos on his famous voyage. Notice that they have all evolved from a common ancestor (a species from South America) and that the species are grouped by general type of adapta- tion (tree, ground, and warbler-like) and then by shared feeding habits (vegetarian, insectivorous, and so on). (We willtake up the process of naming species and building such trees in Chapter 5,) isolating one portion from the other. Over time, each population will continue to undergo genetic change and to adapt to its environment, but without being able to exchange genes with the other population. There is, in other words, no gene flow. Each population will accu- mulate different genetic and physical traits. If one or more of these traits, by chance, affects the ability of members of the two popula- tions to reproduce with one another, they would not be able to interbreed, even if at some point in the future the barrier were removed so thar the two populations could mix. They would be separate species. There are other, more subtle forms of speciation, but they all involve some sort of isolation of a portion of a species from the whole. The new units then go off on their own, unshared genetic directions, in some cases becoming separate species. The evolution of new species from existing ones has given rise to all the diversity we see in our planet's living forms, both existent and extinct. Since we assume that life started just once, we may picture the history of life on earth as a gi-ant, complex family tree, with each branch representing a species, and clusters of branches representing groups of related species with shared characteristics (Figure 3.11). In actuality, a depiction of all species, even for a por- tion of life's family tree, would more closely resemble a dense bush, with countless twigs each standing for one of nature's adaptive experiments-an individual species. Coaospizo pollido Geospizo mognirostris Geospizo scandens Camarhynchus parvulus -""",,~\ Certhidea olivocea Insectivorous Platy,piza ",-' ... \ Yegetari~ Tree finches...... Grantvorous Cactus-feeding Geospiza diffkilis Ground finches Warbler-likei'-_.J Ancestral Finch Species a CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anrhropology 59 CONTEMPORARY ISSUES Is Evolution a Fact, a Theory, or Just a Hypothesis? It may at first be surprising that the answer to this commonly asked question is all of the above. Evolution, as a broad topic, incorporates theory, fact, and hypothesis. This is because the scientific method is not a nice, neat, linear series of steps from first observation to final all-encompassing theory. Rathe" SCienceworks In a cycle, and the inductive and deductive reasoning of science is applied constantly to the different aspects of the same general subject. Data and hypotheses are always being reexamined, and each theory itself becomes a new observation to be questioned, tested, explained, and possibly changed. A theory is a well-supported Idea that ex- plains a set of observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in that all our factual observations of life on earth-fossils, the geological formations in which they are found, and the biology of living creatures-make sense and find explanation within the concept of evolution, the idea that living things change over time and that organisms are related, as in a huge branching tree, with existing species giving rise to new species. There is so much evidence in support of evolution that this tried and tested theory may reasonably be considered a fact. Analogous to evolution is another concept you were asked to reexamine at the end of Chapter 2-the accepted fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not as people thought for so long, the other way around. But how do we know the earth revolves around the sun? It certainly appears, upon daily observation, to do just the opposite. We accept the heliocentric (sun- centered) theory because there is so much data in its support It makes so much sense and explains so many other phenomena that we consider it a fact and take it for granted, never giving it much thought on a regular basis. I would be very surprised to read in tomorrow's news- paper that some new evidence refuted the idea. Similarly,that evolution occurs and accounts for the nature of life on earth is a fact. But that fact poses more questions. A big one (the one that confronted Darwin) is how evolution takes place. The fact of evolution now becomes a new observation that requires expla- nation through the generation of new hypotheses and the subsequent testing and retesting of those hypotheses. Darwin proposed a mechanism he called natural selection and then. over many years, examined this hypothesis against real-world data. The mechanism of natural selection is now so well supported that we call it too, a fact But an overall explanation for how evolution works-a theory to fully explain the observed fact of evolution-is far from complete. We know that mechanisms in addition to natural selection contribute to evolution. The relative importance of all these mechanisms is still being debated. The broad picture of evolution-the "shape" of the family tree of liVing things-i- is a matter of much discussion. We have only a glimpse of the specific genetic processes behind all evolutionary change, as new technol- ogies are letting us look at the very code of life. In other words, we are still examining hypotheses to account for how evolution takes place. Evolution-like any broad scientific Idea- involves a complex and interacting web of facts, hypotheses, and theories. It is the never-ending nature of scientific inquiry that can make science so frustrating but that also makes it so exciting and important in the modern world. 60 PART ONE Anthropology: The Bioculrural Study of the Human Species SUMMARY The history of evolutionary theory is the story of the application of the scientific method to the questions of the origin and nature of living organisms, as scientists learned to gradually give up their presuppositions and look to nature herself for the answers. Adhering faithfully to the spirit of the scientific method, Charles Darwin was able to synthesize his observations and thoughts withthose of many others to formu- late a theory that laid the groundwork for our modern understanding of biological evolution. Basic genetics, as first outlined by Mendel, gives us an explanation as to the origin of phenotypic variation and to the nature of inheritance. The evolution of organisms is based on the concepts of ecology and the adaptation of spe- cies to their habitats. Because environments are always changing, it stands to reason that changes in species' adaptations can account for evolutionary change. The basic process that brings this about is natural selection, which maintains a species' adaptive relationship with its environment and, if there is sufficient varia- tion, alters a species' adaptations in response to changed environmental circumstances. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT Change also occurs within a species' gene pool. Mutations supply new genetic variation. Gene flow and genetic drift affect the distribu- tion of genetic variation within a species. Thus, not only do environments change over time, so do species themselves-all this constantly providing natural selection with new and vari- able sets of relationships between species and environments. When a portion of a species is isolated from the rest of the species, the stage is set for specia- tion, the evolution of a new species. If the iso- lated portion accumulates enough genetic and therefore physical differences over time, it may become reproductively isolated from the origi- nal species; that is, it may no longer be able to produce offspring with members of the original group. A new species has evolved. The diversity of life on earth-the result of countless speciation events-can be depicted as a huge, incredibly complex bush. The main stem represents the single origin of life, but it then begins branching, producing millions upon mil- lions of twigs, each standing for a new species, a new natural experiment in adaptation. I. The history of evolutionary thought ISoften popularly depicted as a battle between science and reli- gion. Do you think this is the case? What is the relationship between these areas of inquiry in the history of evolution? 2. Apply the discussion In the "Contemporary Issues" box in Chapter 2 to the top« of evolution There are those who object to the teaching of evolution on religious grounds, claiming that the theory of evolution violates a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and, therefore, their religious beliefs, Is there a real conflict here? How should this issue be resolved in terms of public school education in the biological sciences? The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) Web site is a good source for material on this matter: ncse.com. 3. Given that all life is related in a giant family tree, how might this fact influence ethical considerations, especially with regard to our relationships with other species? Should we give greater consideration to species closely related to us? How close is "close"? What criteria should we use-shared biological characteristics? the same branch of the family tree? NOTES, REFERENCES, AND_ READINGS The history of evolution is nicely covered in Ronald K. Wetherington's Readings in the History of Evolution- ary Theory, which contains numerous selections from original works, and in John C. Greene's The Death of Adam. The impact of Darwin's work on modern knowledge in general is the theme of Philip Appleman's Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, second edition. A good biography of Darwin is John Bowlby's Charles Darwin: A New Life. A fascinating biography of Wallace is Alfred Russel Wallace, A Life, by Peter Raby. In the past several years, our knowledge of the nature of genetics in general and human genetics in particular has grown at a remarkable pace. The details are beyond the scope and requirements of this book, but for those interested, try Matt Ridley's Genome and John H. Relerhford's Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes. A book about the close genetic relationship be- tween humans and chimpanzees, and much more, is Jonathan Marks's What It Means to Be 98% Chim- panzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. For examples of animal and plant adaptations to various environments, try three books by zoologist and filmmaker David Attenborough: Life on Earth, The Living Planet, and The Trials of Life. These each accompany a video series. There are many good general books on evolu- tion. I especially recommend Edward O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life and, for a more technical treat- ment, Mark Ridley's Evolution, third edition. CHAPTER 3 Themes of Anthropology 61 For a very readable narrative of the whole pan- orama of the evolution of life, try Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth, by Richard Fortey. Another, somewhat more technical treatment is The Book of Life: An Illus- trated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth, edited by Stephen Jay Gould. Another example of natural selection, this one in a human population, can be found in Jared Diamond's article "Curse and Blessing of the Ghetto" in the March 1991 Discover or in my Biological Anthropology: An Introductory Reader, sixth edition. For more on the fascinating story of Darwin's finches, see the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner. The nature of evolution as both fact and theory is covered in more detail by Stephen Jay Gould in "Evolution as Fact and Theory," from his Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, also in my reader. Evolution, of course, is still considered contro- versial by small but vocal groups of people, especially the scientific creationists and those who support in- telligent design. For more on this aspect of the topic, see the Stephen Jay Gould article noted above, as well as others in the same section of that book. Visit the Web site of the NCSE: ncse.com. This not-for-profit organization works to support the teaching of evolution and to increase public under- standing of evolution and science in general. .....----------------------------------------1IIIIIl THEMES OF ANTHROPOLOGY Culture CHAPTER CONTENTS The Concept of Culture • Brains and Culture: The Basic Biocultural Level • A Model for the Study of Cultural Systems· An Anthropological Analysis of the Necktie· Material Culture and the Study of the Cul- tural Past > Contemporary Issues: Can Anthropologists Study Their Own Cultures? • Contemporary Issues:Who Owns
Archaeological Sites and Their Contents? • Sum-rary > Questions for Further Thought • Notes, References, and Readings
63

64 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
Among the most amazing builders in the world are the weaver antsfrom the Old World tropics. Colonies of these ants construct nests
in trees in the form of tents made from the tree’s leaves. The ants “sew”
the leaves together in the following way: teams of ants serve as living
staples, holding the leaves together while other teams of ants gently
carry larvae along the “seams,” stimulating the larvae to excrete a silk
that “sews” the leaves together (Figure 4. I).
A few years ago I decided to build a wall and hang a door to create
a new room for my study Having virtually no knowledge of such matters,
my first step was to purchase a book about home improvements and
digest all the necessary information about partition building,lumber, dry-
wall and tools. Then I drew up my plans and matenals list. Stillunsure of
myself I consulted a colleague experienced in carpentry who looked at
my proposed construction site and suggested a few amendments to my,
plans. Off I went to buy my materials and some shiny new power tools,
and a few days (and half a container of plastic wood filler) later, I had my
new room, complete with a door that actually swings open and shut.
Both these examples are amazing feats of engineering-wel” at least
the ants’ is-but they are fundamentally different. My project was cul-
tural. The ants’ was not. I had to do all sorts of thinking and analyzing
to build my wall. The ants didn’t think at all about how to build their
nest. Indeed, ants don’t really have much to think with.
It should be obvious, in general, whether a behavior IScultural or
not. I’ve been discussing culture in the preceding chapters, and you’ve
probably had no problem understanding what I’ve meant. We all know
what culture is.
Or do we? My colleagues Emily Schultz and Robert Lavenda offer
one definition: Culture is a set of learned behaviors and ideas that human
beings acquire as members of sOCiety.We use culture to adopt to and
transform the world In which we hve. But culture as a general human
characteristic and, especially, as something that varies enormously from
society to society In rts specifics. is a complex concept. Moreover, some
other organisms may not have culture as we do, but they exhibit behav-
iors with some of culture’s characteristics. So let’s begin by discussing
the characteristics of culture, those features that distinguish cultural
behaviors from non cultural ones. Then all our discussions to follow will
make more sense and can be viewed in a larger context.
n

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 65
FIGURE 4.1
Weaver ants building a nest While
some of the ants hold the leaves
together. others gently carry larvae
along the “seam:’ stimulating the larvae
to excrete silk.which “sews” the leaves
together.
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. What are the characteristics of culture? What differentiates a
cultural behavior from a noncultural one?
2. Are humans the only species with behaviors that exhibit the
characteristics of culture?
3. How might the structure of the brain be related to our
cultural ability?
4. How can we study the vast variety of cultural systems in the
world in an organized and logical fashion?
5. How do we reconstruct past cultural systems from their
material remains?
THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE
The Characteristics of Cultural Behaviors
Culture Is Learned Perhaps the clearest distinction between the two build-
ing behaviors described above is that culture is learned. The ants’ behavior
is built into their genes and is expressed by a complex series of stimuli that

66 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
symbol Something that
stands for something else,
with no necessary link be-
tween the symbol and its
meaning.
elicit a complex set of responses. My accomplishment, on the other hand,
was possible only through learning; the skills and information I learned
were transmitted by those who learned them from someone else, and so on.
Learning used to be considered the only distinguishing feature
between cultural and noncultural behaviors, but a moment’s reflection
will tell you that learning is not enough. Other creatures learn. My dogs,
for example, have learned many things, including, of course, the taboo
against eliminating in the house, but such learned behavior would not
really be considered cultural. Why not? What other differences are there?
Culture Involves Concepts, Generalizations, Abstractions, Assumptions,
and Ideas The ants are locked into the specifics of their nest-building
behavior. It must work the same all the time. If some important variable
is different, the ants cannot make specific adjustments. They don’t, in
other words, know what they’re doing. Their behavior is not part of
some larger concept.
My wall building, however, certainly involved concepts. No external
stimuli elicited a wall-building response in llfe. Rather, I decided, con-
sciously, to do the project for my own set of reasons. The home-
improvement book didn’t relate to my wall in particular but gave general
ideas about partition building that I adapted to my specific situation. As
I ran into unexpected problems, I was able to use my knowledge of the
general principles to solve them. I now should be able ro apply what
I’ve learned to other, similar tasks-that is, to generalize.
Imagine if you had to learn every specific behavior for every situ-
ation you encountered in the course of a day. Life as we know it would
be impossible. But because we have learned to generalize from specific
data, we can adapt those generalizations to each new situation-more
often than not successfully.
But even concepts and generalizations don’t absolutely define
human cultural behavior. My dogs have some concept of the elimination
taboo. When we go to other houses and buildings, I don’t have to teach
them all over again. Rather, I’m confident that they have generalized
from their training in my house the concept that says something like
“Don’t go to the bathroom in people’s buildings.” But that still doesn’t
make their behavior cultural.
Culture Involves Active Learning and Symbolic Transmission Learning
in most organisms is passive. They learn from imitation or from trial
and error. For many birds, for example, singing just the right song is
impossible unless they’ve heard another bird sing it. Singing itself is
genetic, but the song must be learned.
But learning can also be active, when specific data and general ideas
are transmitted from one organism to another extragenetically (that is, with-
out any direct genetic influence, as in the birdsong example) using symbols
in the form of images or written or spoken words. The ants’ basic informa-
tion about nest building is solely genetic. The information I acquired about
wall building was transmitted to me extragenetically through symbols.

CHA PTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 67
Now, if I adopted a new puppy and put her in the house with
my dogs and if I allowed her 1’0 leave and enter the house ar will,
would she learn the elimination taboo? I doubt it. Each dog can
learn it independently, but one can’t share the information, and cer-
tainly not the generalization, with other dogs. (“Hey listen, never,
ever go to the bathroom in people’s houses, OK?”) Dogs can and
do learn by imitation, by reinforcement, and by generalizing from
external data. Probably, after a while, the new dog would start to
hehave accordingly. Bnt she would have learned on her own, passively.
Thus, her behavior would not be considered cultural. There are no
symbols involved.
Culture Requires Artifacts An artifact is defined as any object made
intentionally. It is, in other words, not natural but “human-made.” This
book is an artifact. To be sure, the ants made their nest, but that nest
is natural. The behavioral program for the nest is genetic. In a sense,
the nest is like the ants’ hormones and bodies-natural and not the
result of learned, shared concepts and generalizations.
Although the usual definition of artifact limits it to concrete items
(tools, honses, books, pottery) I’d like to expand it a bit here to include
cultural institutions and organizational systems, such as religions,
governments, educational establishments. These too are human-made.
Artifacts-both concrete ones and abstract organizing principles-facilitate
the realization of cultural ideas, and human culture is dependent on
them. Without artifacts, there is no way I could have built my wall,
which, of course, is an artifact itself.
So, cultural behavior has these four characteristics:
1. It must be learned.
2. It must involve concepts, generalizations, abstractions, assump-
tions, and ideas.
3. It must be shared through the extrageneric transmission of
symbols.
4. It must be realized through the use of artifacts, both concrete
and abstract.
At this point in the discussion of culture, a question naturally arises.
If my dog exhibits behaviors that have two of the four characteristics
of culture (nnmbers 1 and 2 above), is it possible that some nonhuman
organisms actually do possess behaviors that could be considered cul-
tural? The answer is yes, and it’s no surprise that they are the apes.
Culture in Nonhuman Primates
As we will see in Chapter 5, we differ from our close primate relatives
not in kind but in degree. The same holds true for the mental abilities
that make culture possible. And there are some clear examples of cultural
behavior, or nearly cultural behavior, among the nonhuman primates.
artifact Any object con-
sciously manufactured.
Usually refers to human-
made objects but now
includes those made by
other primates
primate A large-brained.
mostly tree-dvvelling mam-
mal with three-dimensional
color vision and grasping
hands. Humans are primates

–
68 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
Chimpanzees Make Tools Perhaps the most famous example was first
witnessed by primatologist Jane Goodall in 1960. Goodall has spent
over fifty years studying a large population of chimpanzees in the Gombe
Stream Reserve in Tanzania. The chimps there have developed a taste
for termites. African termites spend most of their lives inside tunnels
within large dirt mounds that they construct. For a short period the
termites, having sprouted wings, fly around to form new colonies. This
period is what most animals must wait for to make a meal of the ter-
mites. The chimps, however, have found a way to get a head start. Some
of them, mostly females, will break a twig off a bush and strip off the
leaves, or pull a long, stiff blade of grass from the ground and tear off
any excess length. They will then insert their termite fishing stick into
the opening of a tunnel in a termite mound, wiggle it around to cause
the soldier termites to attack it, and carefully draw it out and have
themselves a termite snack (Figure 4.2). A clever idea, and it fits our
criteria for cultural behavior almost entirely.
First of all, this behavior is learned and not programmed in the
chimps’ genes. Not all chimps perform it, as one would expect with a
genetically based behavior. It is shared extragenetically, as chimp offspring
learn the behavior by closely studying their mothers doing it. It also
clearly involves an artifact: A raw material is purposely modified to
perform a specific task.
Most important, fishing for termites uses concepts and generaliza-
tions. To accomplish the behavior a chimp must (1) understand a
behavior of termites that it can only see the results of (that is, the sol-
dier termites attached to the stick or grass by their long, sharp
mandibles), (2) understand how to exploit the insects’ behavior to get the
termites out, and(3) visualize a tool for that purpose within a plant and
conceive of and perform the steps needed to modify the plant to pro-
duce the tool. Moreover, chimps don’t need the stimulus of a termite
mound (where the insects are out of sight anyway) to elicit the chain
of behaviors. They have been observed making their tools and then
going in search of a mound. Different chimps even have different styles
of the tool. It is clear that they have a concept in mind. When a young
chimp learns from its mother’s actions, it could not perform such a
complex set of behaviors unless it conceptually understood what she
was doing. It is more than just imitation.
Chimps use and make other tools as well. In fact tools are found
in all natural populations of chimps that have been extensively stud-
ied. Moreover, a recent synthesis of data from seven well-established
chimp field sites across Africa, comprising an accumulated 151 years
of observation, has shown variation in thirty-nine different behavior
patterns, including tool use, grooming, and courtship behaviors. The
nature of the variation points to the chimps’ ability to invent new
behaviors and pass them on socially-in which case the behaviors can
be thought of as “customs” and therefore examples of culture. In

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 69
addition, chimpanzees hunt, often with other primate species as the
main prey. Again, regional and group variations are seen in preferred
prey species, favorite parts to be eaten, and whether hunting is solitary
or cooperative. We can’t deny that these behaviors at least come close
to what we call culture. The lack of symbols is really what keeps this
behavior from being completely cultural.
FIGURE 4.2
Chimps using tools they
have made to extract
termites from their mound.
Monkeys Use Tools Another primate example shows that possession
of culture is a matter of degree. There is a colony of Japanese macaques
(and Old World monkey) on the island of Kashima, Japan, that has been
extensively studied for fifty years. The scientists conducting the study
put piles of sweet potatoes on the beach to encourage the monkeys to
both come into the open and spend time there picking the sand off their
food, knowing that the monkeys dislike dirty food. In 1953 a young
female they had named Imo began taking her sweet potatoes to a fresh-
water pool to wash off the sand (Figure 4.3). Soon, other members of
the group picked up the idea. Some even washed theirs in the sea, pos-
sibly because they liked the salty taste.
Having been thwarted, the scientists tried to increase their obser-
vation time by throwing grains of wheat onto the sand. But Imo simply

70 PART ONE Anthropology: The Bioculrural Study of the Human Species
FIGURE 4.3
A macaque washing its food.
a behavior that has been
termed protocultural be-
cause it fulfills most but not
all of the characteristics of
culture: in this case the
behavior does not involve
an artifact, The monkey is.
however: using the water as
an unmodified tool.
ecofact An unmodified
natural object used as a tool.
protocultural A behavior
having most but not all of
the characteristics of a
cultural behavior:
picked up a handful of wheat and sand, took it to a freshwater pool, and
dumped it all in the water. The sand sank but the wheat floated, and this
she scooped out and ate. This behavior, too, spread through the group.
Now, there is obviously one cultural criterion missing here: there
were no artifacts. The monkeys were just manipulating unmodified nat-
ural objects. But the behavior was learned, it was shared extragenetically,
and it did involve a concept (although there were no symbols). And they
were using a natural object, the water, for a specific, conscious purpose.
Some have termed the water in this case an ecofact-a tool that has not
been modified. (Another example of an ecofact would be the rocks that
some chimps use to crack open hard-shelled nuts, which they sometimes
first place on another, flat rock.) The washing behavior of these monkeys
might be called protoculturaI. It is important to remember, though, that
these behaviors of the Japanese macaques resulted from some degree of
human influence.
Apes Can Be Taught the Rudiments of Human Language A final
example deals not with natural behaviors but with behavioral potentials
seen under artificial conditions. For some time, researchers tried to see
if apes could learn to talk. All attempts failed because apes don’t have
the vocal apparatus needed to make human sounds (see Figure 11.4).

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 71
But they can use a substitute for spoken language such as American
Sign Language (Ameslan). Perhaps, scientists reasoned, this might work
with apes. At present, there are a fair number of chimps, gorillas, and
bonobos that have become amazingly proficient at Ameslan or other
substitute forms, and with these they can communicate using the features
of a human language (see Figures 11.6 and 11.7).
I’ll detail this phenomenon in Chapter 11. For now, however, suffice
it to say that these achievements indicate that although apes in the wild
don’t use a symbolic communication system, they obviously have the
mental capabilities that enable them to learn the rudiments of the one
cultural trait that we always thought was ours alone.
Humans Are Cultural If, then, other creatures have behaviors that we
consider cultural, how are we different? Very simply, in these nonhumans,
behaviors that fulfill the criteria for culture are rare and individual. They
don’t make up the majority of the animals’ behavioral repertoire. For us,
however, culture is absolutely vital. We are dependent on it for our
survival. All our behaviors, even though some may have their origins in
our biological past, are learned culturally and performed culturally, for
cultural reasons, within a system of cultural behaviors. Moreover, as
noted, we live in cultural worlds of symbols. A symbol is something
that stands for something else, with no necessary link between the sym-
bol and what it stands for. The words on this page are symbols. In this
regard, everything in a human cultural system is symbolic, that is, it has
meaning beyond whatever practical use it may serve. Without symbols,
human cultural systems could not attain the level of complexity that
characterizes them, nor could their elements be shared among members
and across generations. Other species may have cultural behaviors, but
our species is cultural.
Of course, the ability to have culture in the first place is dependent
on a biological phenomenon-the structure and function of our brains.
Just what is it about our brains, and to a lesser extent the brains of
apes, that makes the cultural ability possible? How did this evolve?
BRAINS AND CULTURE: THE BASIC
BIOCULTURAL LEVEL
The topic of brain structure and function is, obviously, complex and
not yet completely understood, especially with regard to the origin and
nature of conscious thought. It is important, however, to try to under-
stand something about the brain in general to get a glimpse into how
it makes our cultural behavior possible.
A useful model for picturing the brain, and one that has an evolu-
tionary theme, was devised by Paul MacLean of the National Institute
of Mental Health. He calls his model the triune (three-part) brain, and

72 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
R-complex A primitive por-
tion of the brain involved in
self-preservation behaviors
such as mating, aggressive-
ness, and territoriality,
limbic system A portion of
the brain involved in emo-
tions such as fear; rage, and
care for the young,
neocortex A portion of the
brain involved in conscious
thought spatial reasoning,
and sensory perception,
it refers to three evolutionary stages seen in the mammalian cerebrum
(see Figure 5.5). It describes three different functions of the brain that
are interrelated in complex physical and functional ways.
The deepest and oldest part is the R-complex (for reptilian). It is
shared by all vertebrates and deals with such basic self-preservation
functions as aggressiveness, territoriality, mating, and social hierar-
chy. Above this is the old mammalian brain, the limbic system. This
appears to be the area that controls strong emotions such as fear,
rage, altruism (self-sacrifice), and care and concern for the young.
Also part of the limbic system are areas dealing with basic sexual
functioning and with the sense of smell. Some aspect of memory also
seems to be housed in the limbic area. Surrounding these two parts
is the new mammalian brain, or neocortex. This is where we think.
Various parts of the neocortex are concerned with perception and
deliberation, spatial reasoning, vision and hearing, and the exchange
of information between the brain and body.
So, we humans have inherited the basic survival behavior of
reptiles, the emotional responses of mammals, and the thought pro-
cesses that became more elaborate during mammalian evolution. And
all these operate together, influencing one another in a complex feed-
back system. Take, for example, the aggressive actions of a soldier
at war or a police officer in the line of duty. Their actions are not
simply automatic stimulus-response functions but also the results of
logical deliberations and emotional reactions. At the same time, their
taking aggressive action in the first place may have nothing directly
to do with their own survival but, rather, may be related to abstract
concepts of law, patriotism, group identity, or ideology. In other
words, when all these evolved areas of the brain work together this
way, we have the basis for the complex abilities of consciousness,
reasoning, and, eventually, culture.
Moreover, within the neocortex all the information acquired by the
senses is stored and accessed through a highly cross-referenced retrieval
system. Our brains can store massive amounts of information; we retain
not just memories of whole events but of the individual pieces of those
events and we can associate our mental pieces of information with
related pieces or even with unrelated pieces if we wish. When we retrieve
information, we can use only those pieces of information that we deem
relevant, and we can put pieces from various events together in all sorts
of combinations to create scientific hypotheses, philosophical ideas,
generalizations, solutions to problems, and so on.
Put another way, what we can do is experience events in our ner-
vous systems. That is, our mental experiences are not limited to what
our senses are sensing at the moment but to what they have sensed in
the past, what they may sense in the future, and even what they would
sense in hypothetical situations. Only humans can make up stones.
Only humans have philosophies. Only humans are good liars.

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 73
Keep this model in mind as we move on in subsequent chapters to
talk about human culture and cultural adaptations. Note how these
would be impossible without brains that work in the manner described.
In addition, this model helps us understand how some animals can
exhibit a degree of cultural ability. Apes, for example, have relatively
large neocortexes. Their brains have the same basic structure and
function as ours, only less complex. After all, we both evolved from a
common ancestor in the relatively recent past. The conscious thought,
complex social behavior, and tool use of our closest relatives are really
no surprise. In fact, since all mammals possess a neocortex, it’s reason-
able to attribute some thinking ability to them all. It’s clear to any pet
owner that dogs and cats can reason. Whales and dolphins are also known
to be highly intelligent. We humans are different from them in degree, not
kind (although the difference in degree is a large one).
This difference in degree can be accounted for evolutionarily. In
conjunction with other trends we will discuss, there was also selection
at some stage of our evolution for individuals who had larger neocor-
texes and who could reason at a more complex level. This would have
enhanced the conscious controls over social and psychological relation-
ships and over the problems posed by the environment. We see the
results of this evolution in the gradual but steady improvement in tool
technology and in the successful expansion of humans into new geo-
graphic locations and diverse environments.
This, then, is the story of culture as a species characteristic shared
by us all. But there’s another level, the level of individual cultures-the
specific systems that characterize each society within our species. How
do we study, describe, and explain all the world’s cultural systems? Why
do we find such enormous variation from one culture to the next?
A MODEL FOR THE STUDY
OF CULTURAL SYSTEMS
1£ we think of culture as our adaptive mechanism, it’s easy to under-
stand some of the cultural variation we observe around the world.
Important aspects of people’s cultures are geared to the conditions of
their habitats. The Netsiiik people of the Canadian Arctic have cultural
ideas and technologies for hunting seals but not for hunting kangaroos.
For Native Australians it’s just the opposite. Living in New England, I
own clothing and heating devices to keep me warm during the winter.
Native Americans in the tropical rain forests of Brazil, however, have
very few concerns a bout keeping warm.
But what about peoples who live in almost the same environment
but whose cultures still differ? As I noted in Chapter 2, Philadelphia
and Beijing, being at the same latitude, have very similar climates, but
the cultures of those two cities differ in everything from language to
society A group of organ-
isms living together in an or-
dered community. In the case
of humans, a group with a
shared culture.

74 PART ONE Anthropology: The Bioculrural Study of the Human Species
worldvtew The collective
interpretation of and re-
sponse to the natural and
cultural environments in
which a group of people
lives. Their assumptions
about those environments
and values derived from
those assumptions.
economics to clothing styles to eating habits. The climate of highland
New Guinea is fairly homogeneous, yet that area is horne to hundreds
of similar yet distinct cultures. How can we explain these differences
in terms of the adaptive theme we’ve been following?
The Cultural “Filter”
Culture has two identities. It is our major adaptive mechanism for cop-
ing with our basic biological needs. But at the same time, it is such an
important, pervasive part of our lives that it has actually become our
environment. Look around you. Everything you come in contact with,
everything you’re concerned about, all the solutions to your concerns-
they are all cultural. And in that light we can see that most cultural
adaptations (once we’ve taken care of basic biological needs) are adap-
tations to culture itself. Most changes in a cultural system are responses
to other changes in that cultural system. So, as we collect data through
ethnographic fieldwork or library research, we must look within cultural
systems and view them as their own unique, integrated environments
/
in order to understand just how they work and why we see such great
variation from society to society.
There are as many specific ways of going about this as there are
anthropologists, and there are, as we’ll discuss in Chapters 13 and 14,
several major schools of thought about the nature of culture and how
to analyze it. The following discussion represents my way of looking at
these issues. I think my model reasonably captures the basic biocultural
approach of anthropology and so is useful for examining cultures and
explaining cultural variation (Figure 4.4).
We begin, naturally, with the biological characteristics of humans.
We should never lose sight of the fact that despite the power of culture,
we are still limited by our biological structure, function, and needs.
However, because part of our biology includes a brain capable of cul-
ture, there are various specific ways we can fulfill our basic needs. There
are many possible behavior patterns, and our task as anthropologists
is to figure out why, from all the possible patterns, each society exhib-
its and practices its unique combination, its specific cultural system.
I like to visualize all the potential behavioral patterns going into a
metaphorical filter, like the filter in a drip coffeemaker. All the unwanted
behaviors are filtered out. Those that are wanted, that work for the
society in question, pass through and are combined and integrated to
form the specific cultural system. The problem now becomes what to
label the filter.
Worldview
I think the best label is worIdview. A world view is, as someone once
put it, “a set of assumptions about the way things are.” What sorts of
“things”? Well, as vague as this sounds, just about anything: the nature

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 7S
Possible behavior patterns
Collective interpre-
tation and response
of a society of people
1.
Specific cultural system
Adaptation
of the world and its living creatures; the place of humans in the natu-
ral world; the proper relationships between humans and non humans,
between individuals and groups of people; the explanations for why all
these are as they are-these and many more are the “things” with which
the worldview of a culture concerns itself.
But why do I prefer the label worldview and not environment or
conscious choice? Simply because those alternatives, while partially
accurate, are incomplete explanations. As noted, not every aspect of
a cultural system can be explained as a direct adaptation to the
environment. Moreover, claiming that culture is directly determined
by environment is too mechanistic. It makes culture sound like an
entity, a tangible thing like some chemical in a test tube. It leaves
real people out of the equation. And to claim that all aspects of a
cultural system are the results of conscious, rational choice is to say
that there are no generalizations we can make about human culture,
no trends or tendencies that make some sense out of cultural history.
That point of view would mean that every cultural system is idio-
syncratic, making sense only in terms of the minds of the people who
created it.
World view, as the term implies, must be a view of the world that
a group of people knows. It encompasses their natural world and their
FIGURE 4.4
A model for the study
of cultural systems as
described in the text.

76 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
codify To arrange systemati-
cally.To put into words and
other symbols.
cultural world, that is, their cultural world at that point in time and
across its history-how it got to be the way it is. These two factors
interact as people move around, encounter other peoples, and develop
new and different ways to cope with their environments.
Worldview, then, can best be thought of as the collective interpre-
tation of and response to the natural and cultural worlds in which a
society of people lives. All aspects of a cultural system may be seen as
derived from, linked to, and supportive of this view of the world. Such
a model takes into account both direct adaptive responses that make
logical sense as well as the idiosyncratic responses of real people, which
mayor may not make logical sense to others but which are reasonable
and consistent to the people in question.
Some Examples
First, two words of caution. The examples I will use are simplifications.
I will try to narrow things down as much as possible in order to show
what we mean by worldview and how it serves/as a label for our imag-
inary filter. In real life, much more would be involved. A cultural system
is a complex, integrated whole. All aspects of a cultural system interact
with each other and with all the facets of a society’s natural and cultural
environment. You will see this clearly as we examine specific aspects of
cultural systems in the following chapters, and we will address some of
the questions you may have about these examples.
Second, we must appreciate the difficulty of trying to understand
and describe another culture’s worldview. Remember, worldview is not
a thing. It is an abstraction, a term we use for the totality of the collec-
tive interpretations and responses of a society of people. One cannot ask
members of another culture what their worldview is. It is not something
people articulate, because it exists in the background. (In a bit, we’ll see
how this is so by trying to describe an American worldview.)
The Role of Religion We can, however, open a window onto another
group’s worldview by looking at their religious beliefs. Note, however:
Religion is not the same as worldview. Religion is merely one aspect of
a cultural system. But one function of religion (which we will examine
further in Chapter 12) in all societies is to allow people to codify their
worldview-to talk about, share, and pass on those assumptions about
the way things are via symbols. Most, if not all, religions include a
creation story (how the world and its people began); the history of a
people; stories about the people’s relationship to the supernatural, to
each other, to the other species on earth, and to the earth itself; and
basic rules of behavior.
So with those cautions in mind, let’s compare the worldviews of
groups from two distinct geographic regions and times-the recent
peoples of the Arctic and Southwest Asia (also called the Near East or
Middle East) starting 10,000 years ago.

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 77
The Arctic The peoples of the Arctic live in one of the harshest environ-
ments of any human group. It’s not that they are poorly adapted. On
the contrary, even before acquiring modern technological items, they
were known for their clever and effective use of natural resources to
satisfy their needs (see Figure 2.4). They saw themselves not as separate
from the land and its life, but as one with it. As writer Barry Lopez
puts it, their relationships with animals, even those they hunt, are “local
and personal,” and those animals are “pan of one’s community.” Their
lives are, he says, “resilient, practical, and enthusiasVtic.”
But this intimacy with nature comes at a price. The Arctic has never
been an easy place to live, and the people there see that world as one
over which their control is limited, tenuous, and unstable. They live,
says Lopez, with “a fear tied to their knowledge that sudden, cataclysmic
events are as much a part of life, of really living, as are the moments
when one pauses to look at something beautiful.”
How is this view reflected in Arctic religions? In other words, how
did they codify this worldview? Note that there are many different
Arctic peoples, in both North America and Asia, and so there are many
specific individual cultural systems. But we may look at a few aspects
of one and, because there are certain similarities among all peoples of
this region, apply them as a generalization.
The Netsilik (“people of the seal”) live in the Hudson Bay region of
Canada (Figure 4.5). Seal hunting in the winter is a major focus of their
lives, although they also hunt caribou and fish for salmon in the spring,
summer, and fall. In the Netsilik view, the natural world, the supernatural
world, and the world of human moral order are one integrated whole. But
the natural world is under the control of the spirit world, and important
natural phenomena-as well as all humans and animals-have personified
spirits or souls with approximately equal power. There are other spirits
with various degrees of control over the world as well. The Netsilik, like
many hunting peoples, recognize multiple supernatural beings, or souls.
The control these souls have over the physical world helps explain
why things are as they are, especially why things can go wrong. Souls
are seen as, at best, unreliable and are generally considered evil or
capable of becoming evil. Souls that have been wronged can cause
misfortunes, and thus there are many rules about how they should be
treated. A newly killed seal, for instance, must be placed on fresh snow
rather than the dirty floor of the igloo. The hunters beg the forgiveness
of the spirit. Water is poured in the dead seal’s mouth because its soul
is still thirsty. Caribou souls are especially sensitive, and no work on
caribou hides can be done in sight of living caribou. If they see and are
offended, their souls will not allow them to be caught. By adhering to
these rules the Netsilik have gained at least some sense of influence over
their difficult lives. Thus, not only the technology of the Netsilik but
more abstract aspects of their culture can be linked to their interpretation
of and response to the real world in which they live.

78 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
FIGURE 4.5
An Inuit hunting for seals.
Because the seals are below
the ice, the hunter must
harpoon them sight unseen,
He has placed a bit of swan’s
down in what he hopes is a
seal’s breathing hole, which
had been located by his
dogs. When the seal uses
the hole, the disturbed air
between the water’s surface
and the ice will move the
swan’s down, and the hunter
will thrust his harpoon down
the hole, If he strikes the seal,
he must then enlarge the
hole to pull it out.
monotheistic Refers to a reli-
gious system that recognizes
a single supernatural being.
Southwest Asia Contrast the Netsilik with various societies in Southwest
Asia prior to about 10,000 years ago. These people also lived as hunters
of wild animals and gatherers of wild plants. They did not have, perhaps,
as hard a life as that of the Arctic peoples, but they were still dependent
on naturally occurring resources in an environment where humans were
pretty much at the mercy of nature. Religions in the area probably also
recognized multiple supernatural beings that controlled important nat-
ural phenomena.
But about 10,000 years ago, a major cultural event occurred in
Southwest Asia-the invention of farming (which we’ll discuss in
greater detail in Chapter 9). The farming peoples of Southwest Asia
had direct control over a most important natural resource-food
(Figure 4.6). That one cultural change gradually altered their world,
their feelings about their world, and their place in it. As the long his-
tory of farming influenced the physical and cultural worlds of South-
west Asia, three important religious traditions-Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam-arose, reflecting a shift in worldview.
All three of these religions are monotheistic, that is, they recognize
one supreme supernatural being. According to these religions, that one

CHAPTER 4 Themes .of Anthropology 79
being, whom we can refer to as God in all three cases, brought about and
has control over all natural phenomena, including human affairs. But
things are not entirely out of human hands. First, humans are said to have
been created in God’s image, so humans have a closer connection to the
supernatural than do any other living things. In the Judeo-Christian tra-
dition, for example, humans are given dominance over the other crea-
tures of the earth (Gen. 1:28); it is the first human, Adam, who names
the animals (Gen. 2:19-20); and humans are enjoined to multiply and
subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28, 8:17).
Second, humans are no longer at the whimsical mercy of the super-
natural as they are in Eskimo tradition. In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, humans may petition God through prayer and action. They
may ask God for favors and, if God is pleased and willing, stand a
chance of having those requests granted. Humans have some sense of
personal control in their dealings with the supernatural, even with an
all-powerful being.
Beginning with the invention of farming, the history of Southwest
Asia clearly reflects the articulation of a world view in which people
came to see themselves as having an ability to know and understand
their world and to use that knowledge to exercise some control over
their world for their own benefit. As these peoples now had some
dominion over the natural world, so God had dominion over humans.
As they began to view the world as clearly divided into the human
and the natural, so too a division was drawn between humans and a
single, omnipotent supernatural entity. Their belief in one God sup-
planted their belief in the multitude of spirits and souls that previously
controlled aspects of the real world at will wirh only minimal influence
from people.
FIGURE 4.6
A farmer in Egypt uses
techniques that are
essentially unchanged from
thousands of years ago to
grow crops that were among
the first domesticated plants,

80 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
Thus, worldview is a useful focus around which we may describe
the other aspects of a society’s natural and cultural worlds. Doing so
allows us to take into account both the practical and the more abstract
connections within the integrated whole we call a cultural system.
The American Worldview
As an exercise, try putting into words some important facets of a mod-
ern American worldview. Remember that worldview is not the same as
religion; it’s far more abstract. When I give my classes this assignment,
students often mention individualism. Think about our “heroes,” those
larger-than-life individuals-past, recent, real, and fictional. Daniel Boone,
Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Superman, Rosa
Parks, Will Rogers, Muhammad Ali, Cesar Chavez, and (my personal
favorite) Indiana Jones, to name only a handful, all embody in their own
ways the rugged individualism we Americans so admire.
Other students have said that we Americans expect, value, and embrace
change. Our clothing styles, automobile designs, and musical trends change
annually. We place term limits on those who run our government. We focus
intently on some news event and then quickly move on.
Still another aspect of the American world view might be our love
of big things. We’ve always seen our country as big. The early history
of the United States is full of stories of the explorers and pioneers (more
rugged individuals) setting off into the unknown expanses of a huge
continent. There’s always been room to grow. We’ve built, at one time
or another, the tallest building, the biggest sports stadium, even the
largest shopping mall. We even admire physical size in people. Studies
have indicated that taller men are more likely to be hired for some jobs
than shorter men, even if height is irrelevant to the work.
For the sake of introducing the concept of culture and my model
of cultural systems, the above examples barely scratch the surface of
an extremely complex topic. To even begin to fully analyze a cultural
system one would have to include data about every aspect of that system
and every aspect of the natural and cultural environment to which it is a
response. We will do a more complete job with some other examples in
Chapter 14. For the moment, however, to show that this model can apply
to all sorts of human matters, I give you the following.
AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
OF THE NECKTIE
In class several years ago, after I had presented the model you’ve just
read about, one perceptive student raised her hand and asked, a bit
sheepishly but with a touch of a challenge in her voice, “What about
your tie? It doesn’t have a practical purpose for survival. Can you
explain that with your coffee filter!”

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 81
“Well,” I faltered, “sometimes certain cultural practices are so obscure
and indirectly related to whole systems that it’s nearly impossible to
explain them in this perspective. Oh look, time to go!”
Overnight, though, I gave it some thought, and in the next class I
proudly presented my analysis. The origin of this specific item-a col-
ored piece of cloth tied around the neck of males-is obscure. It seems
to have originated during the reign of Louis XIV of France, when, called
a cravat (from the French word for Croatian), it was worn as part of the
uniform of Croatian soldiers as a sign of rank. The French, always on
the cutting edge of fashion, liked the idea and adopted it as a normal
item of clothing.
But what does the tie mean to us? Although not as regularly
worn as it once was (my father would even wear one shopping or
attending sports events), the tie is still a symbol of status. It is worn
in certain situations to display one’s social status, socioeconomic
position, and attitude about the situation. For example, certain jobs
require a necktie. A man nearly always wears one to job interviews, even
if the job itself doesn’t require one. We wear ties to court, whether
we’re defendant or plaintiff. We wear them to weddings, funerals, bar
mitzvahs, and christenings to acknowledge the importance of the
event. When worn in a less formal setting, a tie is a sign of one’s rela-
tive socioeconomic status. For example, I have been treated very
differently by clerks in the same store depending on whether I’m
wearing a suit and tie or jeans and a sweatshirt. This useless and often
uncomfortable item lacks any practical purpose but is obviously full
of meaning.
This relates to our general discussion when we realize that not all
cultures recognize the concept of differential status and wealth that
something like a tie symbolizes. Among traditional hunters and gather-
ers, it might prove detrimental if some people had more wealth than
others. In such societies (which we will discuss in detail in Chapter 9)
wealth is distributed equally among members, and there are no recog-
nized differences in social status. To be sure, some people are better
hunters than others or are more adept at decision making, but these
differences are not institutionalized or formalized. Such societies can’t
afford to have anything but a group of people working together as har-
moniously as possible for the common good. As a result, there are no
symbols of status or wealth differences, such as different clothing for
those of higher position.
In societies that farm, however, we find a new phenomenon: sur-
plus products. At least when things are going well, a family can pro-
duce more than they need to feed themselves. The excess can be traded
to someone else for some other resource that that person has a surplus
of. Or it can be traded for a service that person may perform, which
might include leadership activities. With all that wealth changing hands,
all those surpluses, and all the specializations in labor, it is inevitable

82 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
that some people are going to have more than others-both more
wealth and more status, with the two generally going hand in hand.
Status differences arise, and symbols of those differences develop,
including, of course, items of personal adornment.
Western civilization can trace much of its cultural heritage back to
farming societies of Southwest Asia and early Europe. Our cultural
tradition has long had the concept of status differences built into it. So,
the necktie has a history of its own, but its use as a symbol denoting
differential wealth and power can be linked to worldview.
Cultural artifacts are important not only for their function but also,
perhaps more, for their meaning. And this leads to another question:
Since most of human cultural history took place before written records,
how can we understand past cultural systems? The answer is that by
using the theory and techniques of archaeology we can deduce the
meaning of material culture and gain insight into societies of the past.
MATERIAL CULTURE AND THE STUDY
OF THE CULTURAL PAST
Of all the subfields of anthropology, archaeology is perhaps the most
distinct. Anthropologists specializing in this subfield tend to identify
themselves first as archaeologists. The general public has a good idea
what an archaeologist does, but it has a hard time defining anthropol-
ogy. This is in part because archaeology is the oldest formal specialty
within the field, going back as far as the European Renaissance, when
“antiquarians” began excavating the remains of the classical civiliza-
tions of Greece and Rome.
The most important reason for the distinct status of archaeology,
however, concerns the unique problems archaeologists face in collecting
and analyzing their data. Those data, the material remains of past cul-
tures, must usually be dug up-literally. They’re most often underground
because they’re so old and have been buried over the years by flooding,
windblown dust and sand, volcanic eruptions, soil buildup, and so on.
To just find and recover ancient artifacts requires a very specialized set
of technical skills. Other techniques and theories are then needed to
identify, analyze, and interpret the artifacts.
But don’t think this makes archaeology different from anthropology
in general. Archaeology is not just finding interesting old stuff in the
ground and putting it in museums (although it used to be). The archae-
ologist uses the recovered artifacts and knowledge of the relationship
between artifacts and cultural systems (that is, their meaning, as in the
case of the necktie) as data to answer the same types of questions as any
anthropologist-questions about the nature of the human species and its
behaviors. Archaeology is the anthropology of the cultural past. Let’s see
how this works in practice.

CHAI)TER 4 Themes of Anthropology 83
Material Culture and Cultural Systems
Living in New England, I have on hand a very good example of the con-
nection between artifacts and the practical and abstract parts of culture.
The artifacts are gravestones carved from the mid-1600s to the mid-
18005. The original research on this topic was conducted by archaeol-
ogists James Deetz and Edwin Dethlefsen.
If you explore old New England cemeteries and look at the
stones from that period, you begin to notice that although there are
numerous designs carved into the markers, the majority fall into
three broad patterns: death’s heads, cherubs, and urns and willows
(Figure 4.7).
FIGURE 4.7
An example of each of the
three major styles of grave-
stones in New Englandfrom
the mid-I600s through the
mid-1800s.From top: deaths
head, cherub, um and willow.
These are from cemeteries
in Connecticut

84 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
What sorts of things can we tell from these stones? We can certainly
tell how old they are. The dates are right on them. And from each epi-
taph we can find out about the person buried beneath: name, sex, age
at death, sometimes the cause of death, and maybe something about the
person’s occupation, family, standing in the community, and personality
(although, given the context, information on the latter might be biased).
Using historical records, we can sometimes find out who carved the
stones (there seem to have been a limited number of gravestone carvers
in the area), where the carvers traveled in New England, and even the
price paid for the markers. The prices are, in a few cases, carved into
the stones themselves.
But the stones can tell us even more. The designs were not carved
at random, and they do not exist outside a cultural context. They are
symbols that relate to attitudes toward death and the afterlife-in other
words, to religious beliefs as practiced in a given cultural environment.
As attitudes changed, so did the statistical frequencies of the designs
(Figure 4.8).
The death’s head-a grim, grinning skull-zsyrnbolized a pessimistic
view of life and death. It reminded the living of human mortality, of every-
one’s inevitable end. The epitaphs on these stones usually read “Here lies
buried the body of … ” The death’s head is associated with the period
of orthodox Puritanism from the 1600s to the mid- to late-1700s, depend-
ing on the region. The famous witch trials at Salem Village, Massachu-
setts, in 1692 coincided with the peak in popularity of this design.
As orthodox Puritanism declined beginning in the mid-1700s, atti-
tudes about death changed. The emphasis shifted to resurrection and
the rewards to be enjoyed in heaven. This change is reflected in the
replacement of the death’s head with the cherub-a smiling baby-faced
angel with wings-and in epitaphs that are more positive. “In memory
of … ” began to replace “Here lies the body of … ” These new ideas,
and the adoption of the new design, seem to have begun in the urban
intellectual center of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the site of Harvard
College, and spread from there. Moreover, the cherub design in this
area was associated with graves of upper-class, educated individuals. So
we see a connection here between artifacts, religious beliefs, and the
nature and status of intellectual influence in early New England culture.
The gravestone designs themselves, it should be noted, originated in
England-a further connection that could be explored.
By the late 1700s, religion had taken on a less emotional nature than
it had under Puritanism. This, in association with a trend toward Greek
Revival architecture, gave rise to the classical-looking urn-and-willow
design. “In memory of … ” had now completely replaced references to the
buried bodies, and some stones simply carried the person’s name and dates.
By the mid-1800s, gravestone designs began to show more variation.
This was the result of a combination of factors: greater variety of religious
expression, a trend toward more individual freedom, and the immigration

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 85
~
Death’s head Cherub
1860-69
1850-59
1840-49
1830-39 •
1820-29 •
1810-19 – -1800-09
1790-99 -1780-89 -1770-79
1760-69 -1750-59
1740-49
1730-39
1720-29
1710-19
1700-09 –
• = 10% of the stones in a ten-year period
Urn and willow
—
of peoples from diverse parts of the world. But in New England during
that earlier period, we see clear connections between the gravestones-an
artifact-and other facets of culture, even ideological ones.
Archaeological Analysis
Now, you’re probably thinking that these gravestones are historic, that
there’s little scientific analysis going on since the basic information is
written right on the stones and all the historical and religious context
is recorded. Where’s the archaeological analysis?
There are several responses to that logical question. First, as sur-
prising as it may seem, there are things we don’t know even about
cultures with written records, including colonial New England. People
don’t write everything down. As we’ve discussed, people are not always
FIGURE 4.8
A graph, called a seriation
graph, showing the changes
in statistical frequencies of
the three gravestone styles
in central Connecticut for
the years shown. Such a
statistical pattern of design
replacement is typical for
many artifact types analyzed
by archaeologists. A seri-
ation graph could also be
constructed for more recent
artifacts such as automobiles
or clothing styles. (K. Feder)

86 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
FIGURE 4.9
No archaeologist ever
saw this item in use, but
it doesn’t take much
imagination to figure out
what it was used for in
second-century-B.c. Japan.
The artifact is depicted in
approximately actual size
historical archaeology The
archaeology of a society that
has written records
prehistoric archaeology The
archaeology of a society
prior to written records.
ethnographic analogy Inter-
preting archaeological data
through the observation
of analogous activities in
existing societies.
intellectually aware of why they do the things they do. So far as I know,
there’s nothing in writing that specifically describes the Puritans’ moti-
vations for having death’s heads carved on many of their gravestones.
The connection was made by scholars later on, looking at the various
forms of evidence. So even when we are dealing with historic periods
and cultures, archaeological analysis can still tell us some things. Such
studies are referred to as historical archaeology.
In most of the archaeological record, however, we can’t see all the
facets of culture in operation, nor can we read about any of them. We
find only material remains. So the only things on which to base our
hypotheses are the properties and analyses of the artifacts themselves and
the actions of living humans and the written records of the recent past.
This is prehistoric archaeology.
We can, for example, infer the use of an ancient tool by seeing how
similar-looking tools are used in existing or recent societies. By analogy
we can hypothesize the same use for the old tool (Figure 4.9). This
process is called ethnographic analogy. It’s a lot like the analysis of fos-
sils. Until we get really complete records of a -type of extinct creature,
the only way we can categorize a fossil is by deciding which living cat-
egory it most resembles and tentatively placing it in the appropriate
taxonomic group (see Chapter 6).
So, the old gravestones do more than give us some ideas about early
New England culture. They also reveal aspects about culture in general-
connections between facets of material culture and abstract belief-that
may prove useful in other archaeological investigations.
How about something older? There are literally thousands of exam-
ples, but one of my favorites concerns a study done by Sir Mortimer
Wheeler, one of the most famous of early Old World archaeologists.
Using the techniques of archaeological analysis and some basic informa-
tion from early Roman writings, he reconstructed, in amazing detail, a
battle that took place around A.D. 47. In that battle, the Roman com-
mander (and later emperor) Vespa sian attacked and conquered a Celtic
hill fort, now called Maiden Castle, in southern England (Figure 4.10).
Wheeler was able to tell, for example, that the eastern side of the fort
was attacked, what sorts of weapons were used, and that the Romans
attacked with arrows first, followed by an infantry charge. He could tell
that some huts near the entrance to the fort were burned and that the
attackers, possibly because they encountered more resistance than
expected, massacred women and children as well as adult male defend-
ers. And when the Romans had won, they proceeded systematically to
destroy the fort, tearing down fighting platforms, taking apart gates, and
toppling stone walls alongside the entrances.
Soon after the battle (perhaps the next night), the conquered peo-
ple of Maiden Castle buried their dead in the area of the burned huts.
The burials were hasty (perhaps because the Romans were still around),
but the survivors remembered in most cases to include food and drink

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 87
in the graves for the journey to the next life. Probably the following day,
when the Roman soldiers had moved on, the people began cleaning up
and putting things back in some order. Eventually they built a new road
across the ruins of their old fortifications. They continued to live there
under Roman rule for about twenty years, when Maiden Castle was
finally abandoned and its remaining walls torn down.
How could Wheeler tell all this? For details, I refer you to his fas-
cinating book Maiden Castle. But briefly, Wheeler found such evidence
as iron Roman arrowheads clustered on the eastern side of the fort.
He could tell the order of events by the stratigraphy of the artifacts and
other features. For example, the graves were clearly dug through rhe
ashes of the burned huts. The skeletons in the graves were not found in
any particular position or orientation, and grave goods varied, indicating
hurried burials. The bodies showed signs of the wounds that killed
them. The brutal nature of the multiple wounds led Wheeler to use the
term massacre. Finally, it was clear that at least one stone wall was
pulled down when the people abandoned the site, sometime in the 60s
of the first century A.D., since the remains of that wall are on top of
the other features and even block one of the roads built some time after
FIGURE 4.10
An aerial view of the Celtic
hill fort of Maiden Castle,
showing the outline of its
bank-and-ditch defensive
system. The fort was built
on a site that had been
occupied since about 6,000
years ago. At the height of
its importance, during the
second century B.C.,Maiden
Castle had timber and stone
walls, circular houses. streets.
and underground silos for
grain storage. Because the
silos were so extensive. it is
thought they stored grain
for more than just the fort’s
inhabitants. Maiden Castle
was perhaps the capital of a
large territory

88 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Can Anthropologists Study Their Own Cultures?
AnthropologISts can and do study the cultures in
which they have grown up. but doing so involves a
somewhat different approach from that used to
study a culture foreign to us. When we study an-
other people, our goal is to understand their
worldview so we can then understand how all the
features of their culture Interrelate to each other
and to the world that the people observe, live in.
and Interpret. When we seek to anthropologically
understand our own culture, we need to begin by
stepping away from our worldview.
By definition, one’s worldview is not something
one is aware of on a daily basis. Worldview is an
abstraction; it is the name anthropologists give to
the complex web of interpretations and re-
sponses of a society to its natural and cultural
environments. Everything we do as members
of our culture is linked to our worldview. Indeed,
trYing to describe components of one’s world-
view can be difficult because we don’t think in
those terms. My motivations for my dai Iy behaviors
are fairly basic. I do many things simply because
I’ve always done them or they’re expected of me
or they fit the immediate situation. Rarely do I
acknowledge that I do things because they relate
to my society’s worldview So a first step in mak-
ing your own culture an anthropological subject is
to try to view it from the outside, as an objective
observer.
How does one accomplish this? First, simply
start thinking about your society’s behaviors and
ideas in the same anthropological terms you would
apply to a foreign sOCley In 1956 Horace Miner
wrote a piece in American Anthropologist called
“Body Ritual among the Nacirema” that described
and analyzed the meaning of various behaviors re-
lated to the human body performed by an exotic
culture. It Included passages like the follOWing:
The daily body ritual performed by everyone
includes a mouth-rite. Despite the fact that these
people are so punctilious about care of the mouth,
the battle. So, using knowledge of such things as stratigraphic relation-
ships, weapon types, architecture, technology, forensic anthropology,
and some pottery types and Roman coins, Wheeler was able to paint
an amazingly clear and detailed picture nor only of the way of life of
the people of Maiden Castle but also of a particular event that took
place nearly 2,000 years ago.
But are those written Roman records bothering you? How about
another example from even further back in time? Something really old.
Archaeologist Nick Torh has examined some sites in East Africa of
early stone tool manufacture dating back millions of years (see Chap-
ter 6). Based on his analysis of these places where our early ancestors
produced stone tools, he has determined that the stones were often trans-
ported from their natural locations for use later on. Using a technique
known as experimental archaeology, Torh has made thousands of sim-
ilar tools and thereby deduced what a manufacture site would have
looked like. Noting that some of the actual sites show evidence of only
partial stone modification, he has determined that the tools were worked
forensic anthropology A
subfield of anthropology
applied to legal matters
Usually involved in identify-
ing skeletal remains and
assessing the time and cause
of death
experimental archaeology
The process of understand-
ing ancient skills and tech-
nologies by reproducing
them,

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 89
this rite involves a practice which strikes the uniniti-
ated stranger as revolting. It was reported to me
that the ritual consists of inserting a small bundle of
hog hairs into the mouth, along with certain magical
powders, and then moving the bundle in a highly
formalized series of gestures.
Miner is obviously describing how Americans
(look at the word Nacirema closely) brush their
teeth. (Toothbrushes used to be made with hogs’ ~
hair bristles, and tooth powders rather than pastes
were common in 1956.) The article is humorous
and clever: but it also illustrates for many people
(including me as a young anthropology student)
how our culture is as much a subject for anthro-
pology as any other
Second, to understand your own culture in
anthropological terms, focus on a specific sub-
culture. Each such subculture has its own unique
set of beliefs and behaviors-indeed its own
unique worldview-but is still a variation on the
worldview, beliefs, and behaviors of the larger
culture of which It is a part. A geographically
large, populous, multicultural. pluralistic society
like ours contains many groups worthy of study
as subcultures. For example, there are anthropo-
logical descriptions and analyses of religious iso-
lates (such as the Hutterites and Amish), urban
street gangs, inner-city ethnic communities, base-
ball, business corporations, the health food
movement, hospital operating rooms, cocktail
waitresses, retirement communities, the public
school classroom, courtrooms, prisons, tattooing
and body piercing, motorcycle societies-v-l could
go on and on. Understanding one or more of
these subcultures or practices sheds light on the
larger society that gave rise to them and in
which they exist.
Knowledge of one’s own culture is important
Simply because all anthropological knowledge
helps us understand our species and its behaviors.
Such knowledge is also especially valuable on a
personal level. There is certainly a satisfaction in
seeing one’s own culture from a new perspective
and understanding something about the origins
and meanings of its components. And, for those
who wish to contribute to their culture and effect
change within it, an anthropological understanding
and context IS, I think, vital.
on over a period of time. Moreover, by comparing his own with those
from actual manufacture sites, he has concluded that some of the varia-
tion in tools was the result of specific methods used to produce them. By
actually trying out his tools, he has found that some types of tools are
better for certain important tasks, especially animal butchering.
So using these and other techniques of archaeology, we can recon-
struct events from several hundred, to 2,000, to 2 million years ago. The
three examples above, however, are all about rather specific situations-
gravestone design, an ancient battle, and very ancient stone tool man-
ufacture. These are just aspects of larger social and cultural contexts.
The ultimate goal of archaeology is to reconstruct past cultural systems
out of such specific pieces of data and analyses. 1 chose these three sto-
ries because they’re interesting and memorable and give a general pic-
ture of the science of archaeological investigation.
We will see how the basis 01 archaeological theory-the rellection of
cultural systems in material artifacts-has provided us with insight into
past cultures and culture in general in some of the following chapters.

90 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Who Owns Archaeological Sites and Their Contents?
Visit any natural history or art museum in a major
Western city such as New York, London, or Paris,
and you will encounter thousands of cultural arti-
facts and even human biological remains that were
originally found in other countries. In some cases,
these items were’ taken from those countries with
permission. In many other cases,the justification
for taking them was the cultural dominance of a
Western country or the idea that the scientific na-
ture of the museum somehow gave it the right to
have, study, and display the items. Recently, many
countries have requested the return of such arti-
facts and remains, and many institutions have
complied. It is now generally felt that paleoarrthro-
pological and archaeological objects are the
possessionsof the countries in which they are
recovered. In many cases,suchobjects in fact
remain in the appropriate country and must be
studied there by foreign scientists.
An example is the famous Ice Man found In an
Alpine glacier in 1991-an almost perfectly pre-
served freeze-dried mummy of a man, along with
many of his artifacts, dated to 5,300 years ago. He
was found close to the Austrian-Italian border, but
because the border was not well marked up In
the mountains, it took a while to establish national
ownership. The mummy remained for seven
years in an Austrian lab,since it appeared at first
that he was found Inthat country. In 1997,however;
surveyors determined that he had in fact been
located inside the Italian border-by a mere
93 meters (305 feet). He now resides Ina museum
in Bolzano, Italy.
The situation becomes murkier when debates
over ownership involve not geopolitical boundar-
ies but biological and cultural descent. For
example, for years in North America, otherwise
well-meaning scientistsenjoyed the freedom to
recover; study, and store, or display the skeletal
remains ofthe remote and not-50-remote ances-
tors of livingpeoples. Many of the thousands of
Native American skeletons and related artifacts
housed in museums and at universitieswere
literally exhumed from the graves into which they
were placed by members of their societies.
Although these remains have provided much
information about the original Inhabitants of this
continent, Native American groups began to
object, for obvious reasons. In 1990 Congress
passed the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). It says that lineal
descendants have a right to the rernams of their
buried ancestors housed in institutions or discov-
ered on federal or tribal territory. This has led to
SUMMARY
A cultural behavior involves a concept or idea
that is shared among members of a population,
transmitted extragenetically through learning
using symbols, and made possible through arti-
facts. Culture is the major adaptive mechanism
of our species, which we absolutely depend on
for our survival. The rudiments of culture can
be observed in some other organisms, especially
the nonhuman primates. Indeed, chimpanzees
who manufacture tools are clearly engaged in
cultural behaviors, though these behaviors are
not vital to the continuation of their species.

CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 91
the removal of large collections of human remains
and associated artifacts from museums and labs
and has made new excavations of Native American
remains difficult, If not impossible. Indeed, before
naturally shed remains were excluded from
NAGPRA regulations, two local tribes demanded
the return of some 10,000-year-old human hair
found at a site in Montana, hair that could have
provided Information on the DNA and, thus, on
the biological relationships of early Americans.
A well-known example involves the skeletal
remains discovered in 1996 inWashington State
and commonly known as Kennewick Man, A coali-
tion of Native American tribes from the area laid
claim to the 9,000-year-old bones under the
terms of NAGPRA. Debate continues but as of
this writing, the bones are available for study.
Is there a compromise between honoring the
cultural laws and heritage of peoples and provid-
Ing science With important data—-data that may
even shed light on the histories of the peoples in
question? In the end, each case must be examined
and judged on its own merits. Much evidence of
early Amenca is in the form of abandoned and
naturally covered-over objects and bones, not
intentional burials. Such findings cannot be reason-
ably affiliated with any specific living group and
should be freely open to soentific investigation. On
the other hand, scientists should no longer go into
clearly identified burial areas armed with shovels
and trowels. When ancient bones are uncovered
by natural processes or accident (say,during a
construction project), the group with which those
bones are affiliated may allow scientific infor-
mation to be gathered before the bones are
reburied.
This occurred with the well-known Afncan
Burial Ground in New York City. In 1991 construc-
tion workers unearthed the graves of some 400
Afncan Americans buried between the late I 600s
and 1796. (The whole cemetery, most of which
is still under the present city,may contain over
10,000 burials.) Because of the wealth of informa-
tion that could be gathered from the skeletons
and the associated artifacts about an otherwise
poorly documented group of people, SCientists
thoroughly studied the rernams, The remains
were then reburied with appropriate ceremony.
Whatever the legalities of the Individual cases,
however; there is one overriding ethical consider-
ation that should guide our actions in these mat-
ters: no matter how old (or even from what
species) they are, bones were once integral parts
of living, breathing, feeling creatures. Artifacts were
once important parts of livingcultures. Even when
we use these things as scientific specimens, they
deserve respectful treatment, as do the liVing
peoples and cultures associated With them.
The human brain-the organ that enables
us to have culture-may be pictured as having
different functional levels, the results of differ-
ent stages of our evolutionary history. All these
levels operate together to produce our basic
behavioral repertoire. The thinking part of our
brain, our cerebral cortex, is a complex, highly
cross-referenced system that allows us to store
data from our memories and experiences and to
manipulate those memories to produce the
ideas that make culture possible.
Culture is a species characteristic, but indi-
vidual cultural systems differ greatly. To explain,
understand, and analyze a given cultural system
requires that we see each system as an integrated
set of ideas and beha viors, all of which are related

\ I
92 PART ONE Anthropology: The Biocultural Study of the Human Species
directly or indirectly to the abstract assumptions
we call worldview. Worldview in turn may be
defined as the collective interpretations of and
responses to the natural and cultural environ-
ments in which a group of people lives.
The relationship between material culture
and the cultural system that designs and
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT
uses it is the basis of the specialized area of
anthropology called archaeology. By under-
standing this relationship, archaeologists
are able to reconstruct past Iifeways and
cultural systems and, thus, further expand
our knowledge of the evolution and behavior
of our species.
I. Does learning that chimpanzees exhibit behaviors with nearly all the criteria of culture change your
view of them? How so? Does your change of view have any practical applications, for example, in
terms of using chimps for medical experimentation?
2. My necktie analysis might be rather outdated. Try the same sort of exercise with some other aspect
of rrodern-day culture. What about tattoos, body piercings, or other fashion statements?
3. Think more about the American worldview. What other ideas might describe a typically American
r
worldview? Do you think any aspects of our worldview-perhaps our ideas about size-have
changed since the 9/1 I attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon’
4. Few, if any, societies are entirely homogenous culturally but instead have regional, class, ethnic, and
other subcultures. What subcultures exist in the United States? Do these subcultures have distinct
worldviews, or are they variations on a general American worldview?
5. Looting is a major problem in archaeology. In this context, looting is defined as the acquisition by
amateurs of artifacts for financial gain or for personal collections. But from the perspective of
the people who left archaeological remains (and who sometimes purposely placed items, as in
graves), is there any difference between scientific acquisition and looting? How would you, as an
archaeologist, respond? What can archaeologists do to clearly distinguish their scientific work from
looting?
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
The definition of culture at the beginning of this
chapter comes from Cultural Anthropology: A Per-
spective on the Human Condition, by Emily Schultz
and Robert Lavenda. A nice discussion of the defini-
tion of culture appears in Introducing Cultural
Anthropology, by Roberta Lenkeit.
The emergence of culture from the basic primate
behavioral repertoire is the topic of Jane Lancaster’s
Primate Behavior and the Emergence of Human
Culture. The question of the presence of culture
among the nonhuman primates is addressed in “The
Cultures of Chimpanzees,” by Andrew Whiten and
Christophe Boesch, in the January 2001 Scientific
American, and in W. C. McGrew’s “Culture in Non-
human Primates?” in the 1998 Annual Review of
Anthropology. See also “The Cultured Chimpanzees”
by Gayathri Vaidyanathan in the August 18, 2011,
issue of Nature. More on the behavior of chimpanzees
is in Jane Goodall’s Through a Window.
Carl Sagan won a Pulitzer Prize for his Dragons
of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human
Intelligence. It includes more detail on the structure
and function of the human brain and Mc l.ean’s
triune brain model. Another, and more recent,
approach to the relationship between the mind and
its products is Steven Mithen’s The Prehistory of the

Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion, and
Science. I also recommend How Brains Think, by
William H. Calvin.
Material on the Netsilik can be found in Asen
Balikci’s The Netsilik Eskimo. On the Arctic and
Arctic peoples in general, see Barry Lopez’s Arctic
Dreams. The quotes I used are from pages 180 and
181 of that book.
For a good treatment of the history of archaeol-
ogy, see Brian Fagan’s The Adventure of Archaeology.
For one example of an archaeological adventure, try
Nicholas Clapp’s The Road to Ubar. Finding the
Atlantis of the Sands. It’s about the discovery of a
fabled ancient Arabian city using a combination of
old-fashioned archaeology, high-tech satellite im-
agery, and, maybe, just a touch of Indiana Jones.
The original research and analysis of New
England gravestones is in Edwin Dethlefsen and
James Deetz’s “Death’s Heads, Cherubs, and Willow
Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Ceme-
teries” in American Antiquity, volume 31. A popular
presentation is Deetz and Dethlefsen’s “Death’s Head,
Cherub, Urn and Willow” in the March 1967 Nat-
ural History. See also Gravestones of Early New
England and the Men Who Made Them, 1653-1800,
by Harriette Merrifield Forbes. Another example of
historical archaeology is Ken Feder’s A Village of
Outcasts, about the archaeology of a remote settle-
ment in Connecticut inhabited by Native Americans,
CHAPTER 4 Themes of Anthropology 93
African American slaves, and European outcasts from
1740 to 1860. Again, the story of Maiden Castle is in
the book of the same name, by Sir Mortimer Wheeler.
The analysis of toolmaking by early Homo is
from Nick Toth’s “The Oldowan Reassessed: A
Close Look at Early Stone Artifacts” from Journal of
Archaeological Science, volume 12.
For more detail on the methodology of
Archaeology-locating, excavating, and dating
sites-see Tom Hester et al., Field Methods in
Archaeology, seventh edition; Robert Sharer and
Wendy Ashmore’s Archaeology: Discovering Our
Past; and Ken Feder’s Linking to the Past.An excel-
lent collection of thirty-two articles on various
aspects of archaeology is Ken Feder’s Lessons from
the Past, and his Past in Perspective: An Introduction
to Human Prehistory recounts the panorama of
human evolution and the evidence used to recon-
struct it. The most modern technologies applied to
the ancient past are the topic of Virtual Archaeology:
Re-creating Ancient Worlds, edited by Maurizio
Forte and Alberto Siliotti. It uses three-dimensional
computer reconstructions of ancient sites as well as
striking photographs and diagrams to bring the past
to life.
A humorous yet thought-provoking look at
what an archaeologist of the future might think of
the remains of our culture is David Macauly’s Motel
of the Mysteries.

The Identity and Nature
of the Human Species
5 Our Place in Nature: Humans as Primates
The science of taxonomy-the classification and naming of organisms. The place of the
primates in the world of living things. Primate characteristics. The traits of the human
primate.
6 Evolution: TI,e Bipedal, Large-Brained l’rimate
The story of primate evolution in general as told by the fossil record. A detailed account of
the evolution of the horninids, the primates who walk upright, and of genus Homo, the pri-
mate with the large brain.
7 Reproduction: The Sexual Primate
The evolution of sexual reproduction and the genetics of inheritance. The evolution of OUf
species’ unique sexual behavior. The biological differences between human males and females,
and the cultural interpretations of those differences into gender categories. The influence of
human sexuality on the cultural institutions of marriage and the incest taboo.
8 Human Variation: Biological Diversity and Race
Four reasons for the nonexistence of biological races within the human species. The nature of
race as a cultural classification. Issues of racism: level of technological complexity and the IQ
controversy.

OUR PLACE IN NATURE
Humans as Primates
CHAPTER CONTENTS Naming the Animals· Into the Trees· Summary· Questions for
Further Thought • Contemporary Issues: Should Nonhuman Primates Have Rights?
• Notes, References, and Readings
97

98 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Entomologists study Insects. Ichthyologists study fishes. Herpetologistsstudy reptiles. Anthropologists study humans. Although we approach
our study of humans in the same general way these other sc.er-tists
study their organisms, anthropologists are limited by their focus on JUst
a single species, at least just a single livingspecies, Homo sapiens. To be
sure, humans are a complex enough species to warrant a whole disci-
pline. But to do the job right, we anthropologists need some perspec-
tive. We need to see where humans fit in the overall biological scheme
of things. We need to be able to compare and contrast humans with
other organisms. We need to answer the question of Just what the
human animal is.
Because all organisms are related on that giant familytree of evolution,
there are many groups to which we could compare ourselves. But to
narrow it down to the level that will elucidate humans’ identity, we
should see what group of organisms makes up our local cluster of twigs
on that tree. The group of organisms to which humans belong is the
primates-the approximately 200 living speCies that include monkeys,
apes, humans, and some other animals you may be less familiar with.
How best to organize this compar.son? There are many ways
to categorize the features that identify a species, but these seem
most relevant and useful to our focus on adaptation in the next
four chapters:
I. Place in nature-where a species fits Into the kingdoms of living
things and how It is related to other organisms.
2. Evolution-how a species looks and behaves and how those
features came to be.
3. Reproduction-how a species perpetuates itself (which, as you recall,
is what distinguishes and separates one species from another).
4. Variation-the nature of a species’ biological diversity.
Using these categories, we can then identify our species as the
large-brained primate and the sexual primate, and then look at the
nature of our biological diversity and the cultural Interpretations of
that diversity. As you will see, all these topics are intertwined into a
single, holistic evolutionary story.

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature 99
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. How does our taxonomic system of classifying and naming
species work? How does the l innaean system differ from the
cladistic system?
2. What traits define the primate order?
3. What are the different types of primates, and what traits distin-
guish them? What is their geographic distribution?
4. What are the characteristics of the human primate?
NAMING THE ANIMALS
Recognition of some relationship among living things is not new. But
formalizing this recognition was not always seen as important, even to
the emerging science of biology at the beginning of the eighteenth
century. After all, plants and animals were then thought to be the
unchanging products of divine creation, and an understanding of the
evolutionary implications of biological relationships was many years in
the future.
Linnaean Taxonomy
One eighteenth-century biologist, however, thought that a formalized
view of the relationships was important, even though he thought species
were specially created and forever fixed. This was the Swedish botanist
Carl von Linne (1707-1778), known to us by his Latinized name,
Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus sought to devise a system of names that
would reflect the relationships among all the plants and animals on
earth. The system he came up with is still used today, and it carries
more meaning than Linnaeus dreamed it would.
Linnaeus created a system of nested categories of increasing speci-
ficity. The largest category contains within it many smaller categories,
and so on, down to the most specific, which contains one group-the
species. Such a classification system is known as a taxonomy, and
Linnaeus proposed his taxonomy for living organisms in his Systema
Naturae, published in final form in 1758.
This system, based on Linnaeus’s original scheme, uses seven (and
more when needed) basic categories: kingdom, phylum (plural, phyla),
class, order, family, genus (plural, genera), and species. Each organism
classified is given a name indicating its place within each of these
categories and, thus, its relationship to other organisms. Table 5.1
shows a taxonomy of five familiar species.
taxonomy A classification
using nested sets of
categories of increasing
specificity.

100 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
phenetics A classification
system based on existing
phenotypic features and
adaptations
cladistics A classification
system based on order of
branching rather than on
present similarities and
differences
All these are obviously members of the animal kingdom and share
inclusion in phylum Chordata (essentially, animals with internal skele-
tons, especially backbones; Table 5.2). All are also obviously mammals,
and all are primates (the group we’ll describe in detail below). But then,
as you can see at a glance, they divide into two intuitive groups: one
….. … group comprises humans; the other is made up of the apes, who
TABLE 5.2 LlnnaeanTaxonomy all share some common phenotypic features. Thus, they separate
of Humans (with defining criteria) at the family level. The chimp and bonobo share a genus but
differentiate at the species level. So, even if you didn’t know
these animals, you could tell how they are related, phenotypically,
to one another.
Linnaeus thought he was describing a static, divinely created
system of living things. We now know that a taxonomy also
reflects evolutionary relationships, because the degree of similarity
between two organisms is a direct result of the amount of time
they have been evolutionarily separated. So, although a taxonomy
can’t tell us specific dates for branchings, we can infer from it the
relative times of these evolutionary events.
Figure 5.1 is a tree showing the relative times of branch-
ing for the five primates in the table, inferred from their tax-
onomic categories. Each taxonomic difference is reflected by a
branching point on the tree.
This method of classification is called Linnaean or phenetic
(for phenotype). There is another system that, in a sense, works
the opposite. It is called cladistics (clade means branch). Using
fossil evidence as well as genetics, it establishes the actual pat-
tern of branching-which may be different from the inferred
pattern (Figure 5.2)-and then names the various groups that
result from this pattern. Debate continues over which method
most accurately reflects biological reality, but that is beyond the
scope of this book. Here we will use a phenetic taxonomy of
the primates because it best captures the focus on adaptation
that we are employing.
Kingdom Animalia
Ingestion
Movement
Sense organs
ChordataPhylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Internal skeletons
Mammalia
Hair
Warm-blooded
Live birth
Mammary glands
Active and intelligent
Primates
Arboreal
Developed vision
Grasping hands
Large brains
Hominidae
Habitual bipeds
Homa
Toolmaking
Omnivore
sapiens
Brain size
1,000-2,000 ml
TABLE 5.1 Linnaean Taxonomy of Five Familiar Species
Human Chimpanzee Bonobo Gorilla Orangutan
Kingdom Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia
Phylum Chordata Chordata Chordata Chordata Chordata
Class Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia
Order Primates Primates Primates Primates Primates
Family Hominidae Pongidae Pongidae Pongidae Pongidae
Genus Homo Pon Pon GOrilla Pongo
Species sop.ens troglodytes paniscus gorilla pygmaeus

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature 101
Hominidae
~Human
Pongidae
r:,C::h-C;m-p–::Bo-n-o-Cb-o–~::-O-‘::ill-C’—O;::-,,-n-gu-ta~n’
Different /
species
Different .>
genera
Different .-/ I
families
Chimp Bonobo Human Gorilla Orangutan
I
A Primate Taxonomy
Now, let’s look at a family tree for the primates (Figure 5.3). Notice that
we’ve had to add categories-in this case, suborder and infraorder.
We do this to better capture the various actual relationships among
organisms. (As an extreme example, look at a taxonomy for insects-it’s
even more complex.)
Members of the primate order come in two basic types, the two
suhorders Prosimii and Anthropoidea. The latter suborder has a major
FIGURE 5.1
Evolutionary tree based
on phenetic analysis. We
infer the evolutionary
relationships from the
taxonomic classifications
FIGURE 5.2
A tree that is closer to the
actual order of branching,
Note that the categories
of “ape” and “human”
disappear here.

102 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Order Primates
I
I I
Suborder Proslmf Anthropoidea
I I~ I
Infraorder (3) Cararrhln! Platyrrhini
I I I II
Superfamily (3) Cercopithecoidea Hominoidea Ceboidea
I I I I ~I
Family (6) Cercopithecidae Hylobatidae Pongidae Hominidae Callitrichidae Cebidae
I I I I I
,
I I
Lemur Langur Gibbon Orangutan Human Marmoset Howler monkey
Indri Macaque Siamang Chimpanzee Tamarin Squirrel monkey
Aye-aye Baboon Bonoba Spider monkey
Loris Proboscis monkey Gorilla
~ ,….
) \ I I’—-r—‘ ‘ , , ,
Common
Species
Prosimians OldWorld Monkeys Apes New World Monkeys
FIGURE 5.3
A primate taxonomy. The
numbers in parentheses
refer to the number of
groups in that category. division along geographic lines (Figure 5.4): some of these primates,
Platyrrhini, inhabit the New World (Central and South America), and the
rest, Catarrhini, live in the Old World (Europe, Africa, and Asia). Humans
are Old World primates, because that is where our ancestors first evolved
and where our evolutiouary line has lived for 99 percent of our history.
Such a major geographical separation is of obvious evolutionary impor-
tance, and thus taxonomic categories must reflect it. Finally, there are
groups of families that arrange themselves into larger categories, called
superfamilies, based on some shared adaptive characteristics.
Figure 5.3 doesn’t include genus and species names for the sake of
simplicity. It lists some common names of a few examples in each fam-
ily. There are, as noted, 200 to 300 living species of primates, classified
into about 60 genera. These are not evenly distributed. Family
Cercopithecidae has about 15 genera, while Hominidae has only one
genus, us, of course, genus Homo, the hominids.
Now that you understand the mechanics of the taxonomy, let’s
move to the primates and the definitions of some of those primate
taxonomic categories.
hominids Modern humans
and African apes and their
direct ancestors.

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature 103
III New World Monkeys
D Old World Monkeys
~ Prostmfans
~ Apes (including gibbons)
INTO THE TREES
FIGURE 5.4
Distribution of the living
nonhuman primates.
The organization of the anthropoid Quadrumana [four-footed apes]
justifies the naturalist in placing them at the head of brute creation,
and placing them in a position in which they, of all the animal
series, shall be nearest to man.
That statement appeared in the December 1847 issue of the Boston
Journal of Natural History in an article containing the first scientific
description of a gorilla. What is interesting is that even twelve years
before Darwin’s Origin of Species, scientists recognized the similarity
between humans and the apes. In fact, that recognition had been for-
malized by Linnaeus a hundred years before, when he placed both
humans and the apes and monkeys in the same order, Primates.
So just what is a primate? Why are humans included in this group?
How are humans similar to the other primates? In what ways are we
different’
Primates are members of kingdom Animalia. We have sense organs
and nervous systems, we ingest our food, and we are capable of inten-
tional movement.
Primates are members of phylum Chordata because we have a bony
spine, the evolutionary descendant of a notochord, a long cartilaginous
rod running down the back to support the body and protect the spinal
chord. Chordates with a bony spine are grouped into a subphylum,
Vertebrata. All the species in Table 5.1 are vertebrates.

104 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
“~nocturnal Active at night.
stereoscopic Three-
dimensional vision: depth
perception.
Primates are mammals because they have hair, can maintain a con-
stant body temperature (commonly called “warm-blooded”), give birth to
live young and nourish their young with milk from mammary glands (the
characteristic that Linnaeus used to name the group), have an extended
period of parental care, and have relatively large, complex brains.
Notice that the items on this list are not exclusive to mammals. Birds
are also warm-blooded, as are, believe it or not, great white sharks. This
trait has also been attributed to some dinosaurs. Some sharks, some bony
fishes (like my swordtails), and some snakes give birth to live young. At
the same time, some mammals lack this important mammalian trait; the
duckbill platypus and the spiny anteater, both from Australia, lay eggs.
But otherwise, these two are perfectly good mammals, while snakes,
dinosaurs, and birds are not. Only mammals possess that list of traits
indicating a certain general type of adaptation.
Class Mammalia contains about nineteen existing orders, including
bats (which make up one-quarter of all mammalian species); whales and
dolphins; seals, sea lions, and walruses; two orders of hoofed mammals;
rabbits and hares; rodents; meat eaters; insect eaters; the pouched marsu-
pials; and a group of large-brained tree dwellers with three-dimensional
vision and dexterous hands. These are the primates.
The Primate Traits
Comprising 200 to 300 species, the living primates exhibit a great deal
of variation in anatomical and behavioral features. Using the following
categories, however, we can make some generalizations and point out
some of the range of variation.
1. The Brain. The two words that describe the primate brain are
large and complex. Large is used in a relative sense. A sperm whale,
for example, has a brain that weighs 20 pounds and is ten times the
size of the average human’s. A sperm whale’s body, however, is over
five hundred times larger than ours. Humans have bigger brains than
a whale relative to the size of our bodies. Larger relative brain size is
true of the primates in general.
In addition, the primate brain is complex, especially in the neocor-
tex, the part of the brain responsible for memory, abstract thought,
problem solving, and attentiveness (Figure 5.5). In short, primates are
intelligent, which may be defined as the relative ability to acquire, store,
retrieve, and process information.
2. Vision. Vision is primates’ predominant sense. Most primates in
suborder Anthropoidea see in color. The prosimians, members of the
other primate suborder, generally do not see colors; most of them are
nocturnal (Figure 5.6). All primates, however, have stereoscopic vision;
that is, they have true depth perception, made possible because the eyes
face forward and see the same scene from a slightly different angle.

CHAPTER 5 OUf Place in Nature 105
Frontal lobe
Control of reasoning,
emotion, speech,
movement
Motor cortex
Control of voluntary muscles
FIGURE 5.5
The human brain and its
major parts and their func-
tions’ The lobes and the
motor cortex are all part
of the neocortex.
Parietal/abe
Touch and taste
Associations between
senses and memory
Occipital lobe
Vision
Cerebellum
Coordination
of movement
Learning of
motor skills
Temporal/abe
Sound, language
lL_–Medulla
Control of respiration, heart rate
FIGURE 5.6
The southern lesser bush-baby, or galago,a prosimian primate from Africa. Note the large eyes; large, mobile ears; and moist.
naked nose-all adaptations to a nocturnal way of life.

106 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 5.7
Stereoscopic vision, The
fields of vision overlap,
and the optic nerve from
each eye travels to both
hemispheres of the brain
The result is true depth
perception
diurnal Active during the
day.
prehensile Having the abil-
ity to grasp, especially by
wrapping the hand or foot
around an object
opposability The ability to
touch the thumb to the tips
of the other fingers on the
same hand.
/F”-\-1;\— Optic nerve
Left hemisphere -1-‘-
of brain
–‘I- Right hemisphere
of brain
–==-__ -=o~ Visual cortex,
When processed by the brain, this becomes true three-dimensional
vision (Figure 5.7). The delicate nerves and muscles of the primate eyes
are enclosed and protected within bony sockets. The area of the brain
that processes vision, the occipital lobe, is greatly expanded in primates
over most other mammals.
3. The Face. Primates’ faces, as viewed from the side, are rela-
tively flat. Most lack the long, protruding snout of a horse or a dog.
As such, primates have a relatively reduced sense of smell. Primates
have traded smell for sight. There is, however, some variation here:
most nocturnal prosimians have a better sense of smell than the
diurnal primates. This is reflected by their moist, naked outer nose
(see Figure 5.6), as dogs and cats have. Primates tend to have a smaller
number of teeth than other mammals and a more generalized denti-
tion; that is, they are geared toward a variety of foods rather than
just one type (Figure 5.8).
4. The Hands and Feet. Besides stereoscopic vision, the second
notable trait of the primates is the grasping ability of their hands and,
in many primates, feet. Grasping hands and feet are said to be prehen-
sile. The hands of primates also have opposability, that is, the thumb
can touch, or “oppose,” the other fingers on the same hand. There is
variation in the dexterity of the hands, but these traits still apply in
general to our order. Primates also have nails instead of claws on the
tips of their fingers and toes, although some pro simians have retained
a grooming claw on a couple of fingers or toes, which is used for
cleaning or acquiring food (Figure 5.9).

CHAPTER 5 OUf Place in Nature 107
FIGURE 5.8
The generalized primate
dentition, here in a De
Brazza’s monkey from
Africa. The different
tooth forms allow the
processing of a variety
of foods. As in humans,
all Old World monkeys
and apes have two
mctsors, one canine,
two premolars, and
three molars in each
quadrant of the mouth
New World monkeys
and prosimians have
three premolars in each
quadrant.
FIGURE 5.9
The slender loris from
India and Sri Lanka,
another nocturnal
prosimian. The primate
prehensile hands and
feet are clearly visible.
Note also the grooming
claw, a prosimian trait, on
the toe in the upper
part of the picture,

108 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 5.10
A tufted. or brown. capuchin
monkey from South America.
breaking open dead twigs in
search of insects. He is
gaining extra support from
his prehensile tail, which has
a hairless patch of skin on
the inside surface to
enhance friction.
brachiating Moving using
arm-aver-arm swinging.
quadrupedal Walking on all
fours
bipedal Walking on two
legs.
dependency Here, the
period after birth during
which offspring require the
care of adults to survive.
Some species of New World monkeys have a fifth grasping organ,
a prehensile tail. Monkeys hanging by their tails have become a
stereotyped image of this group of primates, but this is not a general
primate trait (Figure 5.10).
5. The Limbs. The arms and legs of primates are characterized by
great flexibility. The acrobatics of a brachiating gibbon or the grace and
power of a gymnast on the rings or uneven parallel bars clearly demon-
strate this. For primates that clamber about in the trees using both
hands and grasping feet, the legs as well are strong and flexible (Figure
5.11). To help support the stresses placed on the arms and shoulders,
primates have a well-developed clavicle, or collarbone, that acts as a
brace between the shoulder girdle and center of the body. (Feel your
own as a perfect example.)
Nearly all primates are quadrupedal, that is, their locomotion uses
all four limbs, either on the ground or in the trees. Many primates can
also stand or even walk on two legs for brief periods, a locomotion
pattern called bipedal (Figure 5.12).
6. Reproduction. Most primate species give birth to one offspring
at a time, though some of the South American monkeys and some of
the Madagascar lemurs normally produce twins and triplets. As is
typical of mammals, primate parents (only the mothers in most spe-
cies) take an active role in protecting, nurturing, and socializing their
young (Figure 5.13). Because of their large, complex brains and
because of the importance of learning, young primates are dependent
on adults for a long time; just how long depends on the size of the
species. The primates, relative to size, have the longest period of
dependency of any mammal.

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature 109
7. Behavior Patterns. Mosr primate species live in groups. So do
many organisms, but primates are different because they recognize
individuals. A primate group is made up of the collective relationships
among all individuals who are members. As physical evidence of this,
primates are among the most colorful of mammals, and most of the
color patterns appear on their faces. One primate species even pur-
posely enhances the colors on its face (see Figure 7.7). So the attention
of one primate to another is drawn to the face, to the primate’s iden-
tity as an individual.
In some primates, each individual may have a rather specific status
within the group. Some have more social power and influence than
FIGURE 5.11
White-handed gibbon from
Southeast Asia suspended
by one arm, Notice the
long, hooklike fingers and
the grasping feet.

110 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 5.12
A bonobo standing bipedally:
He is collecting and carrying
stalks of sugarcane in his
hands, now freed from
locomotor activities,
dominance hierarchy Social
ranking based on individual
differences
others. They are said to be dominant, and a structure based on the
relative power and influence of a group’s individuals is called a
dominance hierarchy.
Primates maintain their social groups through communication. They
have large repertoires of vocalizations, facial expressions, and body
gestures. Touch is also an important form of communication and often

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature III
takes the form of grooming, an activity that serves the practical purpose
of removing dirt and parasites but also acts as a means of reassurance
to maintain group harmony and unity (Figure 5.14).
Given this general set of characteristics, and keeping with our theme
of adaptation, what can we say about the adaptation of the primate
FIGURE 5.13
A gorilla female and her
young. Primates have an ex-
tended period of de-
pendency, and thus parents
(usually the mothers) take
an active and long-term role
in the care and nurturing of
their offspring.
FIGURE 5.14
Chimps grooming, an activity
that rids them of dirt and
parasites and, more import-
ant, helps maintain group
unity and harmony.
grooming Cleaning the fur
of another animal, which
promotes social cohesion.

I 12 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
TABLE 5.3 The Features of the Human Primate
Brain Vision Face Hands/Feet Limbs Reproduction Behavior
1,000-2,000 ml As in
anthropoids
Flat No prehensile
feet
Most dexterous
hands
Arms most
flexible
Habitual
bipedalism
3 times expected
size
Longest period
of dependency
Differences in
sexuality”
Culture
“See Chapter 7.
order? The basic primate environment is arboreal-adapted to life in the
trees. To be sure, several species-gorillas and baboons-spend more
time on the ground, and we humans are thoroughly terrestrial. But most
primates spend most of their time in the trees, and the primate traits we
just described all evolved as responses to an arboreal environment. Even
the partially and completely terrestrial primates possess features that are
variations on this arboreal theme. Thus,
A primate is a mammal adapted to an arboreal environment
through well-developed vision, manual dexterity, and large,
complex brains that rely on learned behavior. The latter is aided
by the birth of few offspring and the direct and extensive care of
those offspring during a long period of dependency while they are
socialized into groups based on differential relationships among
individuals.
The Human Primate
Each species of primate has its own version of the basic primate adaptive
theme. What is ours? Let’s repeat the seven categories we used above
(Table 5.3).
‘” ‘t'” “-,,”v: ~~”.-“.’.;.p
~A s:»,..~:A..;A, A
1. The Brain. The human brain is the largest primate brain, both
absolutely and relatively. Brains are measured in cubic centimeters (cc)
or milliliters (ml). The brain of an average gorilla, the largest living
primate, is about 500 ml (about the size of one and a half cans of soda).
The average human brain is 1,450 ml. In fact, humans have brains three
times the size one would predict for a primate of our body weight.
Thus, based on our definition of intelligence, we are clearly the most
intelligent of the primates.
2. Vision. Human eyes are typical for diurnal primates. The world
we see is the same as that viewed by monkeys and apes.
3. The Face. The human face is among the flattest of primate
faces, and human teeth are among the most generalized for processing
a variety of foods. Our sense of smell is probably about the same as
that of the anthropoid primates.
arboreal Adapted to life in
the trees.

CHAPTER 5 Our Place in Nature 113
4. The Hands and Feet. The human hand has the longest thumb and
thus the most opposability and most precise grip. Our manual dexterity,
also involving enlarged areas of the brain, is the greatest of any primate.
Our feet, of course, have no prehensile ability whatever because we use
them for walking on the ground.
5. The Limbs. Human arms are the most flexible among the
primates, being entirely freed from locomotor activities and therefore
available for a multitude of other purposes. Our legs are less flexible
but are longer and stronger than our arms. All this is because humans
are habitually bipedal, the only primate with this locomotor behav-
ior. In fact, bipedalism was the first human characteristic to evolve
(see Chapter 6).
6. Reproduction. Humans normally give birth to a single offspring
(twins occur in about 1 of every 250 births). Of all the primates, our
young take the longest time to mature and so have the longest period
of dependency. Chimps, for example, reach sexual maturity in nine
years and physical maturity in twelve; for humans, the averages are
thirteen and twenty-one. We are born far more helpless than most other
primates. In addition, there are important differences in our sexual
behaviors, which we will take up in Chapter 7.
7. Behavior Patterns. Like most Old World primates, humans live
in societies that are based on the collective conscious responses of a
group of individuals. The difference is that our groups are structured
and maintained by cultural values-ideas, rules, and behavioral norms
that we have created and shared through a complex communication
system, the topic of Chapter 11 (Figure 5.15).
In the next chapter we will take a look at how our rather odd
terrestrial, bipedal, big-brained version of the primate adaptive
theme evolved.
SUMMARY
Using the taxonomic system created by Linnaeus
in the eighteenth century for classifying living
organisms, we may see humans as animals, ver-
tebrates, mammals, and, most important, pri-
mates. Primates may be generally defined as
large-brained, tree-dwelling mammals with
three-dimensional vision and grasping hands
that produce few offspring at a time but take
extended and direct care of those off-spring,
preparing them to live in groups.
Like each of the existing primate species,
the human primate exhibits its own unique
version of the primate theme. Humans have
extremely large brains with the ability to create
cultures with complex symbolic communica-
tion systems, are completely terrestrial, and,
unlike all other primates, are habitually bipedal.
We also display some differences in our sexual
behaviors that are connected to these other
characteristics.

114 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 5.15
Renaissance engraving by
Albrecht Durer of the
expulsion of Adam and Eve
from the Garden of Eden.
This engraving shows our
species’ general physical
features, the differences
between the sexes, and
the importance of
symbolic meaning,
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT
I. All living species have evolved from common ancestors that might have looked qurte different. Birds
have evolved from dinosaurs. Humans evolved from apes. But does this mean the cardinal at your
feeder is a dinosaur? Are humans apes? How far can we take such categories in our popular
nomenclature? Do categories that reflect evolutionary history violate reality?
2. The term animal rights is often interpreted to mean that advocates suggest such things as giving
chimpanzees the right to vote! This, of course, is ridiculous, but what sorts of rights do you think are
reasonable? Do these rights apply to all non humans equally?What. criteria might be used for dispensing
rights to different groups of nonhumans? How might rights be applied in some real-world circumstances?

CHAPTER 5 OUf Place in Nature 115
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Should Nonhuman Primates Have Rights?
This question concems one of today’s most con-
tentious issues:Do animals share with us any of
our basic rights,and do they, consequently,deserve
considerations equal to those accorded humans?
Opinions on this issuevary enonnously. Some
animal-rights advocates endorse the view that we
should not consider animals as property and so
should treat them as Independent, autonomous
individuals and not in any way exploit them. A
letter to my local newspaper represents the other
extreme. The writer claimed that animals lack
souls and brains and that God put animals on
earth, among other reasons,to entertain people at
circusesand provide fur coats for women so
“men’s spirits would be uplifted” seeingthem.
Ideas on the subject vary even more when put
into actual practice. Many supporters of some
form of animal rights adamantly refuse to eat
mammals or birds but continue to eat seafood-
apparently drawing some sort of ethical line
between wamn-blooded and cold-blooded crea-
tures. Many who are sickened at the Sightof a fur
coat still wear leather shoes.Hunters easily justify
killing wild creatures for sport while, at the same
time, treating their hunting dogs as members of
the family, Veterinary researchers, interested in
promoting the health of animals In general,Will
subject some animals to experimentation and
surgery, Clearly,this is a complicated issue involv-
Ingmany aspects of a thinking person’s moral,
emotional, and material life.
The question is perhaps most profound and in-
tense with regard to our closest relatives,the non-
human primates, especiallythe apes.These species
have always struck us as being very much like our
own, probably because,aswe’ve learned in recent
years,we share with some apes the vast rnaiority
of our genes.The chimpanzee, bonobo, and human
share a recent common ancestor.Only 5 million
years ago,we and they were the same creature.
Some have claimed that this genetic closeness
itself makes obvious the need to extend basic
human rights to apes. But this brings up the
problem of where to draw the line. Is there a
line’ Chimps and humans are by one measure
985 percent genetically similar The orangutan
shares about 96 percent of our genetic material
by the same measure. Is that enough dissimilarity
to warrant domg things to orangs that we would
not do to a human?What about monkeys, which
are even lessgenetically similar?or prosimians?
or nonprimates?
The detailed genetic data are, in fact, not rele-
vant to this issue,but there are relevant differences
as well as similaritiesthat can be considered.
Indeed,the intellectual differences between the
apes and us are certainly relevant in some regards.
No one, for example, would seriously suggest
giving bonobos the right to vote. Yet we must
take into account our physiologicalsimilarities.
Experimenting on an ape isthe same as experi-
menting on a human in terms of physicaland
emotional stressand pain. The reason apes are
used ashuman surrogates inmedical experiments-
their extreme similarity to us-is the very reason
we might consider not so usingthem. What we
know factually about the anatomy,physiology,and
behavior of apes supports such a view.
Many people (me included) constantly strug-
gle with the emotional, philosophical, and practi-
cal questions involved in this issue.Even those
who agree that some human rights should be
extended to apes and other animals must still
cope with such moral matters as balancing our
needs against theirs in such areas as medical
research, habitat destruction, and a diet that in-
cludes meat. But—-€specially after considering
the question from the point of view of our clos-
est biological relatives-the one thing we cannot
do is ignore this issue.

I 16 PARTTwo The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
An excellent book on the primates is Noel Rowe’s
The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates, a beauti-
fully illustrated, up-to-date, and informative refer-
ence to all living primate species. A collection of
articles covering primate taxonomy, evolution, be-
havior, and conservation is Primates in Perspective,
edited by Christina Campbell, Agustin Fuentes,
Katherine MacKinnon, Melissa Panger, and Simon
Bearder.
A comprehensive and readable book comparing
humans with other primates is Richard Passingham’s
The Human Primate.
For more on the behavior of our closest primate
relatives, see Jane Goodall’s Through a Window: My
Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gornbe, Dian
Fossey’s Gorillas in the Mist, Birute Galdikas’s Re-
{lections of Eden: My Years with the Orangutans of
Borneo, and Frans deWaal’s Bonoho: The Forgotten
Ape, featuring Frans Lanting’s wonderful photos.
For more on some taxonomic considerations-
and the topic of the first question above-see Jonathan
Marks’s What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee,
especiallychapter 2.
Some good references regarding the “Con-
temporary Issues” topic of animal rights are Created
from Animals, by James Rachels; Animal Rights and
Human Morality, by Bernard Rollin; Animal Experi-
mentation: The Moral Issues, edited by Robert Baird
and Stuart Rosenbaum; and, focusing on the apes,
The Great Ape Project, edited by Paola Cavalieri
and Peter Singer. For a slightly different take, see
“Save the Apes from the Ape Rights Activists!”
by Jonathan Marks III the December 2006
Anthropology News. /

EVOLUTION
The Bipedal, Large-Brained Primate
CHAPTER CONTENTS Out of the Trees • Around the World • Summary • Contemporary Issues: How
Many “Kinds” of Humans Have There Been? • Questions for Further Thought· Notes, References, and Readings
117

I 18 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Clearly, the feature that distinguishes humans from our closest rela-tives, the African apes, is our big brain-three times the size, on
average, of theirs and three times the size that one would expect for
a primate of our body mass. This fad led the earliest seekers of human
fossils, in the nineteenth century, to assume that the big brain was the
first human trait to evolve and that the first human fossils would be,
essentially, apes with big brains. Exploiting this expectation, a famous
fraud was committed in Piltdown, England, in the early years of the
twentieth century, when someone buried the jaw of an orangutan and
some cranial bones of a modern human. The bones were then “discov-
ered” and, because they fit the expectation, were named “Eoanthro-
pus,” the “dawn man,” and were fairly well accepted. Only forty years
later was Piltdown Man shown to be a fake.
In the meantime, however, many real fos;,ls from Africa showed
that another characteristic human trait was the first to evolve. This was
our habitual upright stance, our bipedal posture and locomotion. Though
the details are still under Investigation, it’s clear that bipedalism preceded
the enlargement of the hominid brain by millions of years. The evolution
of bipedalism and how it set the stage for the evolution of the large-
brained primate are the topics of this chapter
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. What do we know about the evolutionary history of the pri-
mates in general)
2. When and under what circumstances do we think the evolution
of the hominids began) Specifically,why did bipedalism evolve?
3. What do we currently know about the evolution of the hominids,
particularly the members of our genus, Homo, the large-brained
primate)
OUT OF THE TREES
Primate Evolution
Fossils representing the precursors of the primates may go back before
the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago (mya). Some
primatelike teeth and bones found in Montana and Wyoming are dated

from 65 to 60 mya, but the first undisputed primates appear about
55 mya. Their fossils are found in North America, Europe, Asia, and
Africa, continents that at that time were in different geographic posi-
tions than they are today (Figure 6.1).
These early primates, despite the primate arboreal theme, may not
themselves have been arboreal. Rather, the primate hallmarks of pre-
hensile hands and feet and stereoscopic vision may have evolved to aid
in leaping through dense undergrowth and to promote fruit eating and
the hunting of insects. As the primates continued to evolve, these basic
traits proved a useful adaptive response to a more generalized life in
the trees (and even, of course, set the stage for one group of terrestrial
bipedal primates).
It appears the earliest primates comprised three groups, one
becoming extinct (Figure 6.2). By 40 mya, early monkeys appeared
in the Old World. They expanded and began to outcompere the
earlier prosimians, pushing them into marginal areas. Most prosimians
now live-as endangered species-on the island of Madagascar (see
Figure 5.4).
Later the Eastern and Western Hemispheres (the New World and
Old World) became completely separate (see Figure 6.1), dividing the
early primates into two geographical groups. Apes appear in the fossil
record about 23 mya. At first they were monkey like but with a few
anatomical details that foreshadowed later, more typical apes’ larger
bodies and larger brains, and no tails. Between 23 and 5 mya, there
were an estimated thirty or more types of apes throughout Europe,
Africa, and Asia. .
We are most interested in the early African apes because it is from
one of them that the hominids evolved. Unfortunately, the fossil record
of the African apes is scanty until about 7 my a when we find the pos-
sible first hominids. The early horninids can be exemplified by one of
the most famous hominid fossils, popularly known as Lucy, found in
Ethiopia and dated to 3.2 my a (Figure 6.3).
Lucy (named after the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,”
which was playing the night her discoverers examined her skeleton)
is remarkable because, as old as her fossilized bones are, she is
40 percent complete, with all parts of the body, except the cranium,
well represented. Lucy was a female who stood about 3 feet 8 inches
and weighed around 65 pounds. She and other members of her species
(over 300 specimens have been found so far, representing individuals
of both sexes) had the brain size of a chimpanzee and in many
respects resembled chimps. Their faces jutted forward, a trait called
prognathism, and their canine teeth were pointed like an ape’s. There
is, in some individuals, the hint of a bony crest running along the
top of the skull from front to back for the attachment of a major
chewing muscle. Gorillas have such crests. The arms were proportionately
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 119
More than 200 mya
FIGURE 6.1
The relative position of the
continents over the past 200
million years. Continental drift
occurs as the motion of the
molten rock in the interior of
the earth causes the individ-
ual plates that make up the
earth’s crust to change shape
and location. This in turn
causes the ccotinents-s-those
parts of the crust that pro-
trude above sea level–to shift.
prognathism The jutting for-
ward of the lower face and
Jaw area.

120 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Present
1.7
Late
Cretaceous period
Pleistocene
Pliocene
5
Miocene
24
~ Oligocene
e
~
e
~ 36
:E
Eocene
55
Paleocene
65
FIGURE 6.2
Simplified evolutionary tree
for the primates, with major
geological epochs and dates,
Question marks and dashed
lines indicate insufficient
data to establish evolution-
ary relationships. This tree
represents one of several
possible interpretations.
Euprimates (primates of modern aspect)
Hominoids
Lemurs,
Lorises Tarsiers
NewWorld
monkeys
Old World
monkeys
r, ——–~——-~,
Orangutan Gorilla Chimp Bonobo Human
Aegyptopithecus
-Adapidae Omomyidae •
” • – .. ~ Plesiadapiformes
” / (archaic primates)
“1. __————” .”. .–“. .
“. It
Primate stock
longer rhan in modern humans and the legs relatively shorter. The
bones of the arms and shoulders show evidence of heavy musculature.
The hands and feet are long and show curvature of the finger and
toe bones.
But Lucy and her kin walked bipedally. The bones of the pelvis
and legs clearly show this, as does the large hole in the base of the
skull from which the spinal cord emerges and around which the top
of the spine attaches. This hole is located underneath the skull, rather
than in back, and thus indicates a creature that faced forward while
its spine dropped straight down. Lucy is therefore considered a

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 121
member of family Hominidae, traditionally the only primate group
that is habitually bipedal.
The Evolution of Bipedalism
So, bipedalism was the first hominid feature to evolve-millions of
years before our big brains. This leads us to question, then, why
bipedalism first evolved. What environmental circumstances would
FIGURE 6.3
A reconstruction of the
3.2-mlllion-year-old skeleton
of Lucy (technically
Austrolopithecus oforen sis),
the most complete early
hominid fossil found to date.
Her pelvis and leg bones are
those of a biped, but other-
wise she was quite apelike
(see Figure 6,7).

122 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.4
The climatic zones of Africa
today, except for the large
deserts of the north and
south, were similar when
hominid evolution began
5 mya.
savannas The open grass-
lands of the tropics,
…… /
c::=J Temperate zone
c:=J Mountains
c=J Desert
c=J Savanna and tropical
deciduous forest
.. Rain forest
have selected for that form of locomotion while leaving the other
apelike traits pretty much intact?
The Benefits of Bipedalism Early hominid fossils, found in eastern
and southern Africa, have long been linked to the savannas-the open
plains of central and southern Africa (Figure 6.4) that began expand-
ing because of climatic changes about 5 mya. In that environment, it
is hypothesized, bipedalism served four functions. First, and probably
most important, it freed the forelimbs to carry things, including off-
spring and food. Second, by elevating the head, bipedalism aided early
hominids’ ability to find food and see danger. Third, the vertical ori-
entation helped cool the body by exposing a smaller surface area to
the intense equatorial rays of the sun and by placing mote of the body
above the ground to catch cooling air currents. Fourth, bipedalism,
although requiring a great deal of energy for running, was very

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 123
efficient and required less energy for long periods of steady walking.
With food less concentrated on the open plains and with dangerous
animals around eager to make a meal out of a small primate, the
ability to search for food while possibly carrying one’s offspring and
to carry the food back to a safe location would certainly have bene-
fited early hominids.
Two Problems First, if you look back to Figure 5.12, you see that
bono bas, one of our two closest relatives, are at least occasionally bipedal
and that they live in very dense forests, not vast, open savannas. Notice,
too, that the bonobo in the photograph is carrying something.
Second, recent analyses have shown that some of the earliest
hominid fossils are from creatures who resided in forests and not on
the open plains. And other research has indicated that there was no
abrupt change in ancient East Africa from forest to savanna; instead,
the change resulted in a mixture (or mosaic) of forest and open areas.
Moreover, climatic changes were taking place, beginning 5 mya, in an
increasing range of variation, from cool to hot and moist to dry. This
led to great fluctuations in water and vegetation.
In conclusion, then, it seems that the evolution of bipedalism-
with the retention of long, strong arms and powerful shoulders-was
an adaptation to living in an environment of both arboreal and terres-
trial settings, giving our earliest ancestors great adaptive flexibility. As
we will see, when the open plains later became the hominids’ main
habitat, arboreal adaptations disappeared and bipedalism became our
adaptive focus.
The Early Hominids
Beginning with the first evidence of habitual bipedalism, perhaps 7
to 6 mya, the hominid fossil record becomes more complete and more
complex. Although there is much information, there is really no
agreement on how it all goes together. Especially at issue is the ques-
tion of just how many species of early hominids there were. Some
paleoanthropologists (called lumpers) group fossils together into a
small number of species. Others (called splitters) emphasize the dif-
ferences among fossil specimens. It is beyond the scope of this book
to cover all the details of the debate, but Figure 6.5 will give you an
idea of the maximum number of potential early hominid species cur-
rently recognized.
The Earliest Possible Hominids There are several candidates for “first
hominid,” depending 00 one’s interpretation of the existing data. (Figure
6.6 maps the important fossil sites in Africa.) These are the genera to
the left in Figure 6.5: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus. The

124 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
7 my a 6 my a
Orrorin tugenensis
5 my a 2 my a I my a4 my a 3 my a
……………!•••
P. robustus
Poronthropus
oethiopicus •
Ard. romidus•
Sohe/onthropus
tchodensis
Ardipithecus
romidus kodobbo
FIGURE 6.5
The maximum number of
early hominid species that
have been suggested by
some authorities, Others
lump some of these together
or reject some as hominids.
(When a genus name has
been established, it may be
abbreviated, Thus Ard
stands for Ardipithecus,and
A for Austrolopithecus.)
Some of these forms are
discussed in the text.
P. boise;
Australopithecus anomensis- A. sedibo-A. a(arensis
••••••! ~~.
A.o(riconus
A. bahrelghozolia-
•Kenyanthropus
platyops
•A. garhi
Homo
first two are still controversial at the moment, with some evidence for
bipedalism, but their identity as hom in ids is not well agreed upon by
all authorities. Aridipithecus is clearly a biped, and its place in the
human family tree is fairly well established.
But consider this possibility: Perhaps all hominids were bipeds
but not all bipeds were necessarily hominids. Given the association
of bipedalism with a mixed adaptation to a mixed environment,
perhaps it evolved, to varying degrees, more than once but persisted
only in the line that led to us. Perhaps, then, those early forms are
bipedal apes, and are not on our evolutionary branch, as is com-
monly supposed. One of them is probably a direct ancestor, but not
all of them. As we’ll see later on, bipedalism comes in different
expressions, and the type of bipedalism associated with our genus,
Homo, is distinct.
More Definite Hominids The earliest ioell-accepted hominid fossils
are placed in genus Australopithecus (“southern ape”) and are often
divided into as many as six species. The famous Lucy belongs to this
group. Australopithecus fossils have been found in Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania, Chad, and South Africa and are dated at 4.2 to 2.3 mya.
Their bones allowed full upright walking, but their face was apelike,

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 125
2.S0 500 7S0 1.000 Mile’
I ‘I I’ I I !
iso 500 750 1,000 Kilome.ers
their brain size approximated that of the chimpanzee (around 450 ml),
they weighed an average of 105 pounds, and their arms were long and
heavily muscled (Figure 6.7). They were probably well adapted to both
arboreal and terrestrial environments, and microscopic analysis of their
teeth indicates a mixed-vegetable diet of fruits and leaves. Australo-
pithecus remains the best candidate for the ancestor of later hominids
(Figure 6.8).
Around 3 mya there is evidence of a drying trend in Africa that
caused further decline of the forests and an expansion of the savannas.
The fossil record shows two responses to this environmental change.
FIGURE 6.6
Map of major early
hominid sites.

126 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.8
A generalized evolutionary
tree for the early hominids.
There are at least six spe-
cific models that differ in
number of genera, number
of species for each genus,
and precise evolutionary
relationships. Most of them,
however; are versions of this
basic model.
FIGURE 6.7
A reconstruction of an
australopithecine pair, from
a display at the American
Museum of Natural History
in New York. These figures
are based on analyses of
the remains of members
of Lucy’s species (see Fig-
ure 6.3). Note the re-
tention of apelike physical
features combined with
complete bipedalism,
4 my a 3 my a 2 my a
Paranthropus
I my a Present
_”!,,.A.U.’t.m .. ,~oP”i.th.”’CU..s__ L
—–……. _.E., ..”ly.H.o.m.o _•••• Other Homo stages•…………….. ~

One comes in the form of the so-called robust early hominids, placed
by many scientists in their own genus, Paranthropus (“nearly human”).
As many as three species have been recognized. Their fossils have
been found in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa and are
dated at 2.8 to 1 mya. The word robust applies not to body size or
shape. In these features and their brain size they resemble Australo-
pithecus. Instead, robust refers to all the features involved in chewing
(Figure 6.9). Robust species have crests along the top of the skull for
the attachment of important chewing muscles; broad, dished-out
faces; large cheekbones; huge lower jaws; and large back teeth. These
traits all point to a diet of large amounts of vegetable matter with
an emphasis on hard, tough, gritty items such as seeds, nuts, hard
fruits, roots, and tubers-the kinds of foods more likely to be found
in open areas. Microscopic analysis of tooth wear confirms this. The
genus’s main adaptation seems to have been to the open plains,
achieved by the evolution of chewing features adapted to the kinds
of plant foods found there.
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 127
FIGURE 6.9
An example of a robust:
early hominid often included
in genus Poronthropus, Note
the large crest on top of
the skull for the attachment
of chewing muscles, as well
as the large cheekbones
and the broad, dished-out
face-all evidence of a diet
of tough, gritty vegetable
matter. This specimen, from
Kenya, shows the most
extreme expression of
these robust traits,

128 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
The First Members of Genus Homo
There was a second evolutionary response among the hominids to the
expansion of the savannas (see Figure 6.8). This was the beginning of
the genus Homo, to which we modem humans belong. Early members
of this genus, comprising one or two species, are found in Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania, and possibly South Africa and ate dated at 2.3 to
1.2 mya. They retain the body size and possibly the long, powerful arms
of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, but the it crania show important
differences, Theit faces are much flatter, theit foreheads less sloping, and
their brains much bigger, From an average brain size of about 480 ml fat
all the other early hominids early Homo jumps to an average of 680 ml,
with a maximum of 800 (Figure 6.10). (For comparison, the modem
human range is 1,000 to 2,000 ml.) It is this evidence fat the beginning
of a trend to increased brain size that prompts us to classify these
fossils in our genus.
The First Stone Tools What were they doing with those big brains?
We can speculate that they were better able to perform intellectual
tasks-learning about their environment, altering their behaviors to fit
specific circumstances and address specific problems, manipulating
social situations, and forming more conscious and intimate relationships
with other members of their group-some of the attributes of culture
(see Chapter 4). Unfortunately, these behaviors do not leave direct
remains. We do, however, have archaeological evidence of the brain
power of early Homo in the form of the tools they made.
FIGURE 6.10
An example of early Homo
from Kenya, Note, relative
to the other early hominid
the flatter face, less sloping
forehead, more rounded
brain-case, and generally
smoother contours. The
brain of this individual is
estimated at about 775 ml.
notably larger than that
of Austrolopithecus or
Poronthropus

It is likely that the other early hominid species also made tools.
After all, chimpanzees make simple tools (see Chapter 4). The mate-
rials the chimps use, however, would not leave evidence of their use
as tools. But early hominids made tools from stone (Figure 6.11).
Stone tools last-for millions of years-and provide evidence that they
were tools.
Stone tools have been crucial to humans, serving as the major type
of tool for 99 percent of human cultural history. When they were first
invented, around 2.6 mya, stone tools reflected a jump in our ances-
tors’ conceptual and actual control over their environment. There is
nothing in an unmodified stone to suggest that sharp edges or points
can he found within it. It takes a leap of imagination to understand
this and to picture the process needed to produce’ those edges or
points-hitting the stone with another, harder stone at just the right
angle and force.
These stone tools are probably a major reason why genus Homo
persisted while the other hominid genera of Africa became extinct. And
they are important to the anthropologist because they are often the only
remnant of a past culture that is well preserved. Much of what we
know about the adaptations and movement of peoples around the
world, and of their cultural systems, is based on our analyses of their
stone artifacts. These stone tools come in an incredible array of vari-
eties over space and time. We can, however, make some generalizations
about them.
Making Stone Tools For the most part, stone tools are made of rock
that, when struck, shock waves travel through and produce a fracture
that splits off a flake. The size and shape of the flakes are determined
by how hard, with what, and at what angle the stone is struck. Flint,
or chert-a type of sedimentary rock-flakes well and was used exten-
sively for tools, as was obsidian, a volcanic glass.
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 129
FIGURE 6.11
A sample of Oldowan tools,
named after Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania, a famous fossil site.
The stone at the upper left
was used unmodified. The
two at the lower right are
flake tools. The rest are core
tools, from which flakes have
been taken off to create
sharp edges. A major use of
such tools may have been
the quick dismembering of
animal carcasses. (For scale,
the tool at the upper right
is a little larger than a
tennis ball.)

130 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
bulb of percussion A
convex surface on a flake
caused by the force used to
split the flake off. Rarely
found in a natural break
FIGURE 6.12
Flint knapping-striking a
piece of flint with a hammer
stone to fracture off a flake
of desired size and shape,
Notice the flakes on the
ground from previous strikes.
To take flakes off a cote, you have to hit the core with another
hard object, usually another stone. If that sounds simple, it’s not. One
must understand the nature of the core material and of the tool one is
striking it with (Figure 6.12). Manual dexterity is important, and prac-
tice, as always, is required for anything close to perfection.
How do we know, especially with these early, relatively simple
tools, that they are tools? Couldn’t they be rocks that were fractured
naturally? For one thing, when flint is struck hard enough to detach a
flake-something that rarely occurs by chance in nature-the blow
leaves a convex surface on the flake called the bulb of percussion.
Below this there are often concentric rings, like ripples in water, that
represent the shock waves. On the core, there is a corresponding con-
cave surface. Naturally fractured stones rarely exhibit these rings, nor
do they show a pattern of flakes. Even in some of the simplest stone
tools (see Figure 6.11), one can see the plan of the manufacturer, the
goal of creating a sharp edge or a point.
As technological skills improved, other implements were used to
gain more control over tbe shape of the flakes being removed. A piece
of bone, wood, or antler could be used to make a more precise strike

or to pressure flake the core, which meant taking off smaller flakes by
pushing the tool against the side of the stone (Figure 6.13). Later still,
two tools were sometimes used to acquire even more control-a piece
of antler or bone became a chisel when struck by a rock used like a
hammer. Finally-a feature associated with early farming societies-
stones were ground into the desired shape using a rough rock such as
sandstone to make a smoother and more durable cutting edge. This
practice also allowed people to choose tougher, coarser-grained rocks
that did not necessarily have the flaking characteristics of flint.
The Lives of Early Homo What sort of work were these tools used
for? Many of their probable uses-such as sharpening branches for
crude spears or sticks for digging up roots, or cutting plant material
for food-have left no concrete evidence. But one use has left evidence,
and it may provide the key to explain why Homo survived while the
other genera of early horninids became extinct. It appears that stone
tools allowed early Homo to better exploit a source of food that would
have entailed greater difficulty and danger-the scavenged meat and
bones from the carcasses of dead animals.
Scavenging the carcasses of large savanna ungulates (antelopes and
their kin) would have been difficult. These animals would have been
killed by dangerous predators such as lions, leopards, and cheetahs and
scavenged by dangerous meat eaters such as hyenas, jackals, and wild
dogs. The inherent danger probably made this source of food rare
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 131
FIGURE 6.13
Pressure flaking by pushing
a piece of antler against the
edge of a core tool. The
core is held in a piece of
leather to support it and to
protect the toolmaker’s hand.
pressure flake Taking a flake
off a core by pushing a
wood, bone, or antler tool
against the stone.

132 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
among early hominids until they had a means to quickly cut up a
carcass so they could then carry the parts to a safer location for further
processing and eating.
Evidence suggests that scavenging was a major use of stone tools
by early Homo. Animal bones found at early Homo sites in Tanzania
were mostly lower-leg bones of antelopes, the only parts left after a
large carnivore has finished eating. Such bones, however, are rich in
marrow. Scientists reason that early Homo cut these parts away from
the remainder of the carcass, took them to a safe location, cut off what
little meat remained, and then broke the bones open for the nutritious
marrow inside. Microscopic analysis of some of the animal bones reveals
cut marks from stone tools. Sometimes these cut marks overlie carnivore
tooth marks, showing that the carnivores had killed and scavenged the
animal first.
So it is a reasonable scenario that early Homo, in the face of
expanding savannas and shrinking forests, used stone tools-made
possible by their bigger brains-to exploit a new and reliable source
of food. There were nearly always vast herds of grass eaters around,
many of whom would die natural deaths or be killed by predators.
Stone tools made the acquisition of this food source quicker, safer, and
more efficient.
We picture, then, early Homo living in small cooperative groups,
maybe family groups, foraging on the savannas for plant foods and
always on the lookout for a large dead animal, maybe watching for a
group of scavengers gathered on the ground or a flock of vultures
circling overhead. Their big brains allowed them to better understand
their environment and to manipulate it, making imaginative and techno-
logically advanced tools from stone, which helped provide them with an
important new source of food. The adaptive themes of bipedalism, large
brains, complex social organization, and tool technology were estab-
lished in this primate evolutionary line and set the stage for the rest of
hominid evolution.
AROUND THE WORLD
The adaptations of early Homo proved so successful that hominid evo-
lution seems to accelerate about 2 mya. Within about 800,000 years of
the first evidence of stone tools in Africa, fossils of Homo are found as
far away as Georgia (the former republic of the Soviet Union), China,
and Java.
But if there is little agreement among anthropologists about the
taxonomy and relationships during the first 2.5 million years of hominid
evolution, there is even less agreement regarding the latest 2 million
years-the evolution of genus Homo. Some suggest a single species of
Homo during this time. Others see as many as ten species or more. The

2 my a I my a
I I
Present
II I
Early Homo
Homo ereaus
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 133
Archaic Homo sapiens
debate over these models is at times rather heated, because what is at
issue is the very identity of our species, Homo sapiens. Under the first
model, all the fossil hominids I’m about to describe belong to one
2-million-year-old species that displays variation over time but has always
maintained enough gene flow to remain a single species. According to
the second model, Homo sapiens is only the latest of many products
of speciation in the hominid fossil record, with all previous species now
extinct. Under this model, we are a young species-around 200,000
years old.
The details of this debate are complex and change with every new
fossil find and each new analysis. But in many ways the outcome of the
debate will not change the basic story of our genus’s adaptive evolution.
For this section, then, I will discuss the groups of fossils of our genus as
three “stages” defined by physical characteristics, geographical distribu-
tion, and behaviors. Figure 6.14 shows a generalized chart of the evolu-
tion of genus Homo.
The Homo eree/us Stage
Beginning about 1.8 mya, we find fossils in Africa representing what looks
like a fairly sudden jump in our evolution. Body size is now within the
modern human range and is essentially modern in shape (Figure 6.15).
And there is evidence of a new enhancement of bipedalism. This includes
an arch of the foot and a different attachment point of the Achilles tendon;
large gluteus (butt) muscles to stabilize the hips; muscle attachments to
keep the head steady; and modifications in the balancing mechanisms in
the ears. The focus- of all these is to facilitate endurance running, that is,
slow, steady running sustained over long distances. The adaptive signifi-
cance of this for a savanna scavenger seems clear.
From the neck up, however, the bones reveal the retention of prim-
itive features (Figure 6.16), with one notable exception. Brain size has
Anatomically modern Homo sapiens
FIGURE 6.14
The stages in the evolution
of genus Homo. There are
major disagreements as
to how many species are
represented and how they
are related to one another.
The branching pattern, in
other words, is a matter of
intense debate.

134 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.16
Cranial features of Homo
erectus compared with
those of modern Homo
sapiens, The sogitl.ol keel
refers to a sloping of the
sides of the skull toward the
top, The torus is a bony
ridge at the back of the skull
to which heavy neck muscles
are attached.
FIGURE 6.15
The Turkana Boy fossils from
Kenya, dated at 1,6 mva. It
is estimated that he was
twelve years old when he
died. He was about 5 feet
6 inches and, had he lived
to adulthood, may have
reached 6 feet and weighed
around 150 pounds,
Although his skull retains
some primrtive features, from
the neck down he was
essentially modern
—- Sagittal keel–~
Brow ridges
Prognathism
Torus Receding chin
Homo erecres
Larger brain
Vertical forehead
Protruding chin
Modern Homo sapiens

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 135
AFRICA
Pacific
Ocean
~
>fir–
t n d i a n ~ n …….~ J
o ceo n /’~’~” -Q”.,:
sang,ran}
Trinil
Nodickertc
Sambungmachan
Ngandong
\:
Atlantic
Ocean .:
,
1-I
• Fossil sites
• Archaeological sites
(without hominid bones)
FIGURE 6.17
Map of major Homo
erectus sites.
now evolved to an average of 980 ml and a maximum of 1,250 1111-
overlapping the modern human range of 1,000 to 2,000 rnl.
This is the Homo erectus stage, so named because when the first
of these fossils were found in Java around the tnrn of the twentieth
century, they were thought to be the first humans to walk upright. (We
know toda y, of course, that upright locomotion was achieved millions
of years hefore rhis.) Often considered a separate species, fossils belong-
ing to the Homo erectus stage are dated from 1.8 my a to perhaps as
recently as 100,000 years ago (ya) and are found at sites all over the
Old World (Figure 6.17).

Tools and Migrations The key feature of this stage is the expansion
of the hominids throughout the Old World. Success on the savannas
of Africa provided the motivation and the means to expand. This
success was made possible by a larger brain and its by-product:
more-advanced stone tools. About 1.4 mya, Homo erectus elaborated
on the earlier toolmaking technique by flaking the entire stone, con-
trolling the shape of the whole tool. This tool is the famous hand
axe (Figure 6.18), symmetrical, edged and pointed, and bifacial. In
addition to hand axes, H. erectus also made tools with straight, sharp
edges called cleavers. In making a hand axe or a cleaver, a great many
flakes were produced-as many as fifty usable ones according to one
136 PARTTwo The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
hand axe A biracial.all-
purpose stone tool, shaped
somewhat like an axe head.
bifacial A stone tool that has
been worked on both sides
FIGURE 6.18
Bifacially flaked hand axes
became one of history’s
most popular tools. They
are found in a variety of
sizes showing varying
degrees of quality.

Pacific
o c e a n
Indian
Ocean
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 137
Pacific
Ocean
estimate-and these could be further flaked to produce desired shapes
for specific purposes.
Expanding on the successful adaptations of early Homo, the mem-
bers of the Homo erectus stage may well have rapidly increased their
population size, a factor that put pressure on resources as well as social
harmony. Groups on the African plains may have subsequenrly split up
and moved away from familiar areas in search of less competition over
food, water, and shelter. In search of these resources, then, H. erectus
wandered the Old World, arriving in the Far East after what appears
to be only a few hundred thousand years.
The Ice Ages Bur what makes these migrations even more remarkable
is the fact that as members of Homo erectus were expanding their
range, they were coming into contact with the changeable environments
of the Ice Ages, technically called the Pleistocene, the period, from about
1.6 mya to around 10,000 ya, when a decrease in the earth’s average
temperature caused great sheets of ice-glaciers-to advance from
the polar regions and out of higher elevations. There may have been
as many as eighteen glacial advances over this time, interspersed by
warmer periods when the glaciers retreated. We are not yet sure of
the reasons for these fluctuations. Suffice it to say, however, that they
caused a great climatic and environmental change (Figure 6.19). One
FIGURE 6.19
Maximum extent of the ice
sheets during the Pleistocene.
~ -,……,..-:,~T
‘ ……. :.4..4,;,.
Pleistocene The geological
time period, from 1.6 mya
to 10,000 ya, character-
ized by a series of glacial
advances and retreats.
glaciers Massive sheets of
ice that expand and move.

138 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
result was the lowering of sea levels, as much of the earth’s water
froze, forming the great ice sheets. Thus, exposed areas of land for-
merly under water allowed humans to migrate to previously inacces-
sible places.
Behavioral Traits The other important first normally associated with
Homo erectus is the purposeful use of fire. Good evidence for this goes
back to 790,000 ya in Israel. Fire, of course, provides heat and can also
be used for cooking and protection from other animals. According to
science writer John Pfeiffer, however, its most important use was as a
source of light; fire extended the hours of activity into the night and
provided a social focus for group interaction. This is when people
experimented, created, talked (in whatever manner they were capable
of at the time), and socialized. Fire may also have given Homo erectus
a psychological advantage, a sense of mastery over a force of nature
and a source of energy.
Homo erectus was still basically a scavenger rather than a big-
game hunter. Detailed analyses of associated animal bones strongly
suggest this. We also know, from reconstructions based on their fos-
silized bones, that H. erectus probably had a vocal tract more like
that of modern humans than like that of apes or the earlier hominids.
There are also features of their brains (seen in casts made from the
insides of their skulls) that hint at language ability. Whether or not
they did have a complex, symbolic language like ours (see Chapter
11) cannot be determined, but I think that given their ability to make
fairly complex tools, to control fire, and to survive in different and
changing environments, they certainly had complex things to talk
about. It is not out of the question that they had a communication
system that was itself complex.
Fossils with the traits that identify the Homo erectus stage-
essentially modern bodies with primitive cranial features and an average
brain size just a bit below the modern human minimum-have been
dated to as’ recently as 100,000 ya in Java. The stage-whether a
separate species or not-was long-lived.
But meanwhile, back in Africa and southern Europe, a new devel-
opment was taking place, possibly as long ago as 780,000 years. This
marks the next stage of our story.
The Archaic Homo sapiens Stage
Traditionally, when the average brain size of fossils reaches that of
modern humans, such fossils are given our taxonomic name, Homo
sapiens. That brain size, and some other detailed features associated
with modern humans, appears to have been achieved by some fossils

Postorbital
constriction
Modern brain size
I
Thinner cranial bones
Less postorbital
constriction
\ \ – Pronounced\’C(‘i9:11fflf prognathism -Less~¥1::::Q;:q:g prognathous
Receding chin
Homo erectes Archaic Homo sapiens
from Spain dated at 780,000 ya and from Tanzania and Ethiopia at
700,000 and 600,000 ya.
These fossils, however, hardly appear completely modern. Their
crania retain so-called primitive characteristics but with some changes
over those of Homo erectus (Figure 6.20). Hence, they are often
referred to as archaic Homo sapiens, including them in our species
but indicating that they are not fully modern in their physical
features.
Fossils included in this stage have been found all over rhe Old
World and date from more than 700,000 ya to perhaps 36,000 ya
(Figure 6.21). Although the oldest examples come from Spain, those
are from just a single site. There are several very old sites of archaics
from Africa, and so the traditional model has this new, big-brained
hominid evolving on that continent, most likely from a population of
the Homo erectus stage.
An early achievement of this stage of our evolution, dated to around
200,000 ya and appearing first in Africa, was a new toolmaking tech-
nique. It’s called the Levallois, or prepared-core, technique and essen-
tially allows for the production of a number of predictably shaped
flakes off of a single core-history’s first example of mass production
(Figure 6.22).
The Neandertals Because of a dearth of fossils, we know relatively
little about the earliest three-quarters of this stage, but the last quarter
includes one of the most famous human fossil groups. As with other
archaics they had modern-sized brains and retention of primitive cra-
nial features. They also show a distinctive expression of those cranial
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 139
Vertical
forehead
~OQ
cJ
I —Flat
Ii’l’£fFP~ face
Protruding
chin
Modern Homo sapiens
FIGURE 6.20
Cranial features of Homo
erecrcs, archaic Homo
sapiens, and anatomically
modern Homo sapiens.
Postorbital constriction refers
to a narrowing of the skull
behind the eyes, as viewed
from above
Levallois A tool technology
in which uniform flakes are
struck from a prepared core.

140 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
…
Arctic Ocean
‘)~A~·A
EUROPE'” •
•
(ht’~
!
“•.
Pacific
Ocean
In d ian
Ocean
Atlantic
Ocean t AUSTRALIA)
)·rI
• Archaic Homo sapiens sites
… Sites attributed to Neandertals
FIGURE 6.21
Map of archaic Homo
sopiens sites. The sites
attributed to Neandertals
are indicated by a triangle,
For clarity,the names of the
sites have been omitted.
The stress here is on the
geographic range of this
stage in the evolution of the
human genus.
traits, as well as some differences in the postcranial (from the neck
down) skeleton (Figure 6.23).
First discovered in 1856 (three years before Darwin wrote Origin
of Species) and named after the Neander Valley in Germany, this group
of archaics dates from 225,000 ya to 36,000 ya. Their fossils have been
found in Europe and Southwest and Northwest Asia (see Figure 6.21).
Their brain sizes ranged from 1,300 to 1,740 mI, a larger average than
that of modern humans, but their foreheads were still sloping, the backs
of their skulls broad, their brow ridges large, their faces jutting forward,
and their chins receding.

Side Views Top Views
•’: .I ‘\ .,-., –
a. b.
c.
d••
e.
Core
From the neck down, there are also striking features. The bones
of the Neandertals, even the finger bones, were sturdier, with heavier
muscle markings than those of modern humans or, for that matter,
other archaics. They were stocky, muscular, powerful people, and
these traits are even seen in Neandertal children, so they are assumed
to be the result of inheritance, not simply a hardworking lifestyle.
Their stockiness, as well as their short stature of 5 feet 6 inches for
males, might have been an adaptation to the cold conditions of Pleis-
tocene Europe during the glacial advances. Shorter, heavier bodies
conserve heat.
Among the well-established accomplishments of the Neandertals
was an elaboration on the Levallois technique. Called the Mousterian
tradition, after the site of Le Moustier in France, it involved careful
retouching of the flakes taken off cores. These flakes were sharpened
CHAPTER 6 Evolution 141
FIGURE 6.22
The Levallois technique:
(a) produce a margin along
the edge of the core,
(b) shape the surface of
the core, (c. d) prepare the
surface to be struck (the
striking platform), (e) remove
the flake, and return to
step (b) for additional
flake removal.
Mousterian A toolmaking
technology, associated with
the European Neandertals,
in which flakes were care-
fully retouched to produce
diverse tool types.

142 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.23
Two Neandertal skulls from
French sites, showing ex-
treme expressions of archaic
Homo sapiens features Note
the large brow ridges,
sloping forehead,
prognathism, receding chin,
bulging rear of skull, and
overall rugged appearance.
Many European Neandertals
had brain sizes larger than
the modern human average,
although this should not be
taken to indicate greater
intelligence. Within the
modern human range of
1,000 ml to 2,000 ml, there
is no evidence of a relation
between size and intellect.
The Neandertals’ large
crania match their large,
rugged bodies.
, ,v’V’V”:-..ry
At; ~~, * A ,w,. ~&…J”,
haft To attach a wooden
handle or shaft to a stone or
bone point.
and shaped by precise additional flaking, on one side or both, to make
specialized tools (Figure 6.24). One authority has identified no fewer
than sixty-three Mousterian tool types.
Several specific uses of Mousterian tools have been inferred from
microscopic wear-pattern analysis, which indicates animal butchering,
woodworking, bone and antler carving, and working of animal hides.
The Neandertals may also have been the first to haft a stone point.
Perhaps most striking, at least thirty-six Neandertal sites, dating
from 75,000 to 35,000 ya, show evidence of intentional burial of the
dead, including special positioning of the bodies, sometimes in a fetal

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 143
FIGURE 6.24
Retouched Mousterian
flakes from the original site
of Le t-lcustier in France.
The lower flake is about
4 inches long.
position (Figure 6.25). In about 40 percent of these graves were
remains of grave goods-stone tools, animal bones, and, possibly,
flowers.
It has also been suggested that Neandertals were among the first
to care for their elderly, ill, and injured. That is, they had ideas about
the value of individual lives and some sense of social responsibility. A
skeleton of a Neandertal man from Iraq shows signs of injuries that
resulted in the loss of one arm and possibly blindness. He lived with
these conditions for some time, obviously fed and cared for by his
comrades.
The Neandertals have been at the center of the controversy over
the number of species of genus Homo that have existed, with some
opinions that they are a separate species from us and others that they
are a population of our species, Homo sapiens. Recent genetic evi-
dence has shown that a small portion of the DNA of some modern
human populations came from interbreeding with the Neandertals.
Thus, under the definition of species we are using, we and they are
members of the same species, and they represent a specialized and
localized, and now extinct, population of our species.
TIle Anatomically Modern Homo sapiflls Stage
Beginning perhaps as early as 300,000 ya, fossils with near-modern or
modern features appear, earliest in Africa and later in other parts of the
Old Wotld. We call these fossils anatomically modern because they lack

144 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.25
The Neandertal burial
from La Ferrassie. France.
The body was buried in
the flexed position with the
knees drawn up to the
chest perhaps to mimic
sleep. (The basket in the
background belonged to
the excavators.)
some features characteristic of earlier hominids and possess features
common to humans today. Gone is the prognathous profile; the face is
essentially flat, and there are no heavy brow ridges. The skull is globular
rather than elongated and the forehead more nearly vertical. The face is
smaller and narrower, and there is a protruding chin (Figure 6.26). The
postcranial skeleton is less sturdy.
Fossil data, as well as some fairly new techniques of genetic analysis,
suggest that modern-looking humans first arose in Africa, evolving from

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 145
a population of archaics, and then spread around the world. Whether they
replaced the archaic populations they encountered (because they were a
different and more successful species) or interbred with them (because
they were members of the same species, only different looking) is part of
the ongoing debate.
Tools What we do know is that with modern-looking anatomy came
further advances in technology and the expressions of modern behavior
patterns. Although much of their tool kit at first resembles that of
archaics, artifacts from one of the oldest modern human sites show an
important advance. From South Africa, dated to perhaps J 20,000 ya,
come long, bifacially worked spear points made by hitting a piece of
antler with another stone, thus “punching” off a more precise blade.
Much later, microlirhs, small stones made from pieces of blades, were
attached to handles to make sickles, devices for harvesting grasses (see
Figure 9.12).
By about 50,000 ya, modern Homo sapiens had spread all over the
Old World. This marks an important cultural period called the Upper
Paleolithic (Late Old Stone Age), known first through finds in Europe
and distinguished by several notable cultural innovations. Blades struck
off cores become so precisely and beautifully made as to be virtual
works of art (Figure 6.27). In fact, some are so thin and delicate we
think they may have been just that. Tools in the Upper Paleolithic were
also made from bone, antler, and ivory. Some are practical, such as
FIGURE 6.26
Two examples of early
anatomically modern Homo
sapiens, both from Israel and
dated to around 100.000 ya.
Note the more vertical
forehead, more rounded
braincase, flatter face. and
protruding chin (see also
Figure 6.20). Although the
left skull retains fairly
prominent brow ridges, its
other features are modern.
Indeed. brow ridges are
still found in some living
populations such as
Native Australians,
microliths Small stone
flakes. usually used as part of
a larger tool such as a sickle.

146 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.27
Bifacially flaked Upper Paleolithic
spear points, some of the finest
stonework ever seen. The middle
one is about 5 inches long,
FIGURE 6.28
A 32,OOO-year-oldengraved
antler plaque from Abri
Blanchard, France, which
Alexander Marshack
interprets as a record of
the phases of the moon.
harpoons, spear points, and shaft straighteners. Some have symbolic
significance, and even some of the utilitarian items are decorated (see
Figure 6.28).
The final step in stone tool technology, the ground stone tool, is
first seen from around 9,000 ya in Europe and Southwest Asia
and perhaps even earlier in Japan and Australia. Grinding was accom-
plished by rubbing an unformed stone, called a blank, on a gritty stone

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 147
such as sandstone. Using a finer stone with some wet sand on it pro-
vided a polish for the finishing touches. The advantages of ground stone
were that the smooth surfaces cut better than the rough ones of a flaked
tool and that stones less likely to break on impact could be made into
tools. The use of stone tools persisted even among peoples who learned
how to use metal. And so, for the prehistoric period of our cultural
evolution, tools are essential bits of evidence in our reconstruction of
past lifeways.
Art Perhaps the best indication of abstract thought is art-items that
are not utilitarian but that may carry symbolic meaning or produce
aesthetic pleasure. There is some tantalizing evidence for very early
art: some collections of natural pigments, possibly for body decora-
tion, a female carving from Morocco 300,000 to 500,000 ya, an amu-
let made of a shaped and colored mammoth tooth, some shell beads,
and an engraved piece of ochre. All these are dated from 500,000
to 75,000 ya. But we see unequivocal examples of art beginning about
40,000 ya. These finds are associated with anatomically modern
Homo sapiens.
From Australia come painted symbols, handprints, and petroglyphs
(designs scratched into rock) dated at 43,000 to 36,000 ya. There is a
cave painting in Namibia dated at perhaps 29,000 ya. A carved ivory
disk found in a child’s grave and a colored pendant in the shape of an
animal come from Russia about 28,000 ya.
The best-known and most evocative early art is that from the
Upper Paleolithic in Europe. This does not necessarily mean that
Europeans at that time were the most prolific artists in the world. It
may simply be that archaeology has been carried out longer and more
extensively there than just about anywhere else, so we have found
more artifacts and thus know and understand the prehistory of
Europe better.
Much of the earliest European art is in the form of carvings with
strictly symbolic meaning. From France, dated at 32,000 ya, is a piece
of antler engraved with a curving line of 69 marks (Figure 6.28).
Archaeologist Alexander Marshack interprets these as a succession
of lunar phases-the correct shape, order, and number for more
than two months. The carving, he thinks, may have been an early
lunar calendar.
Among the most famous of the carvings are the so-called Venus
figurines found throughout Europe and dating back to as early as
30,000 ya (Figure 6.29, bottom; Figure 6.30). These are commonly
interpreted as fertility symbols since many depict women with exagger-
ated sexual dimorphic features who appear to be pregnant. Others,
however, seem to be of women at other stages of life. We may never
know just what these figurines meant to those who made them. Clearly,
however, they had some meaning.

148 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.29
Carved artifacts, including
a shaft straightener with
carved animals (top), a
harpoon carved from antler
(left), and an example of
the famous Venus figurines
(lower right) that may have
served as fertility symbols,
By far the most famous early artworks are the cave paintings, the
majority of which are located in southern France and northern Spain
and are dated at 32,000 to 10,000 ya. Using natural pigments, the
artists rendered accurate depictions of important animals-bison,
aurochs, horses, deer, reindeer, mammoth, ibex (an antelope), and
even rhinoceros, lions, and bears, all of which inhabited Europe at
the time (Figure 6.31). Some of these paintings are fairly simple and
sketchy, but many are beautiful, colorful, and show depth and motion
(Figure 6.32). Sometimes the shape and relief of the rock of the cave
wall were incorporated into the painting, giving it even greater real-
ism. Seeing these paintings in person, as I did a few years ago, is a
truly moving experience.
As with the figurines, there has been debate over the meaning of
these paintings. They most often depict important game animals-and
the more important the animals, the more frequently they were painted.
Big, dangerous animals, even if rarely a source of meat-mammoths,

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 149
FIGURE 6.30
The Venus figurine from
Dolnt Vestonice in the
Czech Republic.
FIGURE 6.31
This living ox at LeToth
museum near the cave of
Lascaux in France has been
bred to resemble the au-
rochs, an ancestor of the
modern oxen that was one
of the largest mammals of
Upper Paleolithic times,
weighing more than a ton
The aurochs was hunted
for food and was well
represented in Upper
Paleolithic cave paintings
(see Figure 6.32).

I SO PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 6.32
An aurochs and a herd of
small horses seem almost
to be moving across the
cave wall in this painting
from Lascaux,dated to
perhaps 17,000 ya.
.,’~W”,'”
for instance-were also fairly common. In the recently discovered
Chauvet Cave near Avignon, France, rhinoceros, lions, and even a
hyena-all nonfood animals-were depicted.
The caves in which these paintings were found were not human
shelters. Some would have been hard to get to, and the painted areas
were often far inside them. Moreover, someone would have had to
transport a source of light through the caves to produce the art. There
was clearly something special about these paintings.
Anthropologist Patricia Rice and sociologist Ann Paterson have
concluded that the cave art served a combination of purposes: “fertility
magic, hunting magic, hunting education, and story-telling about hunting.”

CHAPTER 6 Evolution 151
“Capturing” an animal by painting it may have helped the hunter capture
it in reality. Painting a group of animals may have simply helped ensure
that they would exist somewhere to be hunted. Young men may have
been instructed in the hunt with the help of these paintings. And such
paintings may also have aided in the recounting of exciting hunting
tales (see Figure 9.1). Again, the important fact is that they clearly held
meaning of some sort. They stood for and probably helped communicate
ideas. It may be no coincidence that these striking cave paintings are
found in an area and during a time period that correspond to a maximum
advance of the Pleistocene glaciers-a time and place of social and
ecological stress.
By at least 50,000 ya, people moved on to present-day New Guinea
and Australia, using watercraft but having to cross narrower areas of
water than exist today due to lower sea levels resulting from glacial
periods. Twenty thousand years ago, and possibly much earlier, humans
moved into North America, coming across a land bridge between Sibe-
ria and Alaska. They soon moved throughout the continent and into
South America. By about 30,000 ya modern Homo sapiens had popu-
lated every landmass on the planet except Antarctica.
Cultural change then accelerated rapidly, with specific cultural
systems geared to the specific ecologies of the areas inhabited. In a few
thousand years-a short time when compared to the millions we have
been discussing so far-we find in some areas the first traces of farming,
metallurgy, cities, and writing.
But before we can discuss the nature of the cultural systems of
modern humans, we still need to look at two more identifying traits of
our species and see how they evolved and how they affect our nature.
SUMMARY
The primates are one of the earliest of the mam-
mal groups to evolve after the mass extinction
that took place 65 mya. They appear to have
arisen first in what are now North America and
Europe, but the success of their adaptations
allowed them to radiate over the Old World and
back into the New World after the hemispheres
separated. About 23 mya, primitive apes first
appeared, and from one group of African apes
our family, Hominidae, branched off around
5 my a or earlier.
The habitual bipedalism that marks our
family seems to have evolved in response to a
fluctuating environment of both forest and
open plains. These earliest ancestors were essen-
tially small, bipedal apes.
About 3 mya, a further climate change led to
two new hominid adaptive responses. One gave
rise to another small, bipedal apelike form with
massive chewing bones and muscles adapted to
the tough, gritty vegetation of the plains. The
other response was the evolution of larger-brained
hominids. These hominids, the first members of
genus Homo, survived by inventing stone tools,
which, among other things, allowed them to scav-
enge the meat of the vast herds of grass eaters.
From this adaptive base, the evolution of
our genus accelerated. The Homo erectus stage,

152 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
How Many “Kinds” of Humans Have There Been?
In this chapter I mentioned the debate over the
number of species within genus Homo that have
existed over the last 2 million years. Opinions
range from one species to as many as ten. This
debate got some new fuel with the discovery,
on the Indonesian island of Flores, of a human
skeleton dated to as recently as I 3,000 ya. Such
a find would not have been remarkable except
for the fact that the skeleton is of an adult,
probably a female, who stood a mere 106 em
tall (about 3 feet 5 inches) and had an esti-
mated brain size of 380 ml, about the stature
and cranial capacity of Austroloplthecus. And yet
rts physical features seem fairly clearly to assign
the specimen to genus Homo, with particular
similarities to Homo erectus. The discoverers
have given the specimen the status of a new
species, Homo ~oresiens;s.
Even for those who propose that there have
been multiple species of our genus over the last
2 million years, this find is astonishing, because, so
far as we knew, there have been no humans
other than us-that is,Homo sapiens-on earth
for at least 27,000 years. And for those of us
who feel that only one species of Homo has
existed, the implication of this find and its inter-
pretation is obvious.
What are we to make of this specimen,some-
times referred to as a Hobbit (a reference to the
small characters in Tolkien’s Lord o(the Rings)?
Given its body and brain size, could it be an aus-
tralopithecine, indicating that there were popula-
tions of this genus outside of Africa? Probably not,
since it has phenotypic characteristics that place it
clearly in genusHomo and it was found in associa-
tion with stone tools and evidence of hunting and
possibly fire and cooking. None of these cultural
features are associated with Austrofop,thecus.And
the game hunted was not small: it included pygmy
elephants and Komodo dragons (the world’s larg-
est existing lizard). Certainly a high level of coop-
eration and communication would have been
necessaryto accomplish such hunting.Moreover;
no fossils of australopithecines have been found
with its basically modern bodies and even larger
brains, migrated all over the Old World, encoun-
tering the climatic changes of the Pleisrocene,
improving stone tool manufacture, and, at least
in some areas, taming fire. Modern-sized brains
were reached 780,000 ya, although crania re-
tained some primitive features. These archaic
Homo sapiens, first seen in Africa and southern
Europe, also spread across the Old World, and
exhibited such typically human behaviors as
burial of the dead and care of the elderly and
infirm. The Neandertals are one of the best-
known forms of this stage.
The anatomically modern Homo sapiens
stage, first appearing in Africa around 300,000
ya, is characterized by further advances in
tool-making, the clear practice of big-game
hunting, and the first expressions of art. Mem-
bers of this stage entered Australia and nearby
islands and reached the New World. Farming,
cities, writing, and all the cultural features we
associate with modern humanity follow.

CHAPTER 6 Evolution I S3
outside of Africa, much less as far away as South-
east Asia.
Perhaps this was one individual within a
group of pygmy humans or simply a modern
human who had an anomalous condition, some
form of dwarfsm. Again, that seems unlikely,
since small humans and humans with anomalous
conditions have smaller than average bodies but
retain brains within the modern human range
(1,000 ml to 2,000 ml). H. (Ioresiens/s had a brain
approximately one-third the modern human
minimum.
On the other hand, perhaps once evolution
achieved a modern human brain complexity,
size became less important and a complex
brain could develop in a small package. Con-
sider; in a loose analogy, how we can now put
hard drives of increasing capacity in smaller
and smaller computers, MP3 players, and other
devices.
At the moment, my best guess is that this
specimen comes from a population of descen-
dants of Homo erectus that responded to a phe-
nomenon of dwarfing common to island species,
especially mammals. Free from predators andlor
restricted in room and resources, species isolated
on islands can evolve to be much smaller than
their ancestors.
But several questions remain. First, is this speci-
men characteristic of a whole population? The dis-
coverers of the original specimen have reported
the recovery of the remains of more individuals
with the same features. But until more of these
remains are fully described and verified, we can
only surmise that the original find is representative
of an entire group.
Second, even if the original and subsequent
finds do represent a population, is this population
a separate species?We can’t, of course, experi-
ment to see if H. (Ioresiensls could interbreed with
other populations, so there is no definitive way to
answer that question. Thus, as noted, opinions on
the number of species of Homo continue to differ;
and there will probably never be a way to resolve
the debate for sure.
One thing is certain, however: Unless this
individual proves to be just that, one individual
with a unique set of physical features, our
genus Homo is a lot more variable than we
once imagined.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT
I. People often ask this logical question: If humans descended from apes. then how come there are still
apes? How would you respond?
2. There’s heated and intense debate over the number of species recognized within genus Homo Why
do you think this matters so much? Is there a level of this debate beyond Just the issue of scientific
interest and accuracy?
3. If evolution in general is sometimes a controversial topic, the subject of human evolution is often
more so. How would you respond to people who feel that accepting human evolution is antithetical
to religious beliefs?

154 PARTTwo The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
A detailed account of the Piltdown fraud can be
found in Kenneth Feder’s Frauds, Myths, and Myster-
ies, seventh edition.
An expanded discussion of the story of human
evolution is in my Biological Anthropology; seventh
edition. For a sense of the excitement of paleoanrhro-
pology, even though the details in the book are now
outdated, I recommend Lucy: The Beginnings of
Humankind, by Donald Johanson and Maitland
Edey, and its sequel, Lucy’s Child: The Discovery of a
Human Ancestor, by Johanson and James Shreeve. A
beautifully illustrated treatment of the subject, based
on an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, is Ian Tattersall’s The Human
Odyssey: Four Million Years of Evolution. See also
Tattersall’s The Fossil Trail, second edition. These are
all somewhat outdated, but they convey the excite-
ment of this subject. For a very readable overview,
see The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Human Prehis-
tory, by Robert J. Meier. Don’t let the title fool you;
this is a very accurate work by a noted authority.
A National Geographic series, “The Dawn of
Humans,” appears in the following issues: Septem-
ber 1995; January and March 1996; February, May,
July, and September 1997; August 1998; and May,
July, and December 2000. And see the November
2006 issue for an article about the latest early hominid
find, “The Origin of Childhood” by Christopher
Sloan. The photographs and graphics are, as usual
for that magazine, superb.
For more on the debate about the evolution of
genus Homo, I shamelessly recommend chapter 11 of
my Biological Anthropology, or, for the two treat-
ments by the proponents of the extreme views on the
subject, Race and Human Evolution, by Milford
Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, and African Exodus, by
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie.
For more on human endurance running, see
“Endurance Running and the Evolution of Homo,”
by Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, in the
November 18,2004, issue of Nature.
James Shreeve’s calculations about the migra-
tion of Homo erectus from Africa to Java are in his
article” Erectus Rising” in the September 1994 Dis-
cover. For the latest on Ardipithecus, see the October
2, 2009, issue of Science or, for a more popularized
article, “A Long Lost Relative” by Michael Lemonick
and Andrea Dorfman in the October 12,2009, issue
of Time.
John Pfeiffer’s idea on the importance of fire
can be found in The Emergence of Humankind. For
a more recent treatment of the importance of fire,
see Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human,
by Richard Wrangham. fA lengthier discussion of
Upper Paleolithic art can be found in Ken Feder’s
and my Human Antiquity, which also includes a
detailed discussion of the origins and early history
of domestication. Pat Rice and Ann Paterson’s con-
clusions about the meanings of cave art are in their
“Cave Art and Bones: Exploring the Interrelation-
ships,” from American Anthropologist, volume 87,
pages 94-100. Try also the January 1975 issue of
National Geographic for an article called “Ex-
ploring the Mind of Ice Age Man,” by Alexander
Marshack.
For more on the “Hobbit” from Flores Island,
see “The Littlest Human,” by Kate Wong, in the
February 2005 Scientific American; and “Homo flo-
resiensis from Head to Toe,” by Daniel Lieberman in
the May 7, 2009, issue of Nature.
The Neandertal genome has been much in the
news and hotly debated. For a nice summary, see
“Tales of a Prehistoric Human Genome,” by Elizabeth
Pennisi in the February 13,2009, issue of Science.

REPRODUCTION
The Sexual Primate
CHAPTER CONTENTS Sex and Human Evolution • Vive la Difference • Sex and Gender· Sex and Cultural
Institutions • Summary • Contemporary Issues:What Causes Differences in Sexual Orientation? • Questions for
Further Thought • Notes, References, and Readings
155

156 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
The part of the brain that governs the reproductive function is the cere-bellum or little brain. It is located in the lower back part of the head.
The cerebellum also constitutes the organ of amativeness, which, according
to the teachings of phrenology, “gives love” for the opposite sex, Other
things being equal, the strength of the cerebellum is proportionate to its
size …. You will never find the most popular and successful men and
women with a small and weak cerebellum, nor a weak, narrow, retreating
chin, because they do not have enough love for the opposite sex to form
an incentive to be gallant polite. attentive, winning, etc.
The above was written in 1895 by V P English, MD, In his book
The Doctor’s Plain Talk to Young Men The book seems quite humorous
to us today, for it is filled with all manner of outdated information
and nineteenth-century attitudes toward sex. For example, we know
now that the cerebellum (see Figure 5.5), the part of the brain con-
cerned with the learning of motor skills and the coordination of
movement, has no such direct connection with reproduction. We also
know that phrenology-the pseudoscience of determining personality
and mental traits from the shape of one’s head-doesn’t work. And
we realize that contrary to what Dr English implies, human ideas
about attractiveness, love, manners, and so on are not species char-
acteristics controlled by the brain but rather cultural norms that vary
from society to society.
We humans think about sex. Instead of automatically respond-
ing to external stimuli, we decide when, where, with whom, and
how to have sex. We decide, as members of a particular culture
and as individuals, what is sexually attractive and stimulating. And
what is attractive and stimulating is tied up With our personality
traits, emotional responses, and learned attitudes. To put it bluntly,
it matters to us with whom we have sex. And the ability to think
about sex not only makes us different from other organisms, but
it may also be the result of important changes that took place
early in our evolution, perhaps when habitual bipedalism was
also evolving.
50, as naive as this may sound, we must ask just what sex is,
how our sexual behavior is different from that of other animals, and
what this has to do with our evolution and behavior, both biologi-
cally and culturally.

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 157
ASYOU READ. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. How does human sexual behavior differ from that of most
mammals) How did this difference evolve)
2. How do human males and females differ and how might these
differences be explained evolutionarily?
3. What is the difference between sex and gender?
4. How IS our sexual behavior an example of the biocultural inter-
action that is a focus of anthropology?
SEX AND HUMAN EVOLUTION
Primate Sex
To understand why I call humans the sexual primates, we need to
understand how mammals in general reproduce. In most mammals,
sexual activity takes place only when it can do what it’s supposed to
do-make baby mammals. This is because sex is geared to the repro-
ductive cycle of the female. The eggs of female mammals mature and
can be fertilized only at certain intervals. These intervals may be regu-
larly spaced throughout the year, or they may be seasonal to ensure the
birth of young during times of abundant resources.
Egg maturation, called ovulation, has two results sexually. It trig-
gers hormonal changes that make the female sexually receptive to
males, and it initiates signals that stimulate the males. During this
period, the female is said to be in estrus (popularly, “in heat”). This is
when sex takes place. At other times, when there is no egg to be fer-
tilized, mammals have much better things to do.
This holds true for most primates. Female primates ovulate and are
in estrus at certain intervals specific to the particular species. During
estrus, the females give off automatic signals that cause sexual stimu-
lation among males. These signals are olfactory (based on smell) as in
most mammals and, in some primates, visual, involving the swelling
and coloration of the skin in the genital area. Those primates you see
in zoos with what look like large, painful growths on their rear ends
are females in estrus (Figure 7.1). During estrus, mating may involve a
number of males as in chimpanzees, a dominant male that has exclusive
mating rights to a particular female, as in some baboons, or a single
bonded male, as in gibbons.
The link between sexual activity and ovulation is an adaptive mech-
anism to give a species the greatest possible chance to produce offspring
without wasting time and energy on sex when it will do no biological
good. Primates have more than enough to do just trying to stay alive.
ovulation The period when
an egg cell matures and is
capable of being fertilized
estrus In nonhuman mam-
mals, the period of female
fertility or the signals
indicating this condition.
olfactory Referring to the
sense of smell.

158 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 7.1
A baboon in estrus. The
skin around her genital area
is swollen, a clear visual sign
that she is fertile and sex-
ually receptive. In baboons
and some other primates,
this area may also be
brightly colored.
Human Sex
Loss of Estrus, and Sexual Consciousness You can see right away the
key feature in which we humans differ: we have lost the signals of
estrus. To be sure, female humans ovulate at regular intervals-about
once every twenty-eight days, producing an egg that can be fertilized
over a period of three to five days. But there is no outward sign of this.
No signals tell a male that a female has ovulated. Women can tell when
they are ovulating, sensing physiological or hormonal changes or a rise
in body temperature, but men can’t tell. In other words, rather than
having an estrus cycle with its automatic signals, we humans have what
has been called nondetectable ovulation.
Now, this seems a pretty inefficient way of perpetuating our species,
since it means we don’t necessarily know the best time for having sex.
But what our species has evolved to take care of this is, in a sense,
continuous estrus.We have replaced unconscious, innate sexual signals
with sexual consciousness. Sexuality has become part of our conscious
thought, taking place in our neocortexes (see Figure 5.5) and thus inter-
acting with all the other reactions and attitudes and emotions we have
toward other members of our species and toward ourselves.
We thus express ourselves sexually as individual personalities and
as members of particular cultural systems. We respond sexually to indi-
vidual personalities and according to culturally determined standards
of behavior and attractiveness. We find a person sexually stimulating
not because of a set of automatic signals but because of that person’s
appearance, personal traits, intelligence, socioeconomic status-all the

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction I S9
factors by which we judge and respond to individual people as members
of our society.
As further evidence for the psychological and social context of
human sexuality, note that we create and recognize symbols for sex.
Clothing styles are more than utilitarian; they also become expressions
of our sexuality. In this society, the automobile has taken on sexual
connotations. Athleticism is often linked with sexual prowess. Adver-
tisements on television and in magazines hype various products through
sexual images. Although the products themselves may have nothing to
do with sexuality, the ads subtly imply that the use of them will
enhance one’s sexual attractiveness (Figure 7.2).
Antecedents and Evolution of Human Sexuality As with other traits
we’ve discussed, there is no absolute difference between our expression
of sexuality and that of all other animals. Some other species show a
degree of sexual consciousness and a similarity in expression to that of
humans. Not surprisingly, we find this in our closest relatives, the chim-
panzees and, especially, the bono bas.
Chimps engage in sex at times other than a female’s estrus, and
they use sexual postures as signs of dominance and submission. Some
aspect of sex is conscious for them and is separate from purely repro-
ductive functions. But the sexual behavior of the bonobos is strikingly
humanlike. Perhaps to phrase it with more evolutionary accuracy, our
sexual behavior is bonobo-like.
For the bonobo, sex is not reserved for reproduction alone; it also
plays a role in interpersonal relationships and group cohesion. Especially
when feeding, bonobos constantly posture sexually toward one another,
rubbing rumps or presenting themselves as if initiating sexual activity.
When sex does follow, it is often face-to-face, unlike the position of
FIGURE 7.2
An image of French
swimming champion Yannick
Agnel stands on an ad for
energy corporation EDF.
one of the Olympic sponsor
partners in the Olympic
Park during the London
2012 Olympics, Young
women stand to admire him
and have their photos next
to his athletic figure outside
the EDF corporate pavilion
EDP is clearly usmg sex to
attract attention to an item
not related to sexual matters,

160 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 7.3
Bonobos often engage
in sex in a face-to-face
posner.
other primates and like that of humans (Figure 7.3). Sexual activity is
not limited to opposite-sex partners. Females commonly rub genitalia
with other females, and males will mount each other and even engage
in oral sex. Moreover, the signs of receptivity, the estrus swelling and
coloration, are present for about 75 percent of the female’s cycle (as
opposed to 50 percent for the female chimpanzee’s cycle), and there is
at least circumstantial evidence that female bonobos experience orgasms.
Sexual activity in bonobos occurs on a conscious level. The moti-
vation for sex seems as much psychological and social as it is repro-
ductive. Primatologist Frans de Waal lists several functions of sexual
behavior: the promotion of sharing food and other things of interest
(play items, for example), the negotiation of favors, the resolution of
social tensions, and reconciliation after aggressive episodes. The nearly
constant awareness of sexuality among bonobos also leads to female
bonding and mixed (male-female) social units.
Now, can bonobo sexual behavior shed any light on the evolution
in humans of continuous receptivity and conscious sexuality? Conscious
sexual interest, it is thought, could have helped bond males and females
together and would have thus assured the male that the female’s off-
spring were his. Then, with this adaptive relationship in place, any

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 161
variation that promoted bonding-greater sexual consciousness and
concealed ovulation-would have been selectively advantageous.
The Importance of Development and Child Care
Reproduction, of course, doesn’t end with the birth of an infant. The
infant must successfully reach adulthood and its own reproduction to
be considered an evolutionary success. There are also some distinct
differences in how humans care for and provision their offspring that
have clear implications for the course of human evolution.
Human infants are born particularly helpless and mature slowly.
They are born earlier in their development than the infants of other
primates because bipedalism produces a pelvis that makes childbirth
more stressful and a larger brain requires earlier birth so as not to make
the situation even worse. After birth, the larger brains of humans simply
take longer to develop, so the period of dependency on the parents
is longer.
Thus it becomes harder to successfully raise children, especially in
difficult environmental conditions. Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
argues that “intersubjecrive engagement”-care about what others
intend and feel-was greatly enhanced in early humans, and that this
led to “cooperative breeding … shared parental … care and provi-
sioning of young,” or, as she calls this, alloparenting. This is seen in
some other primates, particularly in some South American monkeys,
but is a feature of many human groups, where the alloparents are often
older female relatives (even grandmothers) who have lived past repro-
ductive age. Hrdy hypothesizes that the change took place in Homo
erectus times, when more, and more varied, food was required to sup-
ply larger bodies and brains. Shared parenting would become a neces-
sity and would set the stage for the mutual cooperation among our
families and our societies that characterizes our species.
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE
All sexually reproducing species display differences between the two
sexes, if for no other reason than that the sexes need different ana-
tomical features for their respective reproductive functions. But in
some species, unless you look really closely at their anatomies, it’s
hard to tell male from female-take a familiar bird, the robin, for
example. Other species, however, show clear distinctions between the
sexes in traits not directly related to reproduction. Such species are
said to display sexual dimorphism. Another familiar bird, the cardinal,
is an example; males and females are easily distinguishable. The same
is true with humans (Figure 7.4). And the nature of our dimorphism
is most interesting.
alloparenting Shared caring
and provisioning of the young
by other group members.
sexual dimorphism Physical
differences between the sexes
of a species not related to
reproductive functions,

162 PART T\X’o The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 7.4
Two sexually dimorphic species-the northern cardinal and Homo sapiens, Males and females
are clearly distinguishable using only external nonreproductive phenotypic features.

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 163
The differences berween human males and females begin ar the
genetic level. Two of the human chromosomes are called the sex chro-
mosomes because they include genes that code for our sexual charac-
teristics (Figure 7.5). The X chromosome is the female chromosome. It
is a large chromosome that carries genes for nonsexually related traits
as well. The male chromosome, the Y chromosome, is the smallest of
the chromosomes and appears to carry only genes related to male sexual
characteristics. Each female has twenty-three pairs of chromosomes,
including a pair of X chromosomes. Each male has twenty-two pairs
of chromosomes, and an X chromosome inherited from his mother and
a Y chromosome inherited from his father,
What are the physical and physiological results of the genes on
these chromosomes? Can we make any adaptive sense of them?
Human males are, on average, larger and more heavily muscled
than females (see Figure 7.4). In this humans are like the apes and some
of the monkeys, although the differences are less pronounced in humans.
This size difference is most pronounced in the more terrestrial primates,
those that spend a lor of time on the ground. Danger from predators
seems to have led to selection for larger size in males as a means of
FIGURE 7.5
All twenty-three pairs of
chrornosornes typically
found in a human being,
This set of chromosomes
came from a man-note
the last pair has an
X chromosome and a
Y chromosome, A woman
would have a pair of
X chromosomes.

164 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Forehead sloping Muscle lines heavy
Bmw ridges ~
developed~
‘uC !
”
Muscle lines slightForehead bulging
Browridg~
lacking ______
uC
“\
External
occipital
protuberance
/
Chin rounded
I
~ No external
occipital
\ Mastoids small protuberance
Angle of jaw over 125°. /Chm square
I
Mastoids
large\
Angle of jaw close to 90°
Male Female
(
, \,
/ Il~asplayed outward
‘)
,
Greater sciatic
notch narrow
Greater sciatic
notch wide
Subpubic angle —\c-“””~L
smaller
–””’~-I– Subpubic angle
larger
Male Female
FIGURE 7.6
Sex differences in the skull
and pelvis of humans, helping to protect the group. In some of the savanna baboons, males
are twice the size of females. We hominids became established on the
savannas of Africa, and our sexual size differences may well represent
the same original function. We can, in fact, see this basic dimorphic
difference in early horninids as well. For both the early hominids and
modern humans, males’ bones are generally larger and show heavier
muscle markings. There are other skeletal differences too, especially in
the pelvis. Nearly everything about the female pelvis is wider, an obvi-
ous adaptation to carrying and giving birth (Figure 7.6).
Males have relatively larger hearts and lungs, a faster recovery
time from muscle fatigue, higher blood pressure, and greater oxygen-
carrying capacity. But males are more susceptible than females to disease
and death at all stages of life. During the first year of life, one-third more
males die, mostly from infectious disease. Males also are more likely to have
speech disorders, vision and hearing problems, ulcers, and skin disorders.

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 165
Females have a greater proportion of body fat than do males. They
mature faster at almost all stages of life, most notably exhibiting earlier
puberty and an earlier growth spurt at adolescence. They are less likely
than males to be thrown off normal growth by disease and other fac-
tors, and they recover from such problems more quickly than males.
Although females appear to have a greater tendency than males to
become obese, males suffer more from the effects of being overweight-
strokes, for example. Females seem to be more sensitive to touch and
pain and, perhaps, to higher sound frequencies, and they are said to be
better at locating the sources of sound. Smell sensitivity is about the
same in both sexes, but females seem better at identifying smells.
These dimorphic features are not completely understood, and there
is a great deal of overlap in the range of variation of these traits. But
the above tendencies suggest an adaptive explanation. Many of the
characteristics of the human male are aimed at sustained, stressful phys-
ical action at the expense, however, of overall health and longevity.
Females’ overall better health, earlier maturity, and greater sensitivity
to stimulation of the senses might be geared toward their reproductive
and child-rearing roles. Again, perhaps some basic themes of terrestrial
primate sexual dimorphisms were retained and others selected for
among our early ancestors as their small, cooperative bands confronted
the challenges of life in the changing environments of Africa.
Are there any sexually dimorphic traits or, for that matter, traits shared
by the sexes that might be linked to our sexual behavior as described
above? One example is hair.We are, as biologist Desmond Morris describes
us, the “naked ape.” The loss of hair was probably an adaptation to allow
more efficient sweating to cool the body as we were doing all that bipedal
walking and running around the savannas. But we have retained hair in a
few places, and sexual differences exist in this trait as well.
Males have more facial and body hair than females. Consider the
location of this hair-the front of the body (male chest hair) and on the
face. As primates, we recognize one another as individuals. Primate color
patterns focus attention on the face, on the individual (Figure 7.7). As
humans, with even more conscious, more specific, more variable rela-
tionships with one another, and with our sexual consciousness, it seems
reasonable that the dimorphic feature of facial hair, or lack of it, would
have evolved to clearly draw attention to and announce to others our
individual identities as males or females. The same is true with chest
hair-another area of color patterning in some primates.
Along the same lines of logic, it has also been suggested that human
lips, which are everted (pulled outward) with translucent skin showing
the color of the muscle underneath, may also be signals, a splash of
color drawing attention to the face. It is not irrelevant, in addition, that
the lips are rich in nerve endings involved in sexual arousal. Nearly all
cultures practice kissing, and women in many cultures enhance the color
difference of their lips.

166 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 7.7
Some colorful primate faces, including that of one primate that purposely enhances facial
color. Colorful faces are evidence of the importance of individual recognition within primate
societies. Clockwise from upper left; Chinese white-handed gibbon, mandrill. human, bald uakari.

CHA PTER 7 Reproduction 167
But what about the places where both sexes have retained body
hair-in the axillary (underarm) and pubic regions? Both these regions
have specialized sweat glands that discharge a secretion that decom-
poses to generate a musky odor. In many mammals these secretions are
important pheromones that transmit information about, among other
things, the olfactory signals of estrus. It has been speculated that they
serve, or may have once served, similar functions in humans. After all,
humans in many societies use odors as sexual attractants-although in
many places artificial perfumes are applied after washing off the odor
nature may have given us.
To be sure, all these traits and our attitudes about them are manipu-
lated by culture. Different cultural systems have different standards of
physical beauty and normalcy. Facial hair in males is the norm in some
cultures, such as in several Islamic societies or among the Hutterites, where
beards are a sign of marriage. In the 1960s, many of us college students
grew beards-some pretty scruffy looking-as a sign of our nonconfor-
mity. In other societies, beards have certain negative associations and the
majority of men shave. Facial hair is seldom without some meaning as
are all of our physical features associated with our sexual identity.
SEX AND GENDER
There is strong evidence that our basic sexual behavior is something
that was selected for and established early on in our evolution. This
behavior has been translated from the purely biological to the cultural
as our species evolved that aspect of its identity, so that now there are
all sorts of variations with regard to “normal” sexual behavior. What
may we say in general, then, about this transition from biological
themes to cultural interpretations with regard to sex?
The Definitions
We rarely have any difficulty telling the sex of any other human being.
Male and female are two biological categories that are objectively real
and common to all human groups. As these two categories are incorpo-
rated into various cultural systems, however, differences arise. The iden-
tities and roles of males and females under different cultural systems vary
depending on the nature of those systems-the complex interactions of
economics, politics, family organizations, and abstract beliefs. Thus, males
and females of the human biological species become the men and women
of a particular society practicing a particular culture. We refer to the
cultural interpretation of biological sex categories as gender (Figure 7.8).
There is an incredible range of variation in gender identities and roles
among the world’s cultures. The variable factors include such things as the
roles of each gender in economic activities, differences in political and other
decision-making power and influence, and expected norms of behavior.
pheromone A chemical
substance secreted by an
animal that conveys informa-
tion and stimulates
behavioral responses.
gender The culturally
defined categories and
characteristics of men
and women.

168 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Primate behavioral … ~ Evolution of sexual consciousness; …~ Human sexual
patterns loss of estrus/nondetectable ovulation behavior
t
Environmental and
evolutionary changesl
evolution of the hominids
Possible selection
for specific features of
Primate dimorphism …~ Human sexual ~iiio-….. Gender roles
patterns dimorphisms and identities
FIGURE 7.8
The evolved sexual identities
and roles common to all
members of the human
species are translated by
individual cultural systems
into gender identities
and roles,
folk taxonomy A systemof
classificationbased on the
relationships among cultural
categories for important
items and ideas.
For example, among the Hutterites, women are generally believed
to be inferior to men and do not formally participate in colony deci-
sions. They cannot even vote for the head cook, who is traditionally a
woman. There is also a strict division of labor; that is, there are men’s
jobs and women’s jobs. However, as I pointed out in Chapter 1, if work
needs to be done, a man may perform a woman’s task, and vice versa.
In one colony I visited, the official “chicken man”-literally a man’s
job-was a woman. Moreover, women can and do voice opinions and
have, I was told, a good deal of nnofficial influence, through their hus-
bands, in colony business.
In the United States only a century ago, men were seen as the gen-
der that properly had political, economic, and social power and that,
therefore, should be educated. Women were far less likely to receive a
college education, seldom held any sort of management position (if they
did any work outside the home at all), and, until 1920, were not even
allowed to vote. Women were thought of as the literally weaker sex.
Obviously, things are different now, at least to a degree. As our culture
has changed, our gender roles and identities have changed to fit our
evolving cultural system.
Gender as Folk Taxonomy
The relationships among a culturally constructed set of categories, such as
those for gender, are collectively called a folk taxonomy, or cultural clas-
sification. A society orders its world in ways that reflect objective reality
as its people see and understand that reality, and that also meet its par-
ticular cultural needs and fit the totality of its cultural system.
For example, American society has a scientific viewpoint about the
causes of disease. We classify and compare diseases by the nature of their
causes-genetic, bacterial, viral, parasitic, environmental, nutritional, con-
genital, emotional, and so on.

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 169
By contrast, the Fore, a farming people of Papua New Guinea (whom
we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 14), also classify diseases by
their causes, but the causes are very different. The Fore believe that all
diseases are the result of the malicious intent of sorcerers or spirits.
Life-threatening diseases are thought to be caused by sorcery-the malev-
olent action of one person against another. Tbis reflects the political and
economic and social tensions, rivalries, and jealousies that have become
prevalent aspects of the Fore culture.
Folk taxonomies for gender differ widely among the cultures of the
world, even though most recognize basically two sexes and two gender
categories. Biological sex is, however, not always unambiguous. There
are people born with underdeveloped sexual characteristics or with
characteristics (including genitalia) of both sexes. In addition, there are
those who are ambivalent toward their own sexual identity. As a result,
some cultures recognize more than two genders.
A striking example is the hijras of India. The word means “not men,”
and, indeed, hijras are men who have been voluntarily surgically emascu-
lated. They are recognized as a third sex and make up a third gender, and
tbey have very specific identities and roles within the culture of Hindu
India. Although often mocked and ridiculed because of their exaggerated
feminine expressions and gestures, they are also in demand as performers
at important rituals such as marriages and births (Figure 7.9).
FIGURE 7.9
Hijms. emasculated men
who dress and behave like
women, make up a third
gender category in India.
These hijras are blessing a
child, one important ritual
function they perform.

170 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
marriage A set of cultural
rules for bringing together
a man and a woman (usually)
to create a family unit and
for defining their behavior
toward one another. their
children, and society.
nuclear family The family
unit made up of parents and
their children
How may we explain the hijras in cultural terms? According to
Serena Nanda, the anthropologist who has studied them extensively,
hijras identify with figures in Hindu mythology and Indian culture who
are, in various ways, of ambiguous or changing sexual and gender
identity: “Indian culture thus not only accommodates such androgynous
figures but also views them as meaningful and even powerful.” There
is also a sense in Hinduism that people should act according to their
own inclination, especially in matters of love and sex.
Another example comes from a number of traditional Native
American cultures where some men dressed as women and assumed
the occupations and behaviors of women. Such men have been referred
to by the term berdache (a French term with derogatory implications
but still in common use). In some cases, they engaged in sexual rela-
tions with other men, and certain rituals could be performed only by
them. In the cultures in which they were found, berdaches were not
considered abnormal, but they were thought of as another gender.
Some societies acknowledge that certain of their members are, or
think of themselves as, ambiguous with regard to the two standard sex
categories. These societies have evolved third or even fourth gender
classifications to accommodate such individuals, and these classifica-
tions have come to define identities and roles within the societies’ cul-
tures. The categories of sex are biological. The categories of gender
constitute a folk taxonomy-a cultural interpretation of the biological
reality with implications for and connections with all aspects of a soci-
ety and its cultural system.
SEX AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
Has our evolved sexual behavior-and its cultural interpretations-had
effects on other aspects of our cultural systems? In other words, can we
expand on the biocultural interactions already described?
Among the most interesting of cultural phenomena, and some-
times the most puzzling, are cultural universals-behavior patterns
found in all societies. Because we humans have the ability to invent
our behaviors and change them at will, and because most behaviors
show a good deal of variation from culture to culture, it’s noteworthy
that some behaviors are found everywhere. These behaviors demand
explanation. There are two that may well be explained by our identity
as the sexual primate.
Marriage
Marriage is a set of cultural rules that bring together a man and a
woman (or more than one of either) to create the nuclear family and
to define their behavior toward each other, their offspring, and their

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 171
society. Neatly all cultural systems we know of now or have knowledge
of from the past have some form of marriage. Of course, there is a great
deal of variation in such things as the number of marriage partners one
may have, whom one may marry, how property is owned, and so on
(we’ll cover some of these in Chapter 10). But almost every society,
from every level of complexity and part of the wotld, recognizes a need
to culturally define and acknowledge some sort of marriage unit, neatly
always male-female (Figure 7.10).
Marriage seems only natural. But that’s because it is universal. It’s
what we’re used to. Is there, however, any reason for the universality
of this institution, especially today when, for many societies, the nuclear
family is no longer the center of social and economic organization?
FIGURE 7.10
A marriage in India
Although the specifics
vary greatly, every culture
recognizes marriage and
celebrates the beginning
of such unions with
a ceremony.

172 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
incest taboo A cultural rule
that prohibits sexual inter-
course or marriage between
persons defined as being
too closely related.
In our own culture, for example, nearly half of all families are sin-
gle-parent families, some of which have always had only one parent,
and this often indicates that someone other than a parent is taking a
major role in the care and raising of the offspring. A union of male
and female is certainly needed to conceive a child, but after that, any-
body can raise and nurture the child to become a functioning member
of the group. But with few exceptions, all cultures recognize marriage or
some version of it as serving, among other functions, the purposes of
procreation and child rearing.
Can the universality of marriage be explained by saying that it is
such a good idea that every culture invented it or chose it from among
all the possible alternatives? It doesn’t seem likely, especially when there
are other, perfectly viable alternatives. Rather, it seems more likely that
it can be explained in much the same way we accounted for sexual
dimorphisms-that they had a biological origin and were then trans-
lated into a variety of cultural interpretations.
If some sort of male-female bond was crucial to the success of our,
early ancestors, as I have proposed, and if the social, psychological,
sexual, and emotional aspects of this bond became something that was
normal and vital for our survival for millions of years, the universality
of marriage may be as much a part of our biological heritage as our
bipedalism and our sexual dimorphism. In a manner of speaking, we’re
stuck with being bipedal and sexually dimorphic, and so any cultural
variations regarding these features must necessarily take them into
account. As a simple example, clothing-no matter what sort-has to
be made for bipeds, and clothing that is tailored to any extent must
vary somewhat depending on which sex it is for.
Similarly, we had little choice but to base our reproductive units,
and, indeed, the basic units of our societies, on the unit formed by the
cooperative bond and commitment between males and females that
evolved biologically in our ancestors. We have created all sorts of
variations in the specific ways we have done this, but they are always
variations on this theme.
The Incest Taboo
A taboo (from the Polynesian tabu) is a negative rule; it tells you not
to do something. The Jewish and Islamic prohibition against eating
pork, for example (which we’ll discuss in Chapter 14), is a taboo. The
incest taboo is a rule that says one cannot have sex with or marry
persons to whom one is too closely related. Just who these people are
varies enormously from culture to culture, in many cases (as we’ll see
in Chapter 10) not even corresponding to biological relationships. But
every society does include under the incest taboo the prohibition against
sex and marriage within the nuclear family between siblings and
between parents and offspring. That part is the cultural universal.

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 173
To be sure, sex and marriage are different matters; sex is certainly
not practiced exclusively between married couples. But with regard to
the cultural norms in question, there is a connection. As anthropolo-
gists Emily Schultz and Robert Lavenda put it, “marriage is a formal
prerequisite for becoming sexually active.” So while the incest taboo
may relate directly to sex and while the rules of who one can marry
refer to a cultural institution, they amount to the same thing relative
to this discussion.
As with all “rules,” there have been a few limited exceptions
to the universality of the incest taboo. Among certain royal family
lines, most notably among the ancient Incas, Egyptians, and Hawai-
ians, the preferred marriage partner was someone in the family,
often a sibling or parent or offspring. This rule was an attempt to
maintain the purity of the royal lines, which were considered divine.
But most everyone else in these societies lived by the common incest
prohibition.
Why is the incest taboo a universal? One obvious result of close
inbreeding is the potential for the expression of defective genetic con-
ditions. Each of us carries several deleterious, even lethal recessive
genes that are not expressed because they are hidden by normal dom-
inants. Such deleterious genes are rare because they are deleterious.
Therefore, it’s unlikely for any two random people to carry the same
rare deleterious genes. But who else in the world is most likely to
share your particular hidden genes? Your parents, siblings, and off-
spring, of course. So a child produced by you and one of these people
would stand a chance of having two of the same gene, thereby express-
ing the defective trait involved.
That’s a good reason to institute a parent-offspring and broth-
er-sister incest taboo, and that’s the stated reason for such prohibitions
in many cultures. But not every society has seen such results happen
often enough to make such a generalization. Many societies lack the
scientific knowledge to do so. (Our society has had a scientific under-
standing of this concept for only about a century.) It seems unlikely,
then, that the incest taboo originated as a cultural invention to prevent
genetic defects.
Another possible function of the incest taboo would be to prevent
sexual conflicts within the nuclear family. Having siblings, parents, and
offspring competing with one another over sexual access to family
members would be disruptive emotionally and economically. Having to
seek sexual and marriage partners outside the basic unit would limit
this conflict potential. But again, could every single society we know
have invented the taboo for this reason? After all, as cultural beings we
can come up with all sorts of rules of behavior. To be a bit facetious,
there’s nothing to stop a society from saying, “You can marry your
sister, but just don’t fight with your brothers about it.” But, except for
those few royal lines, no one does.

174 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 7.11
Children in an Israeli kibbutz.
Marriage between people
who have grown up
together in the same age
group on the same kibbutz
are extremely rare, although
no cultural regulations
prohibit them.
Finally, many societies require marriage outside a specific group for
the purpose of creating social, economic, or military alliances with other
groups. But, again, can this explain the universality of the taboo?
Many nonhumans have a “biological incest taboo” that must nee-
essarily be somehow built into their genes. Many of the nonhuman
primates, as well as some other social creatures such as wolves, lions,
and some birds, seem to have a mechanism that prevents mating
between siblings or between mother and son. (The identity of the
father is often unknown in many species, so father-daughter matings
stand a chance of taking place.) The adaptive significance of such
inborn behaviors is probably the first two factors described above:
preventing both the expression of deleterious genetic combinations and
the disruption of the main economic and social unit. The behaviors
were naturally selected for. The same may have been true for our
ancestors. As with marriage, then, the explanation for the universality
of the incest taboo and the related requirement to marry outside a
specific group may lie in a biological norm becoming translated into
a set of cultural rules. I
Is there any evidence that the incest taboo may, underneath its
cultural expression, have a biological basis? Some compelling evi-
dence comes from studies conducted among Israeli kibbutzim-
communal agricultural settlements (Figure 7.11). In these communities,
children of similar age are raised together in day-care centers while
their parents are working. Until about twelve years of age, both sexes
play, eat, sleep, bathe, and use the bathroom together. They grow up,
in other words, as familiar with one another as real siblings, even

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 175
though they come from different families. Israeli anthropologist
Joseph Shepher found only 6 marriages within the same age groups
out of nearly 3,000 kibbutz marriages. This is despite the fact that
such marriages are not at all prohibited and in some cases are even
encouraged. It seems as if the social situation in the kibbutzim has,
in the words of an old TV ad, “fooled Mother Nature.” The close
proximity and familiarity of age-group kids is apparently siblinglike
enough to activate some biological mechanism that turns off sexual
attraction between real siblings and between parents and offspring,
thus eliminating this motivation for marriage.
We can and do make up cultural incest rules that cover many
different groups of people, and this variation, as we’ll discuss in
Chapter 10, has cultural explanations. But the fact that there are
incest rules at all and that the brother-sister and parent-offspring
taboo is universal seems to be explained by delving into our biologi-
cal past and then finding the biocultural interactions. And, as in the
case of the kibbutzim, sometimes even culture can’t overcome the
remnants of the original behavior.
From our remote beginnings, then, through some of our more obvi-
ous anatomical and physiological features, to some cultural institutions
so basic we take them for granted, we are indeed the sexual primate.
SUMMARY
Sexual behavior in humans differs from that
of most other mammals, including most
other primates, in that we have nondetect-
able ovulation and sexual consciousness.
Sexual attraction, norms, and attitudes are
tied up with cultural concepts of personality
and standards of beauty as well as individual
psychologies.
This difference may have evolved early in
hominid history as a mechanism to increase and
strengthen the direct involvement of males in
the care and raising of offspring. Sexual interest
would add to the motivations for forming a per-
sonal, emotional, and economic bond between
parents. Connected to this was the evolution of
bipedalism, which helped facilitate mobility
and the acquisition and sharing of resources
that were part of this bond.
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species,
and many of our dimorphic features may be un-
derstood in the context of the different roles
that would have been played by males and fe-
males among the early hominids. Other features
make sense as clear, visible signs of one’s iden-
tity as an individual male or female.
Sex refers to the biological characteristics
of and differences between males and females.
These differences are translated by cultural sys-
tems into the identities and roles of men and
women. We refer to these categories as gender.
Gender categories differ widely from culture to
culture and from time to time.
The universality of two cultural phenomena-
marriage and the parent-offspring and brother-
sister incest taboo-may be explained as cultural
translations of biologically based themes.

176 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
What Causes Differences in Sexual Orientation?
In the fall of 1998, a young Wyoming college
student was beaten and left hanging on a fence in
the cold to die. The young man was gay and the
tragic victim of a hate crime. Clearly, a difference
in sexual orientation still troubles many people,
even to the point of violence, and even the major-
ity who don’t feel violent toward homosexuals still
tend to ascribe attributes to a person based on
that sexual orientation. We have our stereotypes
of gay men and lesbian women.
Science has shown an interest in this topic.
Over the years, a fair number of explanations for
homosexuality have been proposed, including
hormonal imbalances, early childhood imprinting,
and early sexual abuse. More recently, with new
technologies that allow us to peer into our
genetic code and generate electronic images of
brain activity,genetic differences and differences in
brain anatomy have also been offered as connec-
tions, if not causes.
While any or all of these factors could be
related to aspects of one’s sexuality and sexual
behavior; it makes sense that no single factor can
account for all cases of a preference for members
of one’s own sex. Sexual preference is a far more
complex phenomenon than that
Consider exactly what is being categorized
by the terms homosexual and heterosexual.
Despite all the connotations of those terms, all
they really refer to is the sex of one’s partner in
a given instance. One is having sex either with a
member of the opposite sex or with a member
of one’s own sex. Because the vast majority of
people are unambiguously biological males or
females, there are really no other choices but
those two. So the physical, tangible situation
generates the dichotomy we make. In anthropo-
logical terms, we have,created a fairly obvious
folk taxonomy with regard to the sex of one’s
sexual partners.
But does it follow that the sex of a person’s
sex partner predicts other things about that
person? Does it follow that other factors of one’s
personality and life also fall into two neat, discrete
categories? Consider this: If you know that some-
one is heterosexual, can you make any other infer-
ences about that person other than the sex of his
or her sex partners? Hardly. Persons who classify
themselves as heterosexual vary widely in every
other factor of their lives, Including their attitudes
and behaviors regarding sex. Two heterosexuals
will probably find different features attractive In
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT
I. Examples of the conscious and cultural dimensions of human sexual behavior abound. As an experi-
ment, the next time you settle in to watch TV, count the advertisements that use sex as a hook, Take
note of how many are for products that have nothing to do with sex.
2. For better or worse, TV is a reflection of our culture, Watch a current show, perhaps a sitcom, and
then find a rerun of a sitcom from the 70s, 60s, and even 50s. How do they compare relative to
their treatment of sexuality and gender?

CHAPTER 7 Reproduction 177
members of the opposite sex, will prefer different
sexual activities, and will have different philoso-
phies and moral outlooks regarding sex. Why
should the situation be any different for
homosexuals?
Indeed, one finds the same degree of varia-
tion in all these factors among homosexuals as
among heterosexuals. And this is because atti-
tudes toward sex partners are expressed as a
continuum, not as two all-encompassing taxo-
nomic categories. At one end of the continuum
are those for whom the only norm regarding
sexual activity involves members of the opposite
sex. At the other end are those whose focus Is
exclusively on members of the same sex. In
between is everyone else, with enormously
varying attitudes about the emotional, physical,
and moral considerations involved in the sex
of one’s partner as well as about all the other
complex components of human sexuality. (Think
about the complex and varymg factors that
must motivate the men who become hijras.)
That our categories are artificial and limited is
evidenced by the fact that for people in the
middle range of that continuum, we have created
yet another category-bisexual. All the wide
range of variation in human sexual attitudes and
ideas is forced into three categories because
the physical expression of those attitudes and
ideas must necessarily be limited by our two
biological sexes.
Why does this range of variation in attitudes
and ideas exist?To ask a related question In evolu-
tionary terms, why do some people prefer sexual
activity that cannot conceivably lead to concep-
tion and thus to the perpetuation of the species?
The answer is simply that, as we detailed in the
chapter, during the evolution of our species the
components of sex have been extended from
the deeper, purely instinctive parts of our brains
into the conscious parts. All the components of
our sexuality and sexual behavior are now tied up
with all the other aspects of our personalities.
Since, obviously, our personalities differ in as many
ways as there are people on earth, it stands to
reason that our sexual personalities will differ to
a comparable degree. And our personalities are
influenced by our cultures. There are cultural
systems that have encouraged homosexual rela-
tionships, for example, the ancient Greeks and
several societies from Melanesia. Thus, it also
stands to reason that there is no one factor that
gives rise to our sexual attitudes, including our
choice (or choices) of sexual partners. There is,
therefore, no single cause for homosexuality.
Indeed, given our nature as the sexual primate, a
wide range of variation in what gives people
sexual pleasure is to be expected.
3. Read “The Five Sexes” and “The Five Sexes Revisited,” by Anne Fausto-Sterling (see below). What do
you think about “intersexuals, people who do not unambiguously fit either the male or female cate-
gory? Are they “abnormal,” or do they, as Fausto-Sterling suggests, deserve their own category or
categories? If so, how would this affect various aspects of our society?
4. Issues of sexual orientation have been very much in the news lately. Consider the issue of so-called
gay marriage. Does the information in this chapter shed any light on this contentious question? Has it
perhaps changed your mind on the matter?

178 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
More information on the bonobos is in Frans de
Waal’s delightful Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, which
includes Frans Lanting’s wonderful photographs.
The quote I used is from pages 105-106. But for an
update, see “Swingers” by Ian Parker in the July 30,
2007, New Yorker. The term “nondetecrable ovula-
tion” was suggested by primatologist Agustin Fuentes,
whose latest book, with Christina]. Campbell et al.,
is Primates in Perspective.
More on alloparenring can be found in “Meet the
Parents” by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy in the April 2009 issue
of Natural History.
More details on our various sexual dimorphisms
are in Sex Differences, edited by Michael S. Teitel-
baum, and in several chapters of Female of the Species,
by M. K. Martin and B. Voorhies. The latter also cov-
ers variation in sex and gender categories and the var-
ious roles of men and women in different societies.
This book is out of print but is well worth looking up
in the library.
For more on the hijras see Serena Nanda’s Neither
Man nor Woman, second edition, and “Hijras: An
‘Alternative’ Sex/Gender in India” by Gayatri Reddy
and Serena Nanda. The quote is from Serena Nanda and
Richard L. Warms’s Cultural Anthropology, sixth edi-
tion, page 207. For more on inrersexuals, see two pieces
by Anne Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes” and “The
Five Sexes Revisited,” in the March-April 1993 and
July-August 2000 issues (respectively) of The Sciences.
The quote from Schultz and Lavenda is from
their Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the
Human Condition, page 303.
Joseph Shepher’s study of the kibbutzim IS
included in his Incest: A Biosocial View.

HUMAN VARIATION
Biological Diversity and Race
CHAPTER CONTENTS Why Are There No Biological Races within the Human Species? • What Then, Are
Human Races? • Anthropology and the Study of Race • Race, Racism, and Social Issues • Summary
• Contemporary Issues: Are There Racial Differences in Athletic Ability? • Questions for Further Thought
• Notes, References, and Readings
179

180 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
subspecies Physically
distinguishable populations
within a species; the concept
is falling from use.
races In biology. the same
as subspecies. In culture,
categories that classify and
account for human diversity
The 6 billion human beings on earth today come in an amazingvariety of shapes, sizes, colors, appearances, beliefs, and behav-
rors, but there is still much misunderstanding about Just what our
species’ diversity means. There are now, and always have been,
conflicts.-from the ideological to the bloody-based on different
interpretations of the origin and meaning of biological and cul-
tural differences.
In Chapter 4 we examined the nature of cultural differences,
which we will discuss further throughout the book. But what about
biological differences? Where do those come from? What do they
mean) How are they connected to differences in behavior? The search
for answers to these questions is, I believe, one of anthropology’s most
important contributions.
Let’s begin with one of my favorite photographs (Figure 8. I). It
shows European American National Geographic photographer George
Steinmetz and some Yali men from the highlands of New GUinea. I
need not point out who is who. In fact, if I hadn’t said anything about
their nationalities, you probably could have guessed from what parts
of the world they come, even without the cultural cues of clothing.
Steinmetz looks European. The Yall men look like people from the
mterior of New GUinea. (Compare their features with those of the
people In Figures 9.13 and 14.8.)
This photo beautifully represents the Wide range of phenotypic
variation within the human species. Such variation led, for example, the
first Europeans who encountered peoples from the New Guinea high-
lands to assume they were a different species.
We know now, of course, that all the men Inthe photo are members
of the same biological species, Homo sapiens. We can provide detailed
evidence of their genetic similarities, and the ultimate test of species
identity-the abilityto produce fertile offspring-has been demonstrated
many times.
But look at them
‘
They are distinct in a number of striking physical
features. Surely they must represent definable, nameable groups within
the human species. And so, by implication, there are surely other defin-
able, nameable human groups. In other words, surely the human species
is divisible Into a number of biological subspecies, or, to use a more
common term, races.

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 181
JEMAAT GKI 10LNER
iiJaJillle
I’ll address that assumption right away. It is now a well-established
fact that, biologically, human races do not exist There IS no scientifically
valid way to divide us up into any number of biologically meaningful
groups within the species. But this area of human biological diversity is
rife with social, ethical, political, historical, philosophical, and personal
implications. And it’s a subject in which wishful thinking is sometimes
allowed to stand in for rigorous science
So, It pays to articulate why there are no biological races. It’s not
enough to assume it’s the case, no matter how noble the concept
makes us feel. We need to be able to explain It, to present the evidence
for it.
FIGURE 8.1
A European American pho-
tographer; who is 6 feet
2 inches tall. with a group of
Yali people from the high-
lands of West Papua (the
westem half of New GUinea),
There is little doubt as to
who is who. nor that mem-
bers of our species can
display a striking degree of
phenotypic variation. The
major question then be-
comes: Does this degree of
variation mean that there are
distinguishable human races?

182 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
cline A geographic contin-
uum in the variation of
a trait.
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. What scientific evidence refutes the existence of biological
human races?
2. What, then, ore human races)
3. How can anthropology contribute to our understanding of some
of the problems surrounding the concept of race?
WHY ARE THERE NO BIOLOGICAL RACES
WITHIN THE HUMAN SPECIES?
There are four areas of evidence that we can examine to address this
question. As we discuss them, we need to be as objective as possible, to
try not to argue to a predetermined conclusion. In the end, this will
make our conclusion all the more meaningful,
;
The Concept of Race within General Biology
Since we humans are a biological species, major theoretical conclusions
that apply to other species should apply to us. We may ask, then, what
evolutionary biologists in general say about the categories of subspecies
or races.
Subspecies names-that is, taxonomic names following the genus
and species names, indicating distinct groups-have been in common
use for years. Figure 8.2, for example, shows the ranges of four named
subspecies of caribou, a large North American member of the deer
family (Figure 8.3). The problem here is obvious: since all populations
of caribou compose a single species and maintain that species’ identity
through the flow of genes among their populations, these subspecies
distinctions are rather artificial. In reality, the dividing lines shown on
the map in Figure 8.2 don’t exist. The caribou at the extremes of the
range may look quite different (in size, color, and branching pattern of
antlers), but one doesn’t step over one of these geographical lines and
find the caribou suddenly looking completely distinct. Rather, their vari-
able traits, although they may cluster in certain areas, will grade into
one another over geographical space. This gradation is called a cline,
or clinal distribution.
Let’s consider another example. Figure 8.4 shows the size variation
(based on sixteen skeletal measurements) of the common house spar-
row. Northern and higher elevation sparrows tend to be larger, an adap-
tation to the cold. But, again, the categories are artificial. In no case
would those categories deserve formal names.
I sampled recent texts in evolutionary biology and found that the
concept of subspecies, or race, is formally recognized less and less.

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 183
f
• Rangifer tarandus granti
D Rangifer tarandus caribou
DRangifer torandus groenlandicus
• Rangifer tarandus pearyi I I250 500Kilometers
250 500Mile.
I I
FIGURE 8.2
North American popula-
tions of caribou are
considered by some to
represent subspecies, or races.
In one major text, for example (Evolution, by biologist Mark Ridley),
neither term appears in the index or glossary, nor is either formally
used in the discussions of species variation or species formation.
The terms are used in another book (Population Genetics and
Evolution, by Mettler et al.), but race is said to be “a subjective
convenience,” and in place of subspecies, the authors suggest semispe-
cies to indicate groups within a species that have become isolated
and distinct enough to be at an intermediate stage toward becoming
actual separate species. An example would be the caribou of North
America and the reindeer of Eurasia. Members of these two groups-
although they do show phenotypic differences-can interbreed under
artificial conditions (in zoos, for example), so they are technically
the same species; but they don’t interbreed in nature because they’ve
been isolated in separate hemispheres for about 10,000 years (since
the last glaciers receded and a rising sea level inundated the Bering
Land Bridge).
semispecies Populations
of a species that are
completely isolated from
one another but have
not yet become truly
separate species

184 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 8.3
The caribou, Rongifer
torondus. This woodland
caribou of Alaska and
Canada is sometimes
classified as subspecies
Rangifer torondus caribou.
Well adapted to a wide
range of environments, the
caribou has such traits as
hollow outer guard hairs,
which give it extra buoyancy
for swimming and extra
insulation for warmth. This
feature makes caribou hides
a favorite material among
some Arctic peoples for
making parkas.
Today, evolutionary biology tends to formally recognize biological
groups within species only on such relatively rare occasions. Otherwise,
variation within species is distributed clinally, making the naming of
meaningful subspecies or racial groups impossible.
The Distribution of Human Biological Variation
How, then, does the human species compare with other species as
regards races or subspecies? Could we-like caribou and reindeer-
come in distinct enough groups to be considered semispecies, thus
deserving formal third names after Homo sapiens? Or-like the popu-
lations of house sparrows or the North American caribou-are we a
large, widely dispersed, physically variable single species in which vari-
able traits are distributed as clines such that no truly distinct biological
populations exist? Let’s look at some of our variable biological traits
and their distributions.

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 185
San Franclscc-
Skin Color One obvious and important example is skin pigmentation-a
criterion used for racial classification the world over. Skin color is the
result of several pigments, the most important of which is melanin,
produced by specialized skin cells called melanocytes. A function of
melanin is to absorb the sun’s ultraviolet IUV) radiation. Too much
UV radiation can break down folate, a chemical necessary for normal
embryo development and rapid cell division, such as in sperm produc-
tion. It can also cause skin cancer. Under the influence of increased UV
radiation, a person’s melanocytes increase their melanin production and
darken the skin. This, of course, is known as tanning, and even dark-
skinned individuals exhibit this response.
Ultraviolet radiation varies with latitude. Sunlight strikes the earth
more directly at the equator and at more of an angle the farther one
gets from the equator. Hitting at an angle, the solar radiation also
travels through more atmosphere, and thus more UV is absorbed by
ozone. Not only do humans have the ability to tan in response to
increased UV levels, but, as is obvious to us all, populations are genet-
ically programmed for differences in skin color, and these differences
also vary by latitude. In general, peoples that live closer to the equator
have darker skin. Skin color gradually gets lighter in populations farther
FIGURE 8.4
The distribution of size
variation in male house
sparrows, determined by
sixteen skeletalmeasurements.
The larger the number. the
larger the sparrow, The
classes,however, are
arbitrary. If a line is drawn
from Atlanta to S1.Paul or
from St. Paul to San
Francisco,the size variation
is distributed as a cline, a
continuum of change from
one area to another.
melanin The pigment
largely responsible for
human skin color.
melanccytes Specialized
skin cellsthat produce the
pigment melanin.

186 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
120° 1200 IS,.
Range of human skin tone colour
Scale by latitude
60°30′;:;;; I ?’
o I ,000 2,~00mi
o 1,6103,220km
Darkest Lightest
FIGURE 8.5
Skin color distributions.
Darker skin is concentrated
in equatorial regions
away from the equator (Figure 8.5). (These generalizations refer to
indigenous populations, those with a long history in an area. The aver-
age skin color of people in a cosmopolitan city-say, New York-would
obviously be meaningless.)
It is generally agreed that the relationship between dark skin and
high levels of UV radiation is an example of an adaptive response.
Because of the damaging effects of UV, peoples in or near the equaror
have undergone selection for permanently higher levels of melanin
production. Darker-skinned people do not have more melanocytes than
lighter-skinned people, just more melanin. By implication, dark skin was
the original human skin color, since our species first evolved in equa-
torial Africa.
Why, then, did populations that moved away from the equator
evolve lower melanin production and therefore lighter skin? It has to
do with vitamin D production. Vitamin D can be synthesized in lower
layers of skin when a precursor of the vitamin is activated by UV radia-
tion. Vitamin D is important in regulating the absorption of calcium-
necessary for bone manufacture-especially during pregnancy and
lactation. A deficiency in vitamin D can also lead ro a skeletal deformity
known in children as rickets. (There is an adult version of the abnormality
as well.) Bones with rickets are also more prone ro breakage, and deformiry
of the pelvis can make childbirth difficult.

5
CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 187
As populations moved away from the equator, those with darker
skin could not manufacture sufficient vitamin D for normal bone
growth and maintenance. Those with lighter skin, therefore, were at an
adaptive and, thus, a reproductive advantage. Over time, lighter skin
became the normal, inherited condition in these groups. Thus, skin color
may be seen as a balancing act-dark enough to protect from the dam-
aging effects of UV and light enough to allow the absorption of vitamin
D and its related benefits.
Now, look back at Figure 8.5. Although skin color varies by lati-
tude and ranges from the very dark to the very light, in no way does
this variation assort into distinct geographical groups. Skin color, like
sparrow size, is distributed as a cline, gradually getting lighter or darker
across geographic space. So, dark skin, often associated with Africa, is
in fact an equatorial expression and is also found-as you have seen-
halfway around the world in New Guinea. It does not correspond to
one particular population.
Skin color is, however, a trait of continuous variation; that is, the
trait itself does not come in nice, neat categories but ranges from light
to dark with all shades in between. What about traits that come in
discrete, either-or categories? Maybe these could be used to divide our
species into subspecies or racial populations.
Blood Type The well-known ABO blood types are a good example.
Everyone on earth is type A, type 0, type B, or type AB-there are no
other categories and no intermediates. The variation is the result of four
variants of a single gene that codes for a protein on the red blood cells.
How is this trait distributed?
Figure 8.6 shows the distributions for type A and type B blood.
There is no correlation to any obvious environmental factor such as
latitude or climate. Type A is totally absent in some indigenous South
American groups but is found in over 50 percent of some northern
European and indigenous Australian populations. Type B, found in very
low frequency among Native Americans, comes in high frequencies in
Asia-where Native Americans originated.
It has been suggested that this trait is adaptively neutral, that is,
that blood type is not related to health or reproductive success but is
just a matter of the random processes of evolution, gene flow, and
genetic drift (see Chapter 3). The great apes also have these blood types,
so the variation could go well back into our evolutionary history. Oth-
ers have proposed an association between blood type and susceptibility
or resistance to various diseases. There is some statistical evidence for
this but no well-established cause-and-effect relationships.
The point here is that, as with skin color, the distribution of blood
types is of no help in defining human races. The categories on the maps
are arbitrary. I could have divided the range of frequencies into more
or fewer groups. The maps then would have looked quite different. But

Type A:
D 0%, unknown,
or uninhabited
c:::J 1-20%
021-49%
050%+
J
Type B,
00-5%
c::Jj 6-10%
011-20%
~ 21-30%
FIGURE 8.6
Approximate frequency distributions of type A and type B blood, demonstrating the lack of a
pattern in the distribution of this variable trait.
188

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 189
again, notice that the distribution of the frequencies is actually clina!’
If I assigned more categories, this would be even clearer.
In fact, no matter what traits one uses-and there are many more
human variable traits-the human species simply cannot be divided
into distinct subgroups based on biological differences. Nor will such
division work when using combinations of traits, because the distribu-
tions of traits are discordant-that is, a particular expression of one
trait does not necessarily predict a particular expression of another
(Figure 8.7). The nature and distribution of human traits, then, is like
that of most other species. Our variable traits are distributed as clines,
with no clear-cut boundaries.
Human Genetics
Phenotypic features can be deceptive, influenced as they are by multiple
genes, environmental factors, and natural selection. For the past several
decades, we have had the ability to look at aspects of the genetic code
itself. Some have thought that perhaps this type of research could pro-
vide better data for determining the identity of subspecies groups of
Homo sapiens.
From the beginning, however, it was clear that genetic data did
more to refute the concept of biological race than did phenotypic data.
When scientists genetically compared samples from traditional racial
FIGURE 8.7
A diagram of discordant
variation, Each layer repre-
sents the geographic
distribution of one variable
trait. Each “core,” or cylinder;
represents a sample of
individuals from a particular
area, Notice that each core
is different and that any
other four cores are very
likely to be different as well.
The expression of one trait
does not predict a particu-
lar expression of another.
There are no natural racial
divisions based on specific
combinations of traits.

190 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 8.8
Comparative genetic diver-
sity: Circle (0) represents the
genetic diversity of humans
from sub-Saharan Africa
and (b) the genetic diversity
of the rest of the world’s
peoples. Note that African
diversity is much greater and
that most of the diversity of
the rest of the world is a
subset of African diversity.
(Circles are not drawn
to scale.)
groups, they determined that there was actually little genetic difference
among the groups. Most diversity in genes, around 95 percent, was
found between individuals, even individuals within the same “racial”
affiliation. In other words, only around 5 percent of genetic variation
exists between major population groups.
This means that diversity on the genetic level is not clustered into
any definable subspecies divisions but is instead fairly evenly distributed
and all the phenotypic variation that we try to assort into race is the
result of a virtual handful of genes.
Of course, the nature of the genetic variation that does exist is such
that the variation may well show a geographic pattern due to the pro-
cesses of evolution. We see this in skin color, blood type, and other
physical features that are characteristic of certain areas. Bur interest-
ingly, only a few genetic variants (about 7 percent) are unique to any
one population, and these are rare in those populations. This means
that they are in no way characteristic of those populations. Moreover,
although some clusters that are geographically distant or isolated by a
barrier are statistically different for the studied ‘variants, the frequencies
of those change gradually across space; in other words, they are dis-
tributed as clines.
And, finally, when we look at an overall pattern of genetic varia-
tion for our species, we find something very interesting. The genetic
variation within sub-Saharan Africa is greater than that for the entire
remainder of the human population. Moreover, the variation in the rest
of the world is, for the most part, a subset of that of sub-Saharan
Africa (Figure 8.8). Thus, on a broad genetic level, our familiar racial
designations don’t make sense. “African” is not a genetic race because
there is almost no set of African genetic variation not shared by some
other populations in the world. Nor do groups such as “European” or
“Native American” have any genetic racial identity, because their sets
of genetic variants are found somewhere in Africa, the acknowledged
geographic home of the species.
(b) Genetic diversity of
the rest of the world(a) Genetic diversity from
sub-Saharan Africa –+-

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 191
Thus, as with phenotypic features, variation and regional differ-
ences in genes do not translate into support for biologically meaningful
racial groups.
Evolutionary Theory and the Nature
of the Hurnan Species
Let’s look at rhe question of hiological race from a more general per-
spective. We could ask whether-given the nature of our species and
what we know of the workings of evolution-groups distinct enough
to be semispecies could exist within Homo sapiens. After all, semispe-
cies have developed in 10,000 years in Rangifer tarandus (reindeer and
caribou), and even by the most conservative estimates, our species is
ten times as old.
Moreover, we are a populous species; we live in vastly diverse envi-
ronmental conditions, sometimes in fairly isolated areas; and we further
isolate our populations through cultural boundaries. These would seem
the perfect circumstances for creating definable groups.
Mobility and Gene Flow One noteworthy feature of our species for
its entire biological history has been mobility. We evolved first in Africa-
whether that was 2 million or 200,000 years ago (see Chapter 6)-and
then spread with amazing speed all over the Old World, despite moun-
tains, large bodies of water, and other barriers. And when we reached
the far corners of Africa and Eurasia, we did not stay put. We continued
to move around in search of resources and space. As we evolved, we
acquired increasing ability to move around (with the domestication of
the horse and with inventions such as boats and navigation instruments),
and we found increasing motivation for doing so. Such mobility leads
to extensive gene flow, and it’s fair to say that humans tend to exchange
genes at nearly every opportunity.
What about our cultural rules about marrying within one’s own
society? Don’t they genetically isolate populations at certain times?
Recall the Hutrerires, who have been largely endogamous for over
480 years. Such rules change, and the political, ethnic, and religious
populations they define change over time. The Hurterites’ nearly half a
millennium history is not all that long in evolutionary terms; not much
genetic variation could arise in that period, especially in a species with
a long generation time. Moreover, rules of endogamy arc not always
fully upheld. Biological isolation through the cultural institution of
endogamy is a temporary condition.
Gene flow, then, is the norm for our species, and, as widespread
as we are, we still manage to exchange enough genes-through inter-
mediary populations-to prevent any group of humans from being
isolated long enough to evolve the distinct differences sufficient for
semispecies status.
endogamy Marriage within
a specified unit of people.

192 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Culture Finally, what about all the different euvironments our species
inhabits? Couldn’t natural selection have led to differentiation of some
populations? Certainly, the variation and distribution of some of our
variable traits-skin color, for example–ean be attributed to natural
selection. But our major adaptive mechanism is culture, with its values,
social systems, and, especially, its technologies that, to a great extent,
have increasingly buffered us against the constant editing of natural
selection. Adaptively, we change less biologically than we do culturally.
Culture and the big brain that makes culture possible are species char-
acteristics, shared by all humans. They are the basis of our modern
identity. Culture, in a sense, is our environment, and we may say that
for some time our species has experienced little of the kind of environ-
mental variation that would lead to the development of distinct, isolated
subpopularions, even among such groups as those from Australia, New
Guinea, and Tasmania that have been relatively isolated for perhaps
tens of thousands of years. As anthropologist C. Loring Brace puts it,
we all have undergone the “same selective pressures” leading to essen-
tially the “same lifeway.”
WHAT, THEN, ARE HUMAN RACES?
Having said all the above, we are still left with the fact that races are,
indeed, real. We talk about them. We identify ourselves as belonging to
one race or another. We identify one another as belonging to a partic-
ular race. We are asked on various forms to identify our race. Decisions
about our lives are made according to our race. And, certainly, we can’t
open the newspaper without reading some story related to race. So, if
not a biological category, what is race?
The answer is that race is a folk taxonomy, a cultural classification
(see Chapter 7). All cultures have folk taxonomies for the human vari-
ations they are aware of. Isolated societies may have a very simple racial
classification: us and them. And often their word for us also means
something like “human” or “the people,” while them may imply, well,
something other than “the people.” Societies having more contact with
other groups will, obviously, have more complex folk taxonomies for
race and more complex attitudes, reflected by the implications of their
names and categories.
The racial categories we are familiar with in the United States are
no less a folk taxonomy than those of other cultures. Our basic
scheme of categories is something we all are aware of. I once gave a
class a weekend assignment: to find ten people-preferably of various
ages, both sexes, and different ethnic backgrounds-and ask them two
questions: How many races are there? What are they? Some came
back with odd responses, such as “three races: black, white, and
Polish.” Jewish was a race according to some informants. Some listed

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 193
Native Americans. But the majority gave some form of racial classifi-
cation that corresponded to our familiar categories-Caucasian, black,
Asian; or African American, white, Oriental. They used different terms
depending on their own age and background, but the similarity of
responses indicated that some basic taxonomy is shared among mem-
bers of our society.
Now, since these are cultural categories, we should be able to trace
their origins bistorically. At the risk of oversimplifying European and
American history, I will surmise that our racial categories can be traced
back to European knowledge and attitudes first acquired during the Age
of Exploration. European explorers used mostly water transportation
and so were limited in the range and distribution of human variation
they could observe. They sampled points along the continuum of human
biodiversity. Because these points could differ greatly from one another,
it appeared that human variation fell into a small number of relatively
discrete categories (Figure 8.9), generally by continent.
In addition, the Europeans didn’t see these indigenous peoples as
merely different; they compared them to and rated them against European
peoples and cultures, usually unfavorably. After all, they looked different,
spoke differently, had different cultures, often were less technologically
complex, and were not Christians, Jews, or Muslims. In addition, the
motivation for exploration was often less to acquire knowledge than to
acquire spices, precious metals, territory, and labor. An attitude of pro-
found difference and dominance was built into European relationships
with these indigenous peoples. (Notice in Figure 8.9 the men erecting a
cross to claim the land for Spain.) A racial folk taxonomy naturally devel-
oped to organize this variation and these attitudes.
These folk taxonomic categories were formalized in 1758 by
Linnaeus. His species Homo sapiens was divided into five varieties:
Homo sapiens ferus (wild men, possibly to accommodate tales of aban-
doned children supposedly raised by animals), H.s. amertcanus, H.s.
europaeus, H.s. asiaticus, and H.s. afer. (Interestingly, despite his obvi-
ous biases, he doesn’t place Europeans at either the beginning or end
of the list, as one would expect.) His descriptions of these races-and
this is typical of racial folk taxonomies all over-are blends of biolog-
ical generalizations, perceived cultural traits, and what anthropologist
Stephen Molnar calls “personality profiles.” For example, here’s his
description of Homo sapiens afer:
Black, phlegmatic [sluggish], relaxed. Hair black, frizzled; skin silky,
nose flat; lips tumic [swollen]; crafty, indolent, negligent. Anoints
himself with grease. Governed by caprice [impulse].
Europeans, by comparison, were “covered with cloth vestments” and
“governed by laws.”
Because the history of the United States has been so influenced by
European cultures, it makes sense that these basic categories would be

194 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
FIGURE 8.9
Columbus’s first contact
with natives of the New
World. To the Europeans,
the Indians were so strikingly
different in physical and
cultural features that it was
natural to consider them a
distinct category of human.
Notice the men planting the
cross to claim the land as
theirs, (From a seventeenth-
century Spanish version’ of a
1594 engraving by de Bry.
The Granger Collection.)
carried over to this country and altered by its subsequent history. For
example, the reason we distinguish Hispanics from other European Amer-
icans is, in part, because of the conflicts between Spain and other Euro-
pean countries over territory in the New World and later between
Mexico, a former Spanish colony, and the United States. Notice, too, that
in some lists of race, Puerto Rican and Hispanic are separate categories.
It’s not that some new group of people has arisen; rather, we choose for
certain purposes to distinguish people from that U.S. territory-people
who, previously and still in other lists, are categorized as Hispanic.
Race is a folk taxonomy-a cultural translation of human diversity,
variable across space and over time. But I should offer a caution: hav-
ing dismissed the idea of biological race and having identified race as

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 195
a folk taxonomy, let’s not relegate the race concept to just a folk tax-
onomy and by doing so imply that the problems inherent in, derived
from, and justified by our racial categories are not real. They are. Folk
taxonomies are powerful things, not just isolated phenomena of “exotic”
cultures. All cultures categorize their worlds with folk taxonomies. Even
ours. And even when we are aware of our taxonomies, we still respond
to and perceive our world according to them.
ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF RACE
It would be nice to say that anthropology all along has been the disci-
pline that collected real data to support the nonexistence of biological
races. But that is not the case. As we discussed in Chapter 2, anthro-
pology is a science conducted, as are all sciences, within a cultural
context and so is influenced, even constrained by, cultural trends and
limits to knowledge. The fact is, for much of the history of anthropol-
ogy, into the 1960s, the field acknowledged some racial divisions of
humankind and sought to enumerate and define those races.
Going back into the nineteenth century, and earlier-before anthro-
pology was even a named discipline-there was of course scientific inter-
est in explaining human biological and cultural variation, and the existence
of biological races seemed as obvious as the existence of different cultural
systems. Often, if not most of the time, both these areas of variation were
explained as different stages in the evolution from a more primitive to a
more civilized state, with the obvious value judgments that implies.
Even after Franz Boas (often called the “father of American anthro-
pology”), in the early part of the twentieth century, challenged the valid-
ity of “types” of humans and said that differences in achievement among
cultures were the result of historical events, not of differences in mental
faculties, the reality of races was still, more often than not, assumed.
Museum displays included family trees that showed a branching among
the typical races, and popular and scholarly books divided humankind
into a usually small number of relatively distinct racial groups.
The virulent and violent racism of Nazi Germany in the Second
World War led to a rethinking of the accepted biological reality of race
that, if not the cause of such racism, certainly helped facilitate it. As
early as 1942, Princeton anthropologist Ashley Monragu wrote Man’s
Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, and in 1964 he edited The
Concept of Race, a collection of eleven essays that debunk the existence
of biological races using the same reasoning-if not all the modern
data-of the argument in this chapter.
Still, the idea that races must exist held on in places. My first course
in human variation, in 1967, was called “Varieties of Man,” the title
implying that there were varieties. The text we used was The Origin of
Races (1962) by University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Carleton S.

196 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
racism Judging an individual
solely on his or her assigned
racial affiliation, based on
the assumption that all
members of a “race” pos-
sess specific characteristics.
Prejudice and discrimination
based on such a belief.
Coon, a book that not only recognized five original races but claimed
that those races could be traced back to Homo erectus and had crossed
a “sapiens threshold” at different times and in a particular order; thus
the races had been “sapient” (it means wise or intelligent) for different
lengths of time. (It’s almost unnecessary to relate in what order Coon
thought they crossed this imaginary threshold.) My class notes for that
course include lists of characteristics of the major races, with other lists
for hybrid races.
And even as recently as 2004, anthropologist Vincent Sarich and
science writer Frank Miele claim in Race: The Reality of Human Dif-
ferences that “race is a valid biological concept” in part because we
recognize races culturally. In making this argument, they simply ignore
the difference between biological reality and folk taxonomy that we’ve
discussed here. Old folk taxonomies sometimes die hard.
It must be made clear that the claim that biological human races
don’t exist is not being made because it would bolster moral and eth-
ical precepts of human social equality. That is a separate issue. The fact
is, based on good, sound biology, races withtn our biological species
don’t exist-whether we like that or not. And this has been, despite
aspects of our past history, a major contribution to knowledge that
anthropology can take almost full credit for.
RACE, RACISM, AND SOCIAL ISSUES
The issue of race is not just a matter of whether or not to apply the
biological concept of the subspecies to divisions among humans. Would
that it were. Rather, the idea of race can be, and is, used to make pre-
judgments about people and to determine a person’s place in society,
often without regard to that person’s individual traits, skills, and talents.
This is racism. The moral dimension of this problem is broad, but we
can show how anthropology has examined two claimed connections
between racial categories and biological traits and, in the process,
remind ourselves just what race is-and what it is not.
Cultural Level
One issue is the claim that certain human societies, because they live
at a less complex cultural level than most, are somehow less evolved
and, thus, less intelligent. There are, sadly, many examples of such an
idea and its consequences in human history. One striking example
involves the natives on the island of Tasmania, located about 130 miles
south of Australia (Figure 8.10).
When first contacted by Europeans in the seventeenth century, the
indigenous Tasmanians, numbering about 5,000, lived with one of the
least complex technologies of any modern peoples. Their tools were

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 197
simple stone and wood artifacts. They lacked metal, domesticated plants
and animals, pottery, and bows and arrows. All these were lacking in
Australia, too. But the Tasmanians also lacked things found commonly
in Australia, such as boomerangs, dogs, nets, hafted stone tools, barbed
spears, and the know-how to fish, sew, and perhaps even make a fire.
The European settlers saw the natives of Tasmania as less than
human, perhaps even, some scientists suggested, as missing links between
humans and apes. They were enslaved, killed, or relocated to isolated
areas. A cash bounty was offered for natives captured alive. Some were
hunted for sport. By 1869 there were only three native Tasmanians left,
two of whom were further denigrated even in death as their bodies
were dissected, some of the pieces used as souvenirs, and their bones
FIGURE 8.10
Eight of the last native
Tasmanians.

198 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
diffusion The movement of
cultural ideas and artifacts
among societies. Cultural
borrowing.
put on public display. (Not surprisingly, however, there are still some
descendants of Tasmanian women and white settlers.)
Such behavior is, of course, unconscionable, and its immorality needs
no discussion. But we can still try to account for the great disparity in
technological complexity that the Europeans used to support and justify
their ideas about and treatment of native Tasmanians. Was there some-
thing profoundly different about Tasmanians themselves that prevented
them from inventing some very basic tools and technologies?
The answer is that such differences in cultures are explained not
by evolutionary level but, as Franz Boas suggested a century ago, by
very practical considerations of geography, environment, history, and
mobility. A group of people is adapted to the environment in which it
lives. The people can only use what resources their habitat provides.
They must contend with the climatic conditions of their area.
Although people have lived successfully in just about every set of
environmental circumstances on earth, these variables-resources and
climate-ean make a big difference. As we will point out in Chapter 9,
the first farming occurred where there were wi’1d plants with character-
istics that lent themselves to domestication. Similarly, domesticable wild
animals must be present for that cultural change to take place.
The movement of peoples with their ideas and technologies is
another factor. Societies rely on contact with other societies for the
majority of their cultural irems, often referred to as their cultural inven-
tory. By some estimates, only 10 percent of a given society’s cultural
inventory originated within that society. The other 90 percent has been
borrowed from other cultures in a process known as diffusion (a topic
we’ll discuss in more detail in Chapter 13). Thus, indigenous populations
isolated from contact with others were left very much to their own
devices. Societies that inhabited isolated regions changed slowly. On the
other hand, societies that lived along major migration routes had contact
with various peoples and cultures and had ample opportunity to observe,
borrow, and adopt new ideas and items. They changed rapidly.
During the Pleistocene glacial advances, Tasmania was connected
many different times to Australia, and Australia itself, while never con-
nected directly to Southeast Asia, was more accessible to that region
via a string of islands exposed when sea levels dropped. This is how
people got to Tasmania in the first place. But with the last glacial reces-
sion 10,000 ya, Tasmania and Australia were separated from one
another by a broad strait that the Tasmanians’ simple watercraft were
incapable of navigating. The hunter-gatherer population of the island
was thus almost completely isolated until Europeans arrived in 1642.
The Tasmanians changed, to be sure, but slowly, and there is even
archaeological evidence that their culture actually lost some items-
bone tools and the know-how to /ish and sew-that they once had.
Major differences in level of technological complexity between soci-
eties can be striking, and we may be tempted to explain them through

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 199
differences in biology-evolutionary level or mental facility. But there is
no evidence for such biological differences, and there are perfectly sound
explanations based on the nature of culture as an adaptive mechanism.
Race and Intelligence
A second claimed connection between race and biology is the idea that
human populations differ in intelligence. If one group’s goal is to limit
the social position and power of another group, it can argue that the
other group possesses some unalterable biological difference that inher-
ently limits its abilities and therefore justifies its lower social position.
Slavery in the United States was often justified by the claim that the black
slaves were less intelligent than the whites and therefore could never hope
to attain the dominant race’s social, political, and intellectual level.
Such broad statements are so clearly motivated by social and eco-
nomic agendas as to be at least questionable, if not obviously false.
Perhaps more dangerous, however, are the more subtle correlations
whose propositions are based on scientific investigation. Ideas that
sound scientific are often treated more seriously, especially because, even
today, many people feel that science is something so complex and
obscure that only a handful can really understand it. Many people take
the position that if something sounds scientific and they don’t get it, it
must be valid.
Such is the case for the claimed connection between race and IQ
(intelligence quotient). The most infamous example is the late educa-
tional psychologist Arthur Jensen’s 1969 article in the Harvard Educa-
tional Review titled “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic
Achievement?” A more recent work on the same topic is The Bell
Curve, by R. J. Herrnstein and C. Murray (1994). It is far more com-
plex than Jensen’s article but expresses the same basic argument, so a
focus on the older work will make the essential points.
Jensen attempted to explain the documented fact that American
black children score, on average, 15 points lower on IQ tests than
American white children. He wondered why programs aimed at the
obvious solution of culturally enriching children’s lives had pretty
much failed. Hence, the title of his article (this time with emphasis for
the right intonation): “How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
achievement?”
Jensen’s first conclusion is that IQ tests measure general intelligence-a
biological, inherited entity. Jensen also accepts that 80 percent of the
variation in intelligence within a population is explained by genetic dif-
ferences and that only 20 percent is the result of members of that group
having been brought up in different cultural environments.
The obvious conclusion, then, is that the difference in intelligence
between the two racial groups must be largely the result of some genetic
difference, and thus, all the cultural enrichment programs in the world

200 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
reification Translating a
complex set of phenomena
into a single entity such as
a number:
can have only a limited effect. Jensen’s answer to the question in his title
is “Not much.” He states: “No one has yet produced any evidence based
on a properly controlled study to show that representative samples of
Negro and white children can be equalized in intellectual ability through
statistical control of environment and education.”
But Jensen went further. He compared scores from different parts of
lQ tests and concluded that the different lQs of blacks and whites result
from their having different kinds of intellectual abilities. According to
Jensen, whites are better at problem solving and abstract reasoning, while
the abilities of blacks are focused on memorization, rate learning, and
trial-and-error experience. The former is what IQ tests test.
His ultimate conclusion was that education should be as individu-
alized as possible, taking into account not only individual differences
in ability and skill but these racially based ones as well.
As you can imagine, Jensen’s article caused great controversy. He
was labeled a racist by some. Those with racist leanings embraced his
work enthusiastically. Let’s examine his argument more scientifically,
however.
The idea that lQ tests measure some innate mental ability is fraught
with problems. It has been said that IQ tests measure the ability to take
IQ tests. This statement is not, as it sounds, just sarcasm. IQ tests, in
fact, measure particular knowledge and abilities that are largely learned
through one’s culture. They are valuable. Relatively low scores may
sometimes point out a learning disability that has a biological basis.
Because they measure the kinds of skills required by education in our
culture as well as by many occupations, they do have predictive value
as to one’s success within the culture.
We do not, however, even know what intelligence is. How can we-
through a test given in a cultural language, in a cultural setting, with
cultural problems-apply a single number to such a complex and
multifaceted concept? When we do this, we are practicing what is called
reification. IQ scores reify intelligence-translate a complex idea into a
single number, which we then use to assign people to various groups,
for example, different learning tracks in schools.
As anthropologist Jonathan Marks suggests, there is a difference
between ability and performance. One’s score on an lQ test is a score
of one’s performance. Certainly some internal factor-innate intellec-
tual ability, whatever that is-plays a part in your IQ performance.
But that performance is also affected by external factors. In test tak-
ing, for example, your cultural background, quality of education,
personality, home life, even your mood on the day of the test can all
affect your performance. We cannot, therefore, infer innate abilities
from a test score any more than we can infer a person’s athletic
abilities from his or her performance in just one game.
The inherited nature of IQ is a complicated issue, but we can point
out a major problem here. Heritability studies-which estimate the

CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 201
genetic and environmental components of the phenotypic variation in a
population-are done regularly, but they are carried out using organisms
like fruit flies, where the genetic mechanisms for phenotypic traits are
well known and can be manipulated, and where the environmental vari-
ables can be controlled in detail. Numbers may be placed on these genetic
and environmental variables, which may then be plugged into a herita-
bility formula. To apply the heritability formula to humans, however, is
virtually impossible. What numbers can we place on the environmental
variables that affect us? How, in other words, can we reify culture? What
number is applied to having a culturally enriched childhood, being a
member of a minority group, or having a poor early education?
To further claim that two races have different kinds of intellectual
abilities is to ignore the very nature of the modern human species. This
claim denies to a large number of people the very abilities-to solve
problems, to formulate abstractions and generalizations-that are a
hallmark of our species’ evolution.
Finally, if you are looking to make biological comparisons between
two groups, the groups need to be biologically defined. American
whites and American blacks are decidedly not biological races. We have
already established that race is not a biological concept for the human
species in the first place. The groups are cultural. There’s simply not
much genetic difference. Indeed, it has been estimated that about
15 percent of all genes in African Americans have come from European
Americans as a result of gene flow between the two populations over
the last several hundred years.
Our folk taxonomies are powerful and influential. We respond to
them often without realizing that they are our culture’s way of ordering
our world and are not necessarily scientific universals. The influence of
the American folk taxonomy for race can easily be seen in Jensen’s
work. By understanding what race is and what it’s not and by applying
what we know about the workings of genetics and evolution, we may
see the fallacies of this particular piece of research and adopt a per-
spective from which to evaluate other such claims.
SUMMARY
Race is one of today’s most contentious issues.
Anthropology’s contribution to this discussion
involves the objective examination of the facets
of human variation and conclusions about
what that variation entails, how it came about,
and what it does and does not mean. Armed
with such information, we are better able to
confront the social, ethical, political, and per-
sonal aspects of race.
Scientific data from evolutionary biol-
ogy, biological anthropology, and genetics
show us clearly that while human biological
variation exists across geographical space
and can be examined and explained, the
human species simply cannot be divided into
any number of meaningful biological units.
In other words, biological races do not exist
for our species.

202 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Are There Racial Differences in Athletic Ability?
Nearly 80 percent of players In the National Bas-
ketball Association are African American. The figure
IS 70 percent for professional women’s basketball.
The National Football League is 65 percent black In
track and field, nearly every men’s world record
belongs to an Afncan or someone of African de-
scent In the 20 I I New York Marathon, three of the
top ten male finishers were from Kenya, including
the first and second. Three of the top ten women
finishers were Kenyan. In the 20 I I Boston Mara-
thon, five of the top ten men were Kenyan, includ-
ing first and second, and the first, third, and fourth
women were Kenyan. These statistics pose an ob-
vious question that we may address by focusing on
a controversial book by joumalist and TV producer
Jon Entine called Taboo: Why Black Athletes Domi-
nate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk about It This
complex book nicely covers many aspects of the
topic of sports and race. Entine wrote it. he says,
because”sport remainsa havenfor some of our
most virulent stereotypes” and because he believes
“that open debate beats backroom scuttlebutt.”
And open debate it does.
Our immediate explanation for the dispropor-
tionate representation of athletes of African de-
scent in some sports is what might be called
social selection. This IS the idea that in this
country and others, sports-particularly those
not requiring specializedand often expensive
equipment-became an outlet for members of
minority groups, an achievable goal when access
to numerous opportunities suchas higher
education and careers was limited by social
prejudices, poor primary and secondary
education,and lower socioeconomic status.
Entine points out that this,in fad, was the case
With Jews and basketball in the first half of the
twentieth century; basketball (as well as boxing)
was a way out of the ghetto and ethnic prejudice.
So stereotyped did the association between Jews
and basketball become that one 1930s sports-
writer made a semibiological connection, claiming
that Jews were better at the game because of
their “alert, scheming mind” and “flashy trickiness”
(quoted in Entine).
But Entine also claims that there are biologi-
cal explanations and that these are, in some
cases, more influentia( Specifically, he docu-
ments evidence that three regions of Africa-
West Africa, North Africa, and East Africa-have
populations With physical attributes more
common to them than to other populations
that make them innately better at sports
involving endurance, sprinting, and jumping.
These traits include such things as a lower
percentage of body fat, a higher proportion of
certain muscle fibers, and physiological fea-
tures related to efficient oxygen use. He says
that the reason these traits-of obvious adap-
tive utility-are more common in Africa is that
“while people of African descent have spent
most of their evolutionary history near to
where they originated, the rest of the world’s
populations have had to modify their African
adaptations after migrating to far different
regions and climates.”
The arguments in Entine’s book and reviews
of it are complex and should be discussed and
further examined, but for our purposes here
we can address two issues.First is it possible

that there are variable human phenotypic traits,
even ones that might show patterns of geo-
graphic distribution, that might relate to athletic
ability? Of course it is.How many heavyweight
boxers could hail from the highlands of New
Guinea (see Figure 8.1), where indigenous peo-
ple are, on average, much smaller than the av-
erage European or African? Could the average
Inuit compete successfully in a 400-meter
sprint against someone built like the photogra-
pher in Figure 8.1?
So researchinto other: lessobvious physical
differences is perfectly Justified.In fact,the
Kenyan runners have been studied, with the
result that their relative successappears to have
more to do with training than with any inherent
biological difference.
But for our purposes, a more serious prob-
lem with Entine’s overall argument-one that
relates to a major theme of this chapter-Is
that he uses exceptional individuals to make
generalizations not only about particular popu-
lations but about whole racial groups. He
starts with the assumption that racial groups
exist and that their internal homogeneity (re-
fleeted by physiological traits) is the result of
how long they have lived In different parts of
the world. He says,for example, that “although
there is considerable disagreement, the three
major racial groupings-Caucasian, Mongoloid,
Negroid-split from 100,000 ya to as recently
as the beginning of the last Ice age” [emphasis
mine]: he even espouses a minority view that
“different races [may not be] modifications of
Homo sapiens, they were in existence before
the emergence of Homo sapiens.” In other
words, he assumes that the populations he is
CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 203
•
examining are races in the traditional, biologi-
cal sense of that word. This, then, is the basis
for his explanation of the dominance of Afri-
can Americans in some sports, namely as a re-
sult of their African heritage. According to
Entine, Africans are on average innately better
athletes for some skills:therefore, a great num-
ber of African Americans have inherited these
innate skills.
These are logical leaps with little If any valid-
ity. We understand that variation exists and
that some is geographically patterned. But clear-
cut racial groups do not exist. While a small
Kenyan population just might have some fea-
tures that make them better runners, that in no
way means that those features are necessarily
more common on the African continent as a
whole, because this assumesthat Africa IS syn-
onymous with a racial group. And it certainly
doesn’t explain the sports phenomenon in the
United States.Among other problems with En-
tine’s conclusions is the fact that the averageAf-
rican American can trace a fair percentage of
his or her genes to Europe. This should mean
that African Americans would be expected to
be worse athletes than West Africans, but this IS
not the case.
This is a complex issue.Obviously, both bio-
logical and sociocultural components contrib-
ute in different degrees to various aspects of
sports. We should not be afraid to examine
this issue. But doing so in terms of the demon-
strably nonexistent biological races only serves
to detract from an accurate understanding of
the topic and might further reinforce those
“virulent stereotypes” that Entine justly seeks
to refute .

204 PART Two The Identity and Nature of the Human Species
Race, of course, does exist, but it is a cultural
classification-based on a society’s knowledge
of human diversity, its history, and its attitudes
about various human groups. Just as societies
culturally translate sexual differences into gender
categories, they also translate human biological
and cultural diversity into racial categories.
Political, ideological, and economic moti-
vations have led societies to propose connec-
tions between racial categories and biological
traits. Differences, in cultural complexity have
been interpreted to reflect differences in intel-
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT
ligence or evolutionary level. lQ test scores
have been said to show differences in intellec-
tual abilities between races. There is no sound
evidence for such profound biological differ-
ences. Rather, there are logical reasons for
differences in test scores and level of technol-
ogy that are grounded in what anthropologi-
cal data and theory have shown us about
the nature of culture as an adaptive mecha-
nism and about the complex environments in
which we, as individuals and members of our
societies, live.
I. The basic concept of this chapter can be a complex one when you confront it in real life. Imagine
someone challenged you about the nonexistence of biological races. Suppose this person said, “But,
hey, I was just watching the Olympics last summer; and I could tell where the athletes were from Just
by their features, Isn’t that race?” How would you respond?
2. Think about the North American categories of race. What specific historic events or sequences
may have influenced our commonly understood racial groups? If you are familiar with the racial folk
taxonomy of another culture, similarly analyze it.
3. Give some other examples of the “connection” between race and athleticism. For example, are white
men and women better golfers? or swimmers? What about the prevalance of Eastern Europeans
in gymnastics?
4. On a practical level: suppose it is verified that some populations in Kenya have a disproportionate
number of members who possess biological traits that make them better long-distance runners. How
would we (indeed, should we?) accommodate such an advantage in organized sporting competition?
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
The two books in evolutionary biology to which I
referred are Evolution, byMark Ridley,and Population
Genetics and Evolution, by Lawrence Mettler et a1.
There are many good books on the nature of
human biodiversity. I recommend Human Variation:
Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, by Stephen Molnar;
Human Diversity, by Richard Lewontin; Human
Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, by Jonathan
Marks; and Human Biological Variation, by James
Mielke, Lyle Konigsberg, and John Relethford. The
Marks book includes an expanded discussion of race
and athleticism and the distinction between perfor-
mance and ability. For information on the distribution
of skin color differences, see “Skin Deep,” by Nina
Jablonski and George Chaplin in the October 2002 Sci-
entific American; and Jablonski’s new book, Living
Color:The Biologicaland Social Meaning of Skin Color.
For discussions on other human variable traits,
see Sara Stinson et aI., Human Biology: An Evolu-
tionary and Biocultural Perspective, and E. F. Moran,
Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological
Anthropology.

For a collection of articles on the nonexistence
of biological races, see The Concept of Race, edited
by M. F. Ashley Montagu. For a nice treatment of the
history of race studies, including a discussion of Lin-
naeus’s taxonomy, try Kenneth Kennedy’s Human
Variation in Space and Time.
Arthur jensen’s article, “How Much Can We
Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” is in the
Winter 1969 issue of the Harvard Educational Re-
view. The quoted passage is on pages 82-83. For a
more detailed version of the same argument see
The Bell Curve, by Richard Herrnsrein and Charles
Murray. For a rebuttal, see “None of the Above”
by Malcolm Gladwell in the December 17, 2007,
New Yorker.
Perhaps the best book on racism, with an em-
phasis on scientific attempts to find correlations be-
tween race (and sex) and intelligence is Stephen Jay
Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (revised and ex-
CHAPTER 8 Human Variation 205
panded). It includes a detailed critique of The Bell
Curve. For a history of the race concept see Race Is
a Four-Letter Word: The Genesis of the Concept, by
C. Loring Brace, and Man’s Most Dangerous Myth:
The Fallacy of Race by Ashley Montagu.
Two books, separated by forty-two years, that
make arguments for the existence of races are The
Origin of Races, by Carleton S. Coon, and Race: The
Reality of Human Differences, by Vincent Sarich and
Frank Miele.
For more on the race and athleticism issue, see
“Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and
Why We’re Afraid to Talk about It,” by John Entine.
Passages quoted from that book in the “Contem-
porary Issues” box are from pages 8,20,18,113, and
116. For the recent research on athletics-related bio-
logical variation, see “Peering Under the Hood of
Africa’s Runners,” by Constance Holden in the July
30, 2004, issue of Science.

Adapting to Our Worlds
9 Food: Gettiny It, Growiny It, Eatiny It, and Passiny It Around
The importance of food throughout human history. Descriptions of societies that collect
their food and of those that produce it through farming or herding. An account of the
food-producing revolution. Some basic categories of economics) the distribution of goods
and services.
10 The Nature of the Group: Arranyiny Our Families and Oryaniziny
Our People
Social organization among the nonhuman primates. Variation among human societies in
the organization of nuclear and extended families and in family lines. The importance of
what we call family members. Types of political organization.
11 Communication: Shariny What We Need to Know
The characteristics of language, the human communication system. The evolution of
human language and the attempts to teach it to apes. The relationships between
languages and the cultures that use them.
12 Maintenance of Order: Makiny the Worldview Real
Defining religion and the variable characteristics of religious systems. The relationships
between religion and culture, using Christianity as an example. Laws, nonreligious systems
of social maintenance.
13 Culture Cltanye: Theories and Processes
The processes that bring about culture change. A discussion of theoretical approaches to
the explanation of cultural evolution.
14 nre Evolution of Our Behavior: Puttiny It All Toyether
Analyzing whole cultural systems. Some general schools of thought compared and com-
bined, using the biblical dietary laws as an example. Two cultural systems described and
analyzed. A discussion of the interaction of biology and culture.
15 Anthropoloyy in Today’s World: Problems and Contributions
Some examples of culture change in the modern world, focusing on societies discussed in
the book. A look at how anthropology can be applied to contemporary concerns. An evalu-
ation of the health of the human species today. Some thoughts and guidelines for making
predictions about the path of the human species into the future.

FOOD
Getting It, Growing It, Eating It,
and Passing It Around
CHAPTER CONTENTS Food and Human Evolution • Food-Collecting Societies • The Food-Producing
Revolution • Food-Producing Societies • Which Subsistence Pattern Works Best? • Some Basic Economics •
Summary • Contemporary Issues: IsThere a World Population Crisis That Is Putting Pressure on Food and Other
Resources? • Questions for Further Thought· Notes, References, and Readings
209

210 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
subsistence pattern How a
society acquires its food.
Food is obviously Important. No organism can survive without nutri-ents to build its structure and fuel its functions. For a livingcreature
without enough food, finding shelter and reproducing become second-
ary concerns. This is as true for humans as for any creature. In many
ways, food has been a moving force behind human evolution and cul-
tural history. Indeed, when anthropologists categorize the rich array of
human cultures into a reasonable number of meaningful types, we often
do it on the basis of food-getting techniques, or subsistence patterns.
How a society gets its food has irnportant ramifications for all other
aspects of its cultural system. What food is available and how it is
acquired clearly has a lot to do with worldview which in turn affects
a cultural system.
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. What role has food played in the evolutionary history of the
hominids?
2. What are the main subsistence patterns found in human
societies?
3. What other cultural characteristics of a society might we infer
from knowing that society’s subsistence pattern?
4. Why and how did some societies make the transition from
collecting food to producing food?
5. Is there, in some way, more value in some subsistence patterns
than in others’
6. How are some basic categories of economic behavior related to
subsistence?
FOOD AND HUMAN EVOLUTION
Food in Prehistory
Once our bipedal version of the primate order was established, envi-
ronmental changes and adaptations to food sources influenced what
appears to be the next major event in hominid evolution. About 3 mya,
two new branches diverged from the hominid line of Australopithecus,
who had a mixed diet of vegetables from the forest and open ground.
One new branch, Paranthropus, seems to have specialized at least part
of the year in the vegetable foods of the open plains. The other branch,
genus Homo, facilitated by a larger brain and an ability to make stone

tools, added large quantities of scavenged meat to its diet. This was an
important change, because it provided the early members of our genus
with some dietary flexibility that allowed them to continue evolving when
further environmental changes brought about the extinction of the other
two hominid genera.
This adaptive success was put to the test around 2 mya, when humans
began to spread throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia. As they migrated,
they encountered new and changing environments-including the advances
and retreats of the Pleistocene glaciers-and, thus, new and changing
sources of food. In northerly and glacial areas, edible plants were scarce,
and so hunting took on an increasingly important role, as we see from
the specialized hunting tools associated with anatomically modern Homo
sapiens. Note, too, that much early cave art had game animals and hunt-
ing as a theme (see Figure 6.32).
As important as hunting may have been in our evolution, that
importance can be overemphasized. Anthropologists used to think
humans began as hunters on the savannas-the old “man the hunter”
scenario. We have already cited evidence that meat eating was based
on scavenging throughout much of our evolution. Scavenging was
replaced by hunting only later. And as far as recent hunter-gather or
foraging cultures are concerned, except for Arctic groups, gathering
plant foods is usually the more important activity in terms of the rela-
tive amount of nutrition it supplies. In indigenous southern African
foraging groups, for example, around 75 percent of the food eaten is
plant material gathered by the women.
Of course, foraging groups themselves tend to emphasize the
hunting part of their subsistence, despite its statistically limited role
in their nutrition. This is because hunting is the more precarious of
the two activities, the more dangerous, the one less likely to yield
results on a regular basis, and the one that causes the most anxiety.
There are few rituals related to success in gathering but many that
seek to ensure success in hunting. People seldom tell exciting stories
about collecting roots, but they enjoy a good antelope hunting tale
(Figure 9.1).
There is another possible food-related facet of our evolution.
Recall the gradual smoothing out of the facial features and decrease
in the size of the teeth that occurred over hominid evolution, includ-
ing the relatively recent change from the tugged features of archaic
Homo sapiens to the more delicate ones of modern humans. One
explanation for this change is that our teeth and jaws became less
important as tools because of advances in stone tool technology, the
habit of cooking meat and other foods, and, with the final recession
of the glaciers, a shift from an emphasis on big-game hunting to a
more mixed diet. It has also been suggested that the invention of
eating utensils may have brought about a decreased robusticity in the
chewing areas of our crania.
CHAPTER 9 Food 211
hunter-gatherer A subsis-
tence pattem that relies on
naturally occurring sources
of food.
foraging Another name
for the hunter-gatherer
subsistence pattem.

212 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.1
Two San boys. in Namibia,
playa storytelling game
Stories, accompanied by
gestures and body language,
are often used by the San to
tell about hunting adventures,
with the storyteller creatively
and humorously mimicking
the animals involved.
Food in Historical Times
Food has, of course, continued to play an important role in historic
events, as countless examples show. The potato, for instance, domesti-
cated in South America and imported to Europe, was suggested as a
good, easily grown crop to stave off famine. It later became such an
important part of Irish agriculture that when a blight caused the potato
crop to fail in 1845 and 1846, the results were the death by starvation
and disease of about a million Irish and the emigration of about a
million more to the United States.
Food has often been used as a tool to manipulate people and
events. During war, the two items that opposing forces try hardest to
keep from each other are ammunition and food. Many a battle has
been won or lost as a result of the availability of food snpplies. “An
army marches on its stomach,” Napoleon is reputed to have said.

CHAPTER 9 Food 213
Similarly, a people can best be subjugated by withholding food, as
during sieges or blockades.
Food can even supersede arms in importance. Despite the Cold War,
the United States and the Soviet Union traded actively with each other.
Especially important were shipments of wheat because Soviet agriculture,
unlike other aspects of its technology, was not nearly as productive as
that of the West. The Soviets relied on this trade to maintain adequate
food supplies.
One of the problems with Soviet agriculture is interesting and
relevant to several themes in this book. In the 1930s, a Russian agron-
omist (a specialist in agricultural science) named Trofim D. Lysenko
proposed a theory for cultivating plants that was based not on
Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics but on Lamarckian ideas
about the inheritance of acquired characteristics (see Chapter 3).
Lysenko thought he could impart the characteristics of winter wheat
to spring wheat by refrigerating spring wheat seeds-thus, in his words,
“training” them. Lysenko promoted his idea not scientifically but polit-
ically and ideologically, claiming it fit Marxist-Leninist social theory
better than did Darwin’s and Mendel’s theories. It was officially
accepted as Soviet scientific doctrine in 1948. Needless to say, it didn’t
work too well, but it wasn’t until 1965 that mainstream plant-breeding
technology was reinstated in the U.S.S.R. By that time, Soviet agricul-
ture was far behind the West’s.
The acquisition of food is a central concern to our species (as to
any) and to the individual populations within our species. We can thus
use subsistence patterns as meaningful categories to organize our
examination of cultural variation and make some generalizations
about other aspects of cultural systems within each category (Table
9.1). We will divide subsistence patterns into two main types: food
collecting and food producing. Within the latter, there are several more
specific types.
These are not mutually exclusive categories. Most societies practice
more than one subsistence technique. For example, although I speak of
the United States as a food-producing society, we still get some of our
food through collecting. Most of the fish served in restaurants, for
instance, has technically been collected and not produced. Nonetheless,
most societies have one subsistence pattern that supplies the majority
of their diet. It is this pattern that becomes the integral part of the
society’s cultural system and that is related to other features of that
system. Thus, we can make generalizations. Table 9.1 reflects some of
these generalizations that provide us with a starting point for organiz-
ing our examination of human societies. I will point out exceptions as
we go along.

I
214
co.”
.~
~;;;
o ‘vL> W
• Q.
-‘ ‘”
~
“2
Ws:
c u
o -g
~ E
u 0
J’ z
co
:§l..a:
E
W
C
W
l:J
,q
u
2
Q.
o
~
c:•
~
no
c
.~
J’

FOOD-COLLECTING SOCIETIES
When I began full-time teaching in 1973 and was preparing notes for
my first classes, I recall reading somewhere that there were only
30,000 people in the world who still lived as foragers-approximarely
the number of full-time students at the university I had attended as
a student. I would imagine that at present there are none left, that
is, no groups that rely strictly on collecting naturally occurring
resources. The modern industrial world has encroached everywhere,
bringing its technology, medicine, and education, as well as its problems
and abuses. Populations that acquire some food by hunting and gath-
ering still exist, but they also use foods that they or some other
people have grown.
Although it is probably impossible today to observe a true for-
aging culture, there are still people who experienced and remember
the way it used to be. Some foraging cultures remained relatively
untouched until recently, so we have firsthand anthropological descrip-
tions of them, as well as photographs and films that give us a glimpse
into this way of life.
Why is it so important to learn about foragers? Aside from ethical
considerations (which we’ll take up in Chapter 15), it is important
because the foraging way of life is, in one respect, the human subsis-
tence pattern. Even if we take a conservative view and say that human
refers to anatomically modern Homo sapiens and is thus at most
200,000 years old, humans were foragers for 96 percent of our tenure
on earth. Food producers have existed for only the last 12,000 years.
Thus, all of our basic physical characteristics, cultural abilities, and
cultural practices arose within the context of foraging. To adopt a com-
mon phrase, we might see foraging as “the human condition,” at least
in an evolutionary sense.
Among the groups that have contributed to our knowledge about
this way of life are the Arctic peoples from Greenland to Alaska and
into Siberia; peoples (often collectively referred to as Pygmies) from
the Central African rain forests; the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert
of Angola, Namibia, and Botswana; Native Australians; peoples from
the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal; and some Native Ameri-
cans such as the Shoshone and Cheyenne from North America and
several cultures from Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America
(Figure 9.2).
The Characteristics of Food Collectors
We have already mentioned two characteristics of foraging groups in
Chapter 4: a lack of formalized status and wealth differences and religions
that generally recognize multiple supernatural beings.
CHAPTER 9 Food 215

216 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
social stratification The
presence of acknowledged
differences in social status,
political influence, and
wealth among the people
within a society.
egalitarianism The practice
of not recognizing, and even
eliminating, differences in
social status and wealth,
polytheism A religious
system that recognizes
multiple supernatural
beings-technically,
multiple gods,
animistic The belief in
supernatural powers of
people. animals, places,
and objects
FIGURE 9.2
A Yahgan hunter from Tierra
del Fuego, photographed
around 1890, Darwin en-
countered these people on
his famous voyage.
The first trait-the lack of social stratification (from strata for
layers)-is called egalitarianism. Although, obviously, some individu-
als have skills and talents not shared by others and some have more
influence on decision making in certain areas, in foraging societies
there are no recognized. formalized status differences, and there are
most assuredly no differences in access to resources. As explained in
Chapter 4, such a society simply cannot afford to have it otherwise.
The social order, not to mention the physical welfare of the people,
would suffer.
The second trait-that hunter-gatherer groups tend to recognize –
many supernatural beings with equal or close-to-equal power and influ-
ence over the material world-is called polytheism. Their religions also
tend to be animistic, endowing natural phenomena with supernatural
powers. This is a direct reflection of the worldviews common to such
groups-world views that see the environment as predictable yet unsta-
ble, with humans pretty much at its mercy.
Foraging cultures as a whole are fairly small, with individual units
averaging about fifty persons-although unit sizes vary greatly from
society to society and within a society in different locations and during

different seasons. Their groups are small because it’s difficult to sup-
port large numbers of people using only what nature provides. But
it’s not that such people are-as we tend to visualize them-always
on the brink of starvation. Indeed, they can be very successful (after
all, we lived like this for most of our species’ history). In fact, forag-
ing societies often require methods of limiting their birthrates, includ-
ing prolonged nursing (because lactation inhibits ovulation), a
postpartum sex taboo, Of, more drastically, methods of abortion or
even infanticide.
The individual units of a foraging society, called bands, are usually
made up of several related nuclear families, perhaps including some
grandparents, siblings, or cousins. Family relationships are, thus, the
basis for social organization. Food, for example, is distributed along
lines of kinship. Foraging bands tend to be flexible in their member-
ship. In times of scarce resources, the band may contain only a hand-
ful of nuclear families. When times are better, several of these small
bands may join together to pool their resources and talents. When
important resources, or even a single important resource, are found
in great abundance, a foraging society’s population may number in
the thousands, with individual units of hundreds of people. This
was the case for the Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
Canada (whom we’ll discuss shortly). Among other bountiful resources
were the great yearly salmon runs that provided them with huge sup-
plies of meat.
With the exception of complex foraging societies such as the
Kwakiutl, foragers are nomadic. Rather than stay put, they move
around, following the animals and plants they rely on for food. The
degree of movement depends on the degree of seasonal climatic fluctu-
ation and the response of the resources to it. The Mbuti of the tropical
forests of the Republic of the Congo don’t have to move around much.
There is relatively little seasonal change, and there are many species
that can be exploited year-round. The Netsilik of the Arctic, on the
other hand, travel great distances as they seasonally hunt for seal, car-
ibou, and salmon.
To maintain their egalitarian social organization, foraging societies
distribute important resources equally among their members. Distribu-
tion is usually along kinship lines, and the rules for who gives what
to whom can be complex. In the end, however, each family receives an
equal share. Not every resource is distributed, however. Plant foods are
typically used only by the immediate families of the women who gather
them. Plants are often a more dependable source of food, so they may
be used in this way without adversely affecting the welfare of the
whole group.
Although there are exceptions, foraging societies typically display
a division of labor based on sex, in which men hunt and women gather.
CHAPTER 9 Food 217
postpartum sex taboo The
practice of prohibiting sex
for a certain period of time
after a woman gives birth
for purposes of limiting
the birthrate
infanticide The killing
of infants.
bands Small autonomous
groups, usually associated
with foraging societies.
nomadic Refers to societies
that move from place
to place in search of
resources or in response
to seasonal fluctuations.
division of labor The
apportioning of a society’s
jobs to specific individuals,
for example, designating
men’s and women’s job roles.

218 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
labor specialization When
certain jobs are performed
by particular individuals
ethnographic present
Speaking of a society as it
was in the past but using the
present tense,
This is a practical arrangement, since hunting is generally the more
dangerous and stressful activity and can take hunters away from a
home base for extended periods. Since the women carry, give birth to,
and care for the society’s offspring, it makes sense not to place them
and their children at risk or under extreme stress. Beyond this there
is no labor specialization; there are no full-time leaders, weapon
makers, or food preparers. Within the gender roles noted above, each
person does whatever he or she is capable of. The society wouldn’t
work otherwise.
Finally, except in complex foraging societies such as the Kwakiutl,
there is no ownership of resources or land. A band may forage in a
particular area, but it is not considered their territory. Groups must be
able to move around in search of resources. Keeping an outsider off
your “property” may someday backfire when your resources fail. Thus
there is sharing between bands as well as within bands.
An Example Food-Collecting Society
All the preceding traits of hunter-gatherer societies are generalizations.
Because even recent foragers live, or have lived, in such a diverse array
of environments, it is hard to pick one group as a typical example. But
one society stands out. It has been extensively studied, the people were
strictly foragers in the fairly recent past, and they are African, so many
of their environmental situations and food resources are similar to those
throughout much of human evolutionary history. These are the so-called
Bushmen of Angola, Namibia, and Botswana (Figure 9.3).
The term Bushmen was applied to these people by the Dutch
settlers of South Africa and carries racist connotations. The name San
is often used for this group as a whole, referr-ing to a language family
noted for its use of click sounds. Perhaps the best-known population
within the San has traditionally been called !Kung, also a language-family
reference. The! denotes a click sound, one of four in their language.
Among these peoples, the most extensively studied are the ]u/’hoansi
(“genuine people”) from Namibia and Botswana. The! is another
click sound, but an acceptable pronunciation would be ZHUT-wah-
see. For our purposes here (in part because it’s less awkward for
English speakers), I’ll use San and let the following description, taken
largely from studies of the ]u!’hoansi, serve as a generalization for the
whole group. I’ll also describe them using what we call the ethnographic
present, speaking in the present tense about their lives as foragers,
even though, as we’ll discuss later, their lives today are actually
much different.
There are about 80,000 San in the Kalahari Desert. There is archae-
ological and biological evidence that the San and related peoples have
lived in this area for about 11,000 years and that they were once more
widely spread over the continent.

DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC
OF THE
CONGO
TANZANIA
ANGOLA
ZAMBIA
BOTSWANA
NAMIBIA
IN D IA N
OCEAN
ATLANTIC
o CEA N
SOUTH
AFRICA
>’:LESOTHO
250 500 MH”,
! Iiii Northern San (!Kung) distribution I
‘”
I
500 Kilome,ers
The San have a characteristic set of physical features (Figure 9.4).
They are short people, the men averaging around 5 feet and the women
a little under. Their skin is a reddish brown, and their facial features
are youthful looking, even those of the elderly. Their hair has been
referred to as “peppercorn” because it grows in tightly curled tufts.
Most San’s eyes are almond-shaped, a trait commonly associated with
people from East Asia.
The San live in small bands that average ten to thirty people. Their
camps, consisting of grass huts, are temporary because the San are
regularly on the move in search of food and, especially, water. The
inhabitants of a camp are usually related-a “chain of sibs and
spouses,” as anthropologist Richard Lee puts it. Membership in a
band, however, changes with the seasons and for reasons such as
internal conflicts, commonly solved by one family’s moving away.
CHAPTER 9 Food 219
FIGURE 9.3
Map of the San area of
southern Africa. with the
Jul’hoansi, one of the most
studied groups, indicated.
(Datafrom Lee 1993.)

220 PART THREE Adapting to OUf Worlds
FIGURE 9.4
A San woman and her
daughter; showing typical
physical features, The
mother is instructing the
girl in the preparation of
mongongo nuts, an
important food source,
A camp, as Lee says, is made up of a group of families that “work
well together” (Figure 9.5).
Most of the San’s food comes from some hundred species of plants
recognized as edible and gathered by the women. Oue of the most
popular foods is the mongongo nut, a good source of protein and other
nutrients. Game hunted by the men are usually ungulates (hoofed
animals), which they bring down with spears or poison-tipped arrows.
While we tend to think of such a way of life as harsh and unstable,
the reality is usually quite different. Certainly nature can seem whim-
sical, and unforeseen environmental changes can mean the difference
between life and death. But when things are going as planned, a forag-
ing group actually spends less time than one would imagine in basic
subsistence activities. The San, for example, can meet their caloric needs
by working 20 hours per adult per week. Not bad when compared to
the 35- to 40-hour work week many of us consider normal.
The San are egalitarian. There are, for example, no formal leaders.
There are individuals who are more important in terms of such things
as settling conflicts or making decisions about where to hunt, gather, or
move. But these individuals lead by influence and suggestion rather than
by power and command. The San don’t consider themselves led by any-
one. One San, in response to a request to identify his group’s leader, is

CHAPTER 9 Food 221
reputed to have responded that they were aI/leaders. As a logical exten-
sion of their egalitarianism, neither sex is seen as superior to the other.
Though plant foods are, because of their relative abundance, gen-
erally kept by the gatherer’s family, great pains are taken to be sure
that meat is evenly shared. Although the hunter whose arrow killed the
animal is said to “own” the meat, this merely means that he is respon-
sible for beginning the distribution, which is done according to kinship
lines. The concept of sharing meat and even identifying the arrows used
to acquire meat is of central importance to the San’s social structure.
The idea of equality with regard to meat is so important that the
San have a way to ensure that a hunter who has supplied the camp
with a fine, meaty animal will not feel in any way superior or even
praiseworthy. The people of the camp, rather than showing their joy at
the successful hunt, make negative and derisive comments about the
quality of the animal killed. Richard Lee calls this “insulting the meat.”
Some men are bound to be better, more successful hunters than others,
and this social leveling device covers up a natural inequality.
As is the general case for foraging peoples, the majority of San men,
about 93 percent in one sample, have just one wife. The norm is, thus,
monogamy. But a small number, around 5 percent from the same sam-
ple, have two or three wives. They practice polygyny. All the men
involved in polygynous marriages are healers, men possessing special
powers that allow them to cure illness (Figure 9.6). This is one of the
few symbols of differential status seen among the San. Women, by the
FIGURE 9.5
A San campsite among
mongongo nut trees with
huts used aswindscreens
and for storage. The people
spend most of their time
outside
monogamy A marriage unit
made up of one husband
and one wife
polygyny A marriage unit
made up of one husband
and multiple wives.

222 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.6
A San healer (left) in a
trance tries to discover
the cause of the other
man’s illness,
way, may also be healers, but these women do not seem to have any
special privileges.
San religion recognizes multiple supernatural beings, including two
very imporranr, powerful gods who are largely responsible for rhe ere-
arion of the world and for keeping it running. There are also lots of
individual spirits, as well as the ghosts of deceased people, who tend
to be malevolent. The healers are thought to possess a substance, or
healing power, that they can invoke through a dance. It causes them to
go into a trance during which they are able to cure illnesses and speak
with the ghosts of the dead.
The last trait of foragers I noted earlier is their lack of a concept
of land and resource ownership. This is true for the San. It’s not that
each band of San roam wherever they want. Each band has an area in
which it normally hunts and gathers, and this area is acknowledged by
other bands. If, however, the home range of one band runs out of a
resource-say, if its water hole dries up or becomes contaminated-that
group may use the water hole normally used by another band. They
simply ask permission to do so. Permission is always granted-after all,
the tables may be turned the next time. This asking and granting of
permission has little to do with acknowledging territory; instead, it is

CHAPTER 9 Food 223
more a matter of courtesy, functioning to promote an egalitarianism
among the bands as well as within them.
As you can imagine, there is a great deal of variation from one
foraging population to the next, depending on each population’s specific
cultural history and the specific nature of the environment in which it
lives. But all exhibit more or less the basic traits listed. The study and
understanding of any of these groups give us a picture of how we
existed for most of our evolutionary history, keeping in mind that this
picture is limited because all the foragers we have been able to study
are fully modern. Still, we can say that everything our species is today
stems from the foraging lifestyle.
So it was for all our ancestors until about 12,000 ya, when, in a
few populations, a “revolution” occurred-not OTIe of riots and warfare,
but a peaceful one, a change from within the groups’ own cultural
systems. This development altered everything that came after. The rev-
olution involved the human production of food.
THE FOOD-PRODUCING REVOLUTION
Although we refer to the food-producing revolution, the transition was
not abrupt. Major changes in cultural history rarely come about instantly.
No one simply picked up some seeds, planted them, and invented farm-
ing. The shift to food producing came about gradually. But we do have
evidence for how and when it occurred.
The Transition to Food Production
Common sense and what we understand about the lives of foragers tell
us that this cultural transition must have begun in some populations
long before we actually find hard evidence for it. Foragers are intimately
familiar with the living things in their environments. They must under-
stand the behavior of animals and the life cycle of plants in order to
survive. People probably understood for thousands of years that plants
grow from seeds and that some animals can be manipulated. Modern
Lapps (move appropriately, Saami) from Arctic Scandinavia and Russia,
for example, control wild herds of reindeer but have not actually domes-
ticated them in the sense of conducting selective breeding for desired
characteristics (Figure 9.7). Their control is based on an understanding
of the behavior of those creatures-an understanding that all foragers
possess about the animals they hunt or trap. Human ancestors may well
have acted in a similar way with another animal or have experimented
with planting seeds or tending an area where an important plant grew.
The real question in evolutionary perspective is not so much how
they switched to producing food but why. If you were to present the idea
of full-scale farming or herding to a real group of foragers, they might

224 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.7
A Saami with reindeer, The
Saarr-itraditionally followed
the reindeer herds on their
migrations. Sometimes the
people captured a male and
castrated him to make him
more docile and then led
him where they wanted to
go so that the rest of the
herd would follow
intensive foraging Hunting
and gathering in an envi-
ronment that provides a very
wide range of food resources
find the idea rather strange, if not actually humorous. “Why,” they might
ask, “should we go to all that trouble when the animals and plants we
eat are right out there?” This is a good question, because remember, when
things are going normally, foraging populations tend not to spend nearly
as much time as we once imagined in their basic subsistence activities.
We are, in fact, still trying to account for the changeover to food
producing in those areas where it first occurred. One proposed expla-
nation cites the retreat of the Pleistocene ice sheets and the attendant
climatic alterations that occurred around 12,000 ya. Large areas of land
underwent substantial ecological change. Where people living in cold
areas near the glaciers once subsisted primarily from big-game hunting,
now they had access to the greater variety of foods characteristic of
habitats not in the grip of the ice. We know from archaeological
evidence that people in such areas developed ways of exploiting all the
new food sources at their disposal. We call this intensive foraging. It
may have been in such newly rich environments that people became
extremely knowledgeable about the biology of plants and animals and
began to use that knowledge for domesticating them.
But wouldn’t such a climatic change, with an increase in possible
food sources, just make hunting and gathering easier and more

reliable? Food producing would seem even less desirable in such an
environment. Anyway, glacial retreats were nothing new. They had
occurred between glacial advances many times before. What was
different 12,000 ya?
One difference was population. As people improved their abilities
to find food and deal with environmental pressures, populations
increased. Estimates vary, but around 12,000 ya there may have been
something like 10 million people in the world, mostly in the Old World.
That seems small by today’s standards, with over 7 billion of us. But
twelve millennia ago, considering that people relied pretty much on
naturally occurring resources, a large and increasing population could
exert a good deal of pressure on some resources in a particular envi-
ronment. Perhaps such population pressure caused some groups to use
their knowledge of plants and animals to gain more control over food
resources.
There is a problem with this model as well, at least on the surface.
The early centers of farming, such as those in the Fertile Crescent of
Southwest Asia, in Southeast Asia, and in Central America, were fairly
rich in wild plants and animals. Perhaps, as archaeologist Kent Flannery
has suggested, fanning began at the edges of these rich areas. Groups
pushed out of the optimal areas by a rapidly expanding population
found themselves in locations that had marginal wild food sources. One
answer to this problem for such groups was to apply their knowledge
of wild species to gain control over them and thus enhance their pro-
ductivity and reliability.
Whatever the specific reasons for the transition to food production-
and they probably differed somewhat in each area where it occurred
independently-the new idea spread rapidly and brought with it other
ecological and cultural changes that altered forever the nature of our
relationship with the environment and with one another.
Evidence for the Food-Producing Revolution
In this section we’ll look at some specific locations of early food pro-
duction, some of the specific crops and animals that were domesticated,
and some of the specific evidence used by archaeologists in reconstruct-
ing this history (Figures 9.8 and 9.9).
Animal Domestication As you might imagine, the first animal to be
domesticated was our “best friend,” the dog. Evidence of domestic
dogs, descended from wolves, has been found at sites in Iraq and Israel
dating from 12,000 ya. (Genetically and reproductively, dogs are
wolves, although some of the breeds we’ve created would be incapable
of interbreeding with wolves because of their small size.) The Israeli
find is the grave of a man whose left hand clutches the skeleton of a
puppy-dearly, dogs have held meaning for us for some time. Other
CHAPTER 9 Food 225

Before
Present
226 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
South
America
1000
So__
Asia
2000 oWhite potatoes
)000 Cats (Egypt)
4000 I~Yams,
oil palm
4TUrkey
~;~;~’::”‘~”‘-~, ~h
Horses., rn t-laue, beans, ~ ~
~Q
(Eurasia) peppers, gourds Maize, llamas
alpacas, cotton,'” 6 qumoa, gourds,
I squash, lima C
beans, common
beans, guinea :5l
pigs, (white U
potatoes?)
6.’C28
Millet,
sorghum
5000
6000 Cattle, pigs,Hrt m””’Jl~:~=-~~~a”t”Rft
P” “‘ Wheat, barley,
lentils, sheep,
goats, dogs W
Cattle W
Squash
7000
8000
DOgS~9000 it,ift
Goats, wheat,
barley, dOgs,~
cattle, lentilS”
SheepH
DO”,W
10,000
11,000
FIGURE 9.8
A chronology of domestica-
tion, showing the earliest
dates for some important
domesticated food sources
in different parts of the
world. Some species, such as
the dog, were domesticated
independently in several
locations. Others, such as
maize, were domesticated
first in one location
(Mesoamerica) and then
spread to other areas.
North
Amertca
Lamb’s
quarters
Marsh elder
Sunflowers ~
Squash ~ ….
DOgS~
early dog remains come from Idaho about 8,000 ya. This domestic
animal is known worldwide. Dogs now come in all sorts of shapes and
sizes, but these early ones, little different from their wolf ancestors,
display one telling characteristic: their teeth are crowded together, a
result of artificial selection for smaller sizes Of, perhaps, a secondary
result of selection for more immature characteristics such as docility
and subordinate behavior. (Dogs essentially behave like immature
wolves.) Although dogs were uo doubt used for hunting, another early
use was probably as a handy food source. Dogs are still a food source
iu parts of the world.

CHAPTER 9 Food 227
Pacific
o ceo n
Atlantic
Dee a n
Vamos, cotton,
gourds, squash, beans, alpacas,
maize, potatoes, guinea pigs
Sheep, wheat, pigs,
barley, goats, ~ox
As noted before, prior to actual domestication (defined as using
artificial selection to manipulate the traits of a wild species), people
may have learned to exercise some control over wild herds of animals,
as modern-day Saami do with reindeer (see Figure 9.7). Evidence for
this in prehistory is, naturally, indirect, but sites in Southwest Asia
dating back to 18,000 ya show heavy reliance on single species of wild
animals-wild sheep or goats, specifically. The inference is that herds
were followed and exploited on a regular basis and were maybe even
controlled as the Saami do by capturing and castrating a male member
of the herd.
Around 10,000 ya, domestic animals begin showing up all over
the Old World. Domestic sheep and goats, differentiated from wild
ancestors by such things as horn shape and size, appear in Southwest
Asia around that time and in southern Europe and Africa a few
thousand years later. Domesticated pigs appear in East Asia over
7,000 ya and cattle about 6,000 ya. Cattle were already found in
Southern Europe by 9,000 ya. Domesticated camels appear in South-
west Asia about 5,000 ya, and the domestic horse shows up at the
same time in Eurasia.
FIGURE 9.9
A map of the apparent
hearths of domestication of
some important plant and
animal species

228 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.10
Llamas,probably the most
important animal domesti-
cated in the New World,
were used in ancient times
as beasts of burden and as
food. Here, a packtrain of
llamascarries firewood in
southern Peru
Domestication of both animals and plants generally occurred later
III the New World and was never as extensive as in the Old World.
There are four reasons for this. First, humans didn’t enter the New
World until later. Second, wild species with characteristics that lent
themselves to domestication were not as numerous. Third, some wild
food sources, such as the bison, were already found in great abundance.
Fourth, in this region populations didn’t become large enough to require
manipulation of food sources as early as they had in the Old World.
The only New World domesticated animals-which come from Central
and South America-are turkeys, alpacas, llamas (Figure 9.10), and
guinea pigs (yes, they were food).
Evidence for all these conclusions comes in a number of forms.
There are the biological differences already mentioned between wild
forms and domestic ones. In addition, there are archaeological sites with
large numbers of bones of elderly animals, indicating that they were
kept, for milk or work, beyond the age at which they normally would
have been killed if hunted for meat.
There’s cultural evidence as well. From Afghanistan 10,000 ya come
small clay tokens, used, it seems, to keep track of trade transactions.

CHAPTER 9 Food 229
The tokens contain symbols for sheep and goats, animals that were
clearly possessions with specific values attached.
Notice that the animals first domesticated in each area are species
that were native to that area-the same is true of plants. That may
seem obvious, but it’s of archaeological significance. We can’t, for exam-
ple, look for domestication of cattle among Native Americans, because
there were no wild cattle to domesticate. When searching in the archae-
ological record, we need to understand what wild species were present
and the characteristics of those species.
Plant Domestication The earliest evidence for plant domestication
comes from Southwest Asia from about 11,000 ya. The plants involved
were wheats called ernrner and einkorn. There is also evidence of peas
and lentils. Other grains such as barley, millet, and sorghum appear a
little later in Southwest Asia, Africa, and Europe. Rice as a domesticate
shows up in East Asia around 7,000 ya. At about the same time we
find evidence of maize farming in Mexico.
Evidence of plant domestication, as with animals, comes in part
from our knowledge of differences between wild aud domestic species.
Maize, for instance, is thought to have been domesticated from a wild
grass called teosinte and shows a number of distinctions from its wild
relatives in kernel number, overall structure, and the presence of a
distinct cob (Figure 9.11).
It is no coincidence, by the way, that so many early domesticates-
wheat, barley, millet, sorghum, rice, and maize-are grasses. Members
of this large family of plants grow rapidly aud in great abundance, and
they grow from the ground up, meaning that they are not killed off by
cutting, grazing, drought, or fire. (That’s why we have to mow our
lawns every week.) In addition, many grasses have a high protein con-
tent. Maize does not, but in the New World, beans and squash were
also domesticated, and they made up the difference; maize, beans, and
squash are a very nutritious combination.
Other evidence for early plant domestication is cultural, in the form
of tools for planting, harvesting, and storing crops. For example, from
several early sites in Southwest Asia and Egypt come remains of sickles
(Figure 9.12), presumably used for harvesting plants. These consisted
of flint microliths set in a handle of horn, antler, or wood and held in
place by mastic (a kind of glue) or bitumen (a natural tarlike substance).
One of these was found at the bottom of a 6,000-year-old coiled basket
that also contained some wheat and barley grains. Clinching the assess-
ment that these tools were sickles, microscopic analysis of the flint
blades showed a luster on their surface like that caused when flint is
brought continually into rapid contact with the silica crystals in the
stalks of grassy plants. We also have found stones on which grains were
ground to make flour, as well as the stones used for grinding. We know
what they are because we’ve seen present-day peoples using similar

230 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
,
j
Teosinte spikelet (left)
and seeds (right)
FIGURE 9.11
Top: Teosinte, a wild Mexican
grass called “God’s corn” by
the Aztecs, is the most likely
candidate for the wild
ancestor of maize, Research
has indicated that relatively
few genetic alterations are
required to change the
tightly encased seeds and
seed spikelet of teosinte into
the soft exposed kernels
and cob of maize, Bottom: A
series of maize cobs from
Tebuacan, Mexico. The cob
at the far left, dated at 5,000
ya, is barely an inch long and
has only eight rows of six
to nine kernels each. The
one at the far right is a
modern variety with
hundreds of kernels.
Teosinte plant Maize plant
Maize cob (left)
and kernels (right)
items. Storage pits, baskets, and pottery pieces that hold the remains of
grains have also been found, all indicating the presence of farming.
Later, of course, we find evidence of more complex farming technology
such as plows.

FOOD-PRODUCING SOCIETIES
Horticulture
There are within the food-producing category three basic subsistence
patterns: horticulture, pastoralism, and agriculture. Horticulture refers
to societies that focus on farming and use only human labor and sim-
ple tools such as a digging stick or a hoe (Figure 9.13). It does not, in
other words, involve animal or mechanical labor or more complex tech-
nologies such as plows and fertilizers. As we did for foragers, we will
look at some of the general characteristics found among horticultural
groups. Examples of horticultural societies include many of the indige-
nous groups of the Amazon rain forests, the forests of Central Africa
and Southeast Asia, and the highlands of New Guinea.
Horticulturalists tend to live in larger groups than foragers. The
greater control over at least some of their food sources and the surplus
that results allow them to support a greater number of individuals. Their
populations are also more sedentary; that is, they can stay in one area for
longer periods of time since the people can grow food where they are
rather than having to go where the food is. Population size tends to be
more stable than in foraging groups because there is less seasonal fluctu-
ation in resource availability. Although horticultural populations are larger
than those of foragers, these groups are still organized around kinship.
They are made up of several extended families, most of whom are typi-
cally related. A striking feature of many horticultural groups is that their
nuclear families are polygynous-men have several wives. (Marriage pat-
terns and other aspects of kinship will be covered in Chapter 10.)
Horticultural groups maintain an essentially egalitarian outlook, but
because there is now the possibility of surpluses and because there are
more people and thus more need for formal organization, we see in these
CHAPTER 9 Food 231
FIGURE 9.12
Flint sickle microliths from
the fourth century B.C.
in Israel. They were
originally set in a hom
handle with bitumen,
horticulture Farming using
human labor and simple tools.
pastoralism A subsistence
pattern characterized by an
emphasis on herding animals.
agriculture Farming using
animal or mechanical labor
and complex technologies.
sedentary A human settle-
ment pattern in which
people largely stay in one
place year-round. although
some members of the
population may still be
mobile in the search for
food and raw materials.

232 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.13
A woman from the Mount
Hagen region of Papua,
New Guinea, uses a digging
stick to plant seeds.
groups the beginnings of leaders and labor specialists, though these roles
are often part-time. For example, a man is not, say, always a leader in
battle or always a healer. Most of the time he is a farmer and hunter
like everyone else. He takes on his specialized role when needed.
We also see in horticultural societies the beginnings of ownership,
on both the family and population levels. Land on which plants are
cultivated may be the property of a family or other group of people
considered to be related, as are the plants themselves. A herd of animals,
for example the pigs ubiquitous to horticultural groups in highland
New Guinea, are likewise owned. Despite this limited ownership,
though, members of horticultural societies still work for a common
good, and the products of their labors, although family owned, are
nonetheless shared within the group. The techniques for sharing them,
as we will see, are more complex than among foragers.
Horticultural societies also recognize the concept of territory. With
growing control over food resources and the increasing instability that
results (see “Which Subsistence Pattern Works Best?” later in this chap-
ter), there is more need to form intergroup trade networks and, in the
face of shortages, to protect one’s own resources and, perhaps, to
acquire someone else’s. Indeed, there is an idea that the advent of farm-
ing was a precursor to war (defined as conflict between populations or
between groups within a population). Put bluntly, when one society or
unit within a society had something another did not, the have-nots tried
to take it away and the haves tried to keep it (Figure 9.14).

The associanon between horticulture and warfare has been illus-
trated by the societies who live in rain forests. In such areas there are
more species of living organisms than in any other land ecosystems on
earth, yet rain forests present important limitations to their inhabitants.
There are so many species that no individual species is found in abun-
dance. With reference to human food sources, there are few large ani-
mals in the rain forests. Moreover, the soil is not particularly fertile.
The rain leaches out nutrients fairly quickly, and the abundance of
living creatures means that nutrients get recycled quickly and don’t have
a chance to build up, as they do in temperate climates, where there is
an annual leaf fall and where biological processes slow down in winter.
As a result, societies in rain forests, especially those that farm and so
build up their populations and remain somewhat sedentary, risk over-
exploiting and depleting the soil’s nutrients. This then forces them to
shift their areas of cultivation, which can lead to tensions over land
and, ultimately, war.
Finally, horticulturalists, like foragers, tend to recognize multiple
supernatural beings-that is, they are polytheistic. But unlike the case
with foragers, the supernatural beings tend to be arranged in a hierarchy.
Some, in other words, are more powerful and important than others.
This seems to reflect the people’s growing control over nature. They
may not see themselves as having mastered nature (as do, for example,
modern industrial societies), so natural phenomena are still attributed
to the influence of supernatural beings, whom humans must be aware
of and propitiate. The most important supernatural beings, however,
are often those with direct connections to humans-humanlike deities
who gave rise to and control the lives of people or, perhaps, the spirits
or ghosts of the dead.
CHAPTER 9 Food 233
FIGURE 9.14
A group of Yanomamo in
the Amazon rain forest
prepares for a raid against
an enemy village to acquire
land for farming and hunting
and, perhaps. wives.

234 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 9.15
The Masaiof EastAfrica
build kraals of thombush to
protect their cattle, goats
(lower center), and homes
from lions and leopards at
night.The word kraal was
possibly borrowed from
the Portuguese or Spanish
and related to the English
word corral.
Pastoralism
Pastoralism is subsistence based on the herding of animals. Certainly,
nearly all farmers have some domestic animals for food or labor or
both, and pastoralists may well do some hunting, gathering, or even
farming. But pastoralists are those whose herds are the basis for their
subsistence and whose worldview and cultural system are built around
this pattern. Examples are the cattle herders of the dry savannas of East
Africa (Figure 9.15) and the Indian subcontinent, sheep and goat herd-
ers from Southwest Asia, and yak herders on the Tibetan Plateau.
Most pastoralists are nomadic-the people go where there -is food
for their animals. They are egalitarian with regard to the use of
pasture-land within their group but territorial with regard to other
populations. Within pastoral societies there is socioeconomic stratifica-
tion based largely on the number of animals owned. There is some form
of leadership, but it is rather vague with regard to how it is achieved
and who has it. It is not formalized and so is probably similar to the
situation of informal influence found among foragers.
Labor is divided by sex, with the men being largely responsible for
the care of the animal herds and the women for handling household
tasks and child rearing. In some pastoral societies, however, women

have a say in whether, to whom, and for how much to sell animals.
Beyond this, there is no labor specialization.
Pastoralists’ religions tend to involve ancestor worship. Their super-
natural world is populated by the spirits of the dead. This hints at an
emphasis on human control and on a general cultural conservatism.
One pleases the spirits of the dead by doing things in a traditional way,
the way they would have.
Pastoralists are found in areas unsuitable for other subsistence
activities, areas where it would be hard to grow anything and where
the wild plants are primarily grasses, which don’t provide humans with
much nutrition but are fine for ungulates that can digest cellulose. The
animals turn the plant nutrients into milk products, blood, and, less
often, meat for human consumption.
Agriculture
Agricultural societies are so defined because they use animal (or, in
recent history, mechanical) labor and more complex tools such as the
plow. Agriculture is found in areas that require more complex technol-
ogies in order to grow plants in large, concentrated plots and where
increased population and more complex social systems necessitate an
intensification of subsistence techniques. Remember, any farming
involves growing plants under conditions in which they don’t normally
grow in the wild (Figure 9.16). Thus some farmers need plows to break
FIGURE 9.16
A farmer with his oxen
plowing a field in Egypt. The
remains of the Colossi of
Memnon are in the back-
ground. Agriculture made
possible the great civilization
of ancient Egypt.
235

236 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
civilization A culture with
an agricultural surplus, social
stratification, labor special-
ization, a formal govemment,
r:ule by power; monumental
construction projects, and a
system of record keeping.
up compacted, rocky soil and draft animals to pull those plows. Irriga-
tion systems and fertilizers (often the manure of the draft animals) are
also often needed to manipulate wild plant species.
Due to even greater control over plant food sources, groups with
this subsistence pattern can support greater numbers of people than can
horticulturalists. Agricultural populations, quite expectedly, are more
stable and sedentary, tied to the land they have cultivated and on which
they depend.
With surpluses virtually ensured, there can be full-time labor
specialists-not everyone has to devote all their time to getting food. If
I’m good at growing wheat, I can concentrate on that and trade my
surplus produce (what’s left after I’ve supplied my family’s needs) to,
say, the family that makes plows for one of their tools. There are also
those whose full-time specialty is carrying out religious rituals, healing,
or providing military or political leadership. With more than enough food
to go around, such specialization is possible, and with larger populations
and the increased complexity of social and economic interactions, such
specialization is necessary. I
And with surplus and labor specialization, some people inevitably
accumulate more resources than others. Wealth and power are usually
found in the same hands. Thus, agricultural societies exhibit a formal
social stratification. Obviously, a central concept in such situations is
ownership of one’s wealth.
Religion in agricultural societies may still be polytheistic, as with
the complex pantheon of ancient Egypt, but if so the deities are hier-
archical, some having greater importance than others, and there are
usually direct human connections to the most powerful (Figure 9.17).
As social situations become increasingly complex, and with a greater
sense of control over food resources, agricultural societies tend toward
monotheism, a belief in one all-powerful god and, thus, a reflection of
the power of humans over nature. This is what we see in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, all of which arose in agricultural societies in
Southwest Asia.
In very complex and very populous agricultural societies, we see
one of the important results of the so-called farming revolution. At
some point of complexity, there is a need for a centrally located gov-
ernment and a center for economic transactions. In other words, cities
develop. The term civilization, although often used as a value judgment,
literally means “city making,” and refers to urbanized societies and their
characteristic features (Figure 9.18).
For example, with all the information about trade transactions,
ownership, and social and economic positions that such a society needs
to keep track of, forms of record keeping arise, evolving eventually into
writing. It is no surprise that some of the earliest examples of writing
are associated with cities in Southwest Asia, where farming may have
first developed (Figure 9.19).

There is also a need for public works, such as roads from ourly-
ing farming areas into the urban center. Monumental structures are
also found early on. Temples, statuary, pyramids, and the like all rep-
resent the centralization of political and religious power, and they
would not have been possible without the release of large numbers of
laborers from basic subsistence activities. Defensive facilities-walls,
moats, and fortresses-and standing armies are also associated with
urban centers.
Finally, the need to improve the tools on which the success of such
systems is based gives rise to another major cultural innovation associ-
ated with civilization. This is metallurgy, the extraction and working of
natural metals. Cities, centralized governments, writing, monumental
and public works, a military, and metallurgy all follow from an econ-
omy based on intensive agriculture.
Many anthropologists list industrialism as a subsistence pattern.
This is generally defined as a system based on mechanical rather than
biological power. There are obvious social and economic ramifications
of such a system. Populations are very large; there is extreme labor
CHAI’TER 9 Food 237
FIGURE 9.17
Amun-Re, king of the gods
(left), and Horus, lord of
heaven,who shared divinity
with the pharaoh. Among
the many other gods of
ancient Egypt were Thoth,
god of the moon, time, and
healing;Anubis, embalming;
Min, fertility; Seth, violence;
Nut, the sky; Geb. the earth;
Shu,the air; Ptah. the creator
of all things; Hapi the Nile;
and Bes.the household.
~ ,…- V'” ‘Co;” V vr:””
have been left out.
bilateral A kinship system
in which an individual is a
member of both parents’
descent lines.
FIGURE 10.5
A simple descent line with
nuclear families linked by
the female, who is a daughter
in one nuclear family and a
wife and mother in the other. 6-0
-6
she becomes part of two connected nuclear families, the one in which
she is a daughter and the one in which she is a wife and mother. The
same would hold true for her mother and her daughter, and so on. It is
in the descent line that we see some of the most interesting variations
in basic social organization.
Types of Families
Bilateral Families If you were asked to which descent line you
belonged, you’d probably answer both your father’s and your mother’s.
True, you may carry your father’s last name, there may be some legal
matters that emphasize your ties to one side over the other, and you
may feel more personally connected to one side; but in general social
and cultural terms, your place in your family is as the product of, and
as a member of, both sides. We call this system bilateral (vrwo-sided”).

——————-
CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 257
Patrilineal system Matrilineal system
A bilateral system appears to make biological sense. But not every
society arranges kinship relationships to reflect biology. A bilateral system
doesn’t fill the cultural needs and outlook of every society. Indeed, most
societies organize descent lines in very different ways.
Unilineal Families Most kinship systems, about 60 percent, are
unilineal (“one line”). This means that an individual belongs to only
one side of the family. Depending on the society, this is either the
father’s side, in a patrilineal pattern, or the mother’s side, in a
matrilineal arrangement (Figure 10.6). This does not mean that if you
lived in a patrilineal society you wouldn’t know who your mother
was or that you wouldn’t live with her, care about her, and have a
special emotional and practical relationship with her. You would
recognize your biological relationship with her and with members of
her family. But if your whole society was organized according to
kinship, for any function in which your place in society was important,
you would be a member of your father’s line, not your mother’s.
Important functions in this regard might include property ownership
and inheritance, military alliances, leadership and other statuses, and
potential marriage partners. In North American society, your place in
the group is determined by your residence, occupation, and socioeco-
nomic class. In most societies, though, it’s which lineage you belong to.
In unilineal societies, membership in a lineage is inherited through the
parent whose sex is the basis for the kinship system. In a patrilineage, you
inherit family membership from your father; in a matrilineage, from your
mother. You can pass on membership in the lineage only if you are of the
corresponding sex. For instance, if I lived in a matrilineal society, I would
be a member of my mother’s lineage, but my children would be members
of my wife’s lineage. I could not pass on membership in my lineage.
Frequency of Unilineal Societies Now, the obvious question: Why?
Doesn’t unilinealiry seem to violate logic? In fact, it makes sense in
societies that continue to organize themselves using the kinship model
but in which there are large populations with many family lines. If
FIGURE 10.6
The members of a patrilin-
eage and of a matrilineage.
In a patrilineage, females
may be members but cannot
pass on their membership
to their offspring. In a
matrilineage, males may be
members but cannot pass
on their membership to
their offspring. In some
patrilineal societies, wives
become members of their
husband’s lineage as well.
unilineal A kinship system
in which an individual is
a member of only one
parent’s descent line.
patrilineal A unilineal
kinship system in which an
individual is a member of
the father’s descent line.
matrilineal A undineal
kinship system in which an
individual is a member of
the mother’s descent line.

258 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
things such as your economic responsibilities, your political and military
alliances, and your rights of inheritance are determined by who your
relations are, it makes things a lot simpler by preventing relationships
from having to be accounted for in two directions. Unilineality makes
social organization based on kinship easier and more efficient. Just why
each individual system originated and why it has its particular set of
rules is another question. Remember, you can’t always infer origin from
current functional relationships. Nonetheless, some degree of overall
social simplicity seems to be an important goal of unilineality.
Family Type and Cultural Systems
Can we draw any correlations between descent systems and other
aspects of culture? Are there reasons why some groups are matrilineal
and others patrilineal? And what about bilaterality?
Like monogamy, bilaterality is associated with foraging and complex
agricultural and industrial societies-the technologically least and most
complex types. For foragers, bilaterality makes obvious sense. It reflects
their egalitarian outlook, and the practical implementation of egalitari-
anism is aided by social symmetry. Each person is equally related to both
sides of the family. When meat is distributed along kinship lines, this
symmetry results in that distribution being simple and equitable. More-
over, bilaterality allows individuals to maximize their kin network; one
can find relatives in many if not most other bands within the society.
For complex societies, which are not organized by kinship, no
manipulation of the biological categories is required. Kinship is a more
personal matter, and so the biological relationships can serve as the
model for the kinship system. (Remember, however, this does not deter-
mine emotional or psychological relationships, nor, necessarily, social
norms. See the “Contemporary Issues” box in this chapter.)
In unilineal societies, the specific type of system seems correlated to
economics, in a broad sense. Women perform most of the farming labor
in most horticultural societies, so women tend to be the focus of the
social structure, and these societies tend to be matrilineal. This establishes
a stable network of kinship ties and helps provide a high degree of inter-
nal political stability.
However, horticulruralists in dense tropical forests often confront
a shortage of resources. Farming labor can become more intensive, and
competition and even internal warfare are not uncommon within such
groups. In these cases, men become a social focus, and the societies tend
to be patrilineal.
It should be noted that there are exceptions to these correlations.
There are bilateral horticultural societies and unilineal foraging soci-
eties. The above generalizations should not be seen as cause-and-effect
relationships but rather as models for how to think about and analyze
the variations in kinship systems among human societies. As we have

CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 259
noted, culture is not a “thing” that responds unvaryingly to certain situ-
ations. Culture springs from the minds of people. As anthropologist
Roger Keesing, a specialist in kinship, puts it:
Cultures do not respond to pressures. Rather, individual human
beings cope as best they can, formulate rules, follow and break
them; and by their statistical patterns of cumulative decisions, they
set a course of cultural drift.
It should also be noted that there are other descent systems besides
the major ones just described. In some, an individual may choose to
belong to either the father’s or the mother’s side. In others, one is a
member of the mother’s line for some purposes and the father’s for
others. These, however, are rare, so we will limit our discussion to the
three major patterns.
Within the major types of descent organization, there is even more
variation. Societies have different terminology systems for ordering the
exact relationships among individuals. There are about half a dozen
major systems. We will look at three to show the aspects that vary, how
we study them, and what they can tell us.
KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY
What do you call the man who is your mother’s husband and your imme-
diate male ancestor? That may sound like a dumb question. You call him
father, of course. And no one else shares that designation. But it’s not a
dumb question in anthropology, because the categories of family rela-
tionships differ from society to society, as does just about everything else.
Kinship terms are, of course, linguistic and vary greatly from language
to language, so it would be unwieldy to describe systems using actual
cultural terms. We can, however, diagram the systems using symbols.
Two individuals who share the same category are symbolized by the
same color. In a diagram of a North American family, for example, the
color indicating your biological father would be shared by no one else,
while the color for your first cousin could be shared by many.
Terms for members of one’s family, furthermore, are relative to the
point of view of a particular person. You call the man mentioned before
father, but your mother calls him husband. Your cousin Tom is your
uncle’s son. So each diagram is viewed from one person’s perspective,
and we call that person EGO.
The Eskimo System
Let’s begin with the system that should be easiest for us to understand.
It’s the Eskimo system, so named because it was described in studies of
that group.

260 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 10.7
The Eskimo kinship system.
7 9 II 128 10
In Figure 10.7, two married individuals, 3 and 4, have three kids,
11, EGO, and 12. Each parent has two siblings, one of each sex, and
each of these has two kids. For simplicity, we’ll leave out the spouses
of the parents’ siblings. EGO is of no particular sex, so we can change
“its” sex for different examples.
Notice that EGO’s biological parents are indicated by colors found
nowhere else on the diagram. This means that EGO calls them by terms
used for them alone. The parents’ siblings fall .into two categories, one
for males and one for females, but the same categories are used for
both sides. In EGO’s generation, there are again specific terms for
EGO’s biological siblings, distinguishing males from females. Finally, all
the offspring of EGO’s parents’ siblings are called by the same term,
here with no differentiation for sex (although many cultures using the
Eskimo system do make a linguistic distinction).
Look familiar? It should. Just substitute English words for the col-
ors: father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and cousin. It would
work for other languages as well, including Spanish, French, German,
Russian, and many more.
The Eskimo system is found most often at both ends of the
continuum of subsistence types. It tends to be used by foragers and by
agricultural societies.Why? Look at what is emphasized by the terms:
the nuclear family.Within that unit, people are specified. Outside that
unit, people fall into a more limited number of categories with no
distinction as to side of the family or, in the case of the English cousin,
as to sex. In kinship terminology, specificity indicates emphasis.
The Eskimo systemhas a bilateral descent linewith symmetrical sides
of the family. It reflects an economic emphasis on the nuclear family,
as in foraging groups, or a conceptual emphasis on the nuclear family as
the only important recognized kinship unit, as in industrial societies. It
allows the nuclear family to be set off and persons outside it to be equally
important-or equally unimportant. So it works as well among the San
as among twenty-first-century Americans.
The Hawaiian System
The Hawaiian kinship system is probably the simplest (Figure 10.8). In
this system, persons are distinguished only by sex and generation. This

—————–
CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 261
7 8
system is found in groups that have bilateral descent or III groups In
which you are a member of either line or different lines for different
purposes. Unlike the Eskimo system, also associated with bilaterality, the
Hawaiian doesn’t focus on the nuclear family but lumps nuclear family
members and other close relatives into just a few broad categories.
Societies that use this system usually comprise more people than do
foraging groups. There is more emphasis on symmetry of the two sides.
EGO’s culturally defined relationships to a large number of people are
thus fairly straightforward.
There is another aspect of kinship that is linked to terminology-
the incest taboo, discussed in Chapter 7. Remember that mating
between siblings and between parents and offspring is universally
prohibited. * Although that taboo may have originated with reference
to the biological meaning of those terms, in practice it relates to their
cultural meanings as well. In other words, any person to whom you
refer using the same term you use for your biological siblings or parents
is the same as those people. The incest taboo would apply to them as well.
Look back at the Hawaiian system. Whom can EGO marry on the
diagram? Nobody. Everyone on the diagram is the same as the members
of EGO’s biological nuclear family. EGO must find a mate outside his
or her family line.
The Omaha System
The terminology systems used by unilineal societies are the most complex.
The Omaha system, used by that Native American group as well as
many other societies around the world, is a good example (Figure 10.9).
It looks very strange at first, but if we take it Doe step at a time, it makes
sense. First, for the moment, ignore persons 9, 10, 13, and 14. They’re
special, and we’ll return to them shortly.
Having left those four out, you should notice that on EGO’s father’s
side of the family there are more categories than on the mother’s side. In
“Technically, this is called a rule of exogamy (literally, “marriage outside of”) and
refers to the unit of people outside of which one must find a marriage partner. A rule
of endogamy {vmarriage within”} defines the group within which one must find a
mate. The Hutterites are largely endogamous, for example.
FIGURE 10.8
The Hawaiian kinship
system.
exogamy t-tarriage outside
a specified unit of people.
endogamy t-tarriage within
a specified unit of people.

262 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 10.9
The Omaha kinship system.
parallel cousins The
children of your father’s
brothers or mother’s sisters.
cross cousins The children
of your father’s sisters or
mother’s brothers.
7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
fact, all the members of EGO’s mother’s family (except 13 and 14-keep
ignoring them!) are just male or female, regardless of generation. 1£ we
were to add more generations, the situation would stil1 be the same. The
color shared by numbers 4, 5, and 16, then, would translate into a word
meaning something like “female member of my mother’s lineage.” Simi-
larly, the color for 6 and 15 means “male member of my mother’s lineage.”
On the father’s side, however, both sex and generation are speci-
fied. The color for 2 and 3, for example, means “male member of my
father’s line in my father’s generation.” What this tells you is that the
Omaha system is associated with patrilineal societies. As EGO, my
important culturally defined relationships are with other members of
my patrilineage. Thus, it is important for me to specify the categories
into which they fall. I am not a member of my mother’s patrilineage,
though, so those individuals are not as culturally important to me. As
a result, they are specified only by their sex.
It is important not to confuse personal recognition with cultural
categories here. Certainly, if I were a member of a society using the
Omaha system, I would know who those people on my mother’s side
were, and I would call them all by their personal names. My mother
would not be a member of my patrilineage, but I would live with
her while I was growing up and have close emotional ties with her.
She would be my mother in every way we understand that term. The
categories we’re discussing refer to cultural relationships-various
economic and social rights and responsibilities-that happen to be
organized based on kinship.
Now add back those four relations you ignored earlier, and look
at EGO’s generation. The people in this generation fall into many
different and asymmetrical categories. Numbers 15 and 16, as we
noted, are simply a male and female on the mother’s side. Numbers
7 and 8 are individuals with specific terms; we’ll get back to them.
Numbers 9, 10, 13, and 14, from both sides, are the same as EGO’s
biological siblings.
The Omaha system, as well as some others, makes a distinction
between two kinds of children of your parents’ siblings. We call them
parallel cousins and cross cousins. Parallel cousins are children of
same-sex siblings, your father’s brother’s kids or your mother’s sister’s
16

CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 263
kids. Here they are numbers 9, 10, 13, and 14. Cross cousins are your
father’s sister’s kids and your mother’s brother’s kids, here numbers
7, 8, 15, and 16.
The origin of this distinction is debatable, but we may show one
result-the application of the incest taboo. Numbers 9, 10, 13, and 14,
sharing the same symbols as the biological siblings, clearly fall into the
taboo category. This system also excludes everyone on the mother’s side
as a potential marriage partner to avoid combining descent lines that
the unilineal system has separated; it also prevents marriage within one’s
own lineage. On the father’s side, however, 7 and 8 could be acceptable
marriage partners. They are neither a member of your mother’s lineage
nor of yours. They are members of their father’s patrilineage, that is, of
number 1’s husband. In other words, they are members of an unrelated
lineage. Indeed, in some cultures with this system, the cross cousins on
your father’s side are the preferred marriage partners.
In actual practice, we have to look at each kinship system and see
if we can discern the functional relationships involved. As with every
other aspect of culture, there are no hard and fast rules. For instance,
a few groups that use the Omaha system are matrilineal, so our neat
analysis won’t work for all unilineal systems.
There are more systems of terminology and subsystems within some
of these three patterns. See the references at the end of the chapter for
some sources. For the moment, if you’re intrigued, consider the Crow
system (named after another Native American group). It is the mirror
image of the Omaha system and is associated with matrilineal societies.
See if you can diagram it.
ORGANIZATION ABOVE THE FAMILY LEVEL
Within societies there are many organizing principles in addition to those
based on the kinship model. For instance, in many societies there are age
sets-groups of people born within some limited time range of one
another. Age-set members remain associated for life and have certain
special social and economic rights and responsibilities toward one another.
There are also associations based on gender. Men’s associations,
common in societies in the New Guinea highlands, are as important as
any other social category for defining a person’s social position and
socioeconomic relationships with others (Figure 10.10). We also find
various forms of military associations and associations based on occu-
pation, ethnic affiliation, and region of birth.
Political Organization
As societies get larger and more complex, there is a need for other sys-
tems of organization. As anthropologist Elman R. Service puts it:
age sets A social unit made
up of persons of approxi-
mately the same age
men’s associations A social
unit made up of a society’s
men. Common in highland
New Guinea.

264 PART THREE Adapting to Out Worlds
FIGURE 10.10
Among the Gimi of Papua
New Guinea, men and boys
sleep in “men’s houses” in
the centers of their fenced-
In compounds. Women and
children are forbidden to
enter the men’s houses or
even to walk on the paths
leading to them. They live in
smaller houses at the edges
of the compounds,
political organization The
secular, nonkinship means of
organizing the interactions
within a society and between
one society and others.
Kinship … can integrate a society only up to a certain point in its
growth. After that, the society must fission into separate societies if
growth continues …. Only with the achievement of new integrative
means can an increase in complexity keep pace with the growth.
The “new integrative means” he refers to is political organization.
It serves the same functions as organization on the family level, but it
involves more people and more complex interactions. According to
Frank Vivelo, political organization
refers to the means of maintaining order and conformity in a society.
It concerns the allocation of power and authority to make decisions
beyond the personal level, i.e., decisions which affect the group ..
as a whole. It provides structure through which decisions about
social policy, and the implementation of social policy, are effected. In
addition … [it] also concerns the way a society orders its affairs in
relation to other groups.
As you should expect by now, the specific features of political
organization vary enormously among different societies. We can,

..——————
CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 265
00 0
o 0
Band
Chiefdom
Tribe
•
State
however, categorize the variation into a few general types (Figure 10.11;
see also Table 9.1).
Bands Introduced in Chapter 9, bands ate the simplest and, in a sense
have no political organization at all. They ate based on kinship and ate
characteristic of foraging societies such as the San and the Eskimo. As you
recall, foraging societies are made up of small, autonomous, flexible units
with no social stratification, although there are individuals who are infor-
mally more influential.
Tribes Tribes are political organizations characteristic of horticultural
and pastoral gtOUps. Elman Service has referred to these as “collections
of bands.” The basic organization is still along kinship lines, but now
those lines are combined into larger units-often called lineages or
clans-and relations unite different kinship units and different resi-
dence areas such as villages. Tribes are essentially egalitarian, and there
is no central authority, but the problems facing this larger group are
generally more complex than those of a band society and so must
involve decisions on the part of the tribe as a whole. The Yanomamo
and the Dani (see Chapter 14) are examples of tribes.
Chiefdoms Chiefdoms are the next level of organization. There is still
no one central authority over the whole society, but because there are
more individual units making up the society, there are numerous central
authorities, the chiefs, who lead groups of those individual units. Such
an organization is found in less complex agricultural and large pastoral
groups. The basis of organization may still be kinship, since the position
of chief is often hereditary. Chiefdoms are socioeconomically somewhere
in between egalitarian and class systems; there are social strata, but there
is an attempt to smooth out inequalities through redistribution. Although
foragers, the Kwakiutl are an example of a chiefdom (see Chapter 9).
•
FIGURE 10.11
Basic types of political
organization. Bands are small
autonomous units without
formal leaders and With
informal relationships with
one another as the need
arises (indicated by the
dashed line). A tribe is a
collection of bands, still
without full-time leadership
but with more formalized
relationships among all the
individual units (indicated by
the solid lines). A chiefdom
has formal. full-time leaders
who rule over groups of
individual units and interact
among themselves in mat-
ters of concern to the entire
society. A state requires
centralized authority that
coordinates and controls the
interactions of the individual
units. often through the
leader of each unit In reality.
chiefdoms and states
comprise more subunits
than depicted here. A state
system can consist of many
layers of subunits such as
towns. counties, and states,
each of which has its own
leadership structure.
band A small autonomous
group, usually associated
with foraging societies,
tribe A political organization
with no central leader but in
which the subunits may
make collective decisions
about the entire group.
chiefdom A political organi-
zation made up of groups of
interacting units, each of
which has a chief. or leader.

266 PART THREE Adapting to OUf Worlds
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Why Don’t Bilateral Societies Have Equality between the Sexes?
It may seem contradictory that societies with
bilateral descent lines display sexual inequalities.
Doesn’t the equal relationship of a person to both
parents mean that the parents themselves are
equal in social and cultural areas? Why, for
example, does awife take her husband’s last
name and children their father’s? Doesn’t this
actually denote a patrilineal descent system?
In fact, type of descent line and the social and
cultural relationships between the sexes are two
different issues.American society is, indeed,
bilateral, and yet it has traditionally been domi-
nated by men. Women have only had the vote
in the United States since 1920. Until relatively
recently, far fewer women than men attended
college, and ifthey did It was often a college solely
for women. Those women who worked outside
the household did so, to a great extent, in support
services. Most of us picture a woman when we
use or hear the terms nurse or secretary. (Notice
that the phrase male nurse is still common, as if
men in that occupation were the overwhelming
exception.) When the U.s. Senate and Congress
meet in joint session. it is still a sea of male faces
(and white male faces at that). Even the two
women on the current Supreme Court make up
only 22 percent of that body. There is still,in
some occupations, a disparity in salaries between
men and women doing the same work. But potri-
archal is not patrilineal.
Descent systems are a reflection of broad,
society-wide socioeconomic considerations.
We can link the different systems (With ex-
ceptions, of course) to subsistence patterns.
Bilaterality is found in foraging societies that
are organized as symmetrical, egalitarian
affiliations of fairly small numbers of nuclear
families. In these cases, although there is a
States States are characterized by having one central authority. Com-
plex agricultural and industrial societies consist of large numbers of peo-
ple with complex interactions and living in numerous individual units.
There is a clear need for all the individual units–even though each may
have its own chief-to be integrated. Thus, we find kings, pharaohs,
czars, and presidents in this type of system. The centralized authority
itself may be complex and multifaceted, as is the federal government of
the United States, with its three branches. There are many other modern-
day examples of states. Well-known ancient examples include the Maya
of Central America, Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa, Mesopotamia
in Southwest Asia, and ancient Egypt.
Social organization, then, is a broad and complex topic. The general
idea, however, is this: the organizing groups may sometimes be based
on biological factors such as age, sex, and kinship. Nevertheless, the
actual categories, the rules for membership, and all the ideals of behav-
ior associated with the categories are cultural inventions geared toward
addressing the needs of the group that uses them. It’s in this light that
we attempt to understand them.
-,p”-“‘,,- ~-“‘F ~ ••, ,
A. _~ ,-t’. ,po “‘” -‘V …. .4
state A political organiza-
tion with one central
authority goveming all
the individual units.

—————-
sexual division of labor, there is also a basic
sexual equality. But bilaterality is also found In
complex agricultural and industrial societies
where cultural manipulation of biological
categories is not necessary and where the
family has a personal rather than an economic
focus. The characteristics of such societies
have given rise to at least the potential for
inequalities in the relationships between men
and women.
In urban and suburban settings especially,a
more distinct division of labor evolved. Instead
of all members of a household being involved in
aspects of the same economic activities, the
husband would leave the house to work. The
wife. likelyalso a mother. would take care of home
and children. The sexes were thus isolated from
one another for large portions of the day,and
women became isolated from public life.They still
performed important labor, but it was not labor
that generated income. Women thus became
economically dependent on men and, as a result,
CHAPTER 10 The Nature of the Group 267
often lacked property and power They became,
in a sense, an underclass.
From this male-dominated socioeconomic
situation, and from the efforts by men to directly
maintain the power and wealth such a situation
provided them, came the idea that women were
“the weaker sex.” Women in the United States.
for example, were seen as unqualified for men’s
jobs, as incapable and not in need of formal edu-
cation, and as needing extra physical protection
and care. (Even into the twentieth century, some
women were virtually confined to their beds
during pregnancy.) Certainly, it was thought,
women lacked the mental abilities for commercial
or political leadership positions, and a woman
doctor or scientist was considered an oddity.
Although the situation is far more equitable
today, we are–in both our economics and our
woridview-e-still working toward overall equality
for men and women in this society The fact that
we organize kinship bilaterally does not require
or guarantee that equality.
SUMMARY
All groups of living organisms require some mech-
anism to coordinate the actions of their members.
For most living things, this mechanism is genetic.
But with large-brained primates-creatures that
rely on learned beha vior for survival-group orga-
nization becomes more complex and variable. In
anthropoid primates such as the baboon, chim-
panzee, and bonobo, the identities, characteris-
tics, and relationships among individuals are
important in the establishment and maintenance
of social organization.
In the human primate, the basis for social
organization is, not surprisingly, the family, the
basic reproductive and economic unit. For most
human societies throughout most of our evolu-
rionary history, social organization has been
based on kinship. But even when populations
become large, complex, and composed of many
biological kinship groups, the organizational
structure may still be based on the biological
model. Now, however, kinship units are cultur-
ally defined and may crosscut or lump biological
categories, and so we see all manner of variation-
in one’s individual identity as a member of a
kinship group and in the identity and number of
potential marriage partners. These variations
may be examined and understood under the
assumption that the form of organization works
for the people who practice it and is an integral
pall of their whole cultural system.

268 PARTTHREE Adapting to Our Worlds
When societies become so large and
complex that kinship alone can’t operate to
organize and coordinate them, broader forms
of integration must be devised. These are
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT
political units. Although many of these
still have kinship-based aspects, they are
largely based on residence and socioeconomic
interaction.
I. It’s easy to say that we should apply cultural relativity in our studies of and dealings with other cul-
tures. But putting it into practice is another matter. Thinking about the current world situation, with
itsmany intercultural conflicts, how might cultural relativity be helpful?What are its limits?Are there
times when it’s appropriate to be ethnocentric?
2. As an exercise in appreciating other kinship systems, draw a kinship diagram for your family-include
as many members, living and deceased, as you can*-and imagine (and redraw) it as if it were a
patrilineal and then a matrilineal system, Next, use Omaha terminology and see how that would
change how you view your family members and relationships.
3. Larger societies include groups whose organization can be categorized using the types of political
systems discussed in this chapter (bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states). What type, for example, might
the Hutterites fall under? How about the church you belong to? your university? your extracurricular
groups and clubs?
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
Information on baboon social organization can be
found in Linda Marie Fedigan and L. Pedigan’s
Gender and the Study of Primates, Barbara Smut’s
Sex and Friendship in Baboons, and Shirley Strum’s
Almost Human. For primate behavior in general, try
Patterns of Primate Behavior, by Claude Bramblett,
The Nonhuman Primates, edited by Phyllis Dolhinow
and Agustin Fuentes, and Primates in Perspective,
edited by Christine Campbell et al.
Although it is over thirty years old, I still find
Roger Keesing’s Kin Groups and Social Structure a use-
ful general book on those topics. A good chart on the
relationship between kinship and subsistence patterns is
on page 134, and the passage I quoted is from page 140.
The survey I mentioned in conjunction with the
percentages of cultures exhibiting different descent
“Some additional symbols might be helpful here:
!J. deceased
• living elsewhere
::;:. divorced
systems is George Murdock’s World Ethnographic
Sample. Information specifically about the topics of
this chapter is in his Social Structure.
Descriptions of and discussions about the corre-
lations between marriage, kinship, and subsistence
pattern can be found in M. Kay Martin and Barbara
Voorhies’s Female of the Species.
Elman R. Service discusses the categories of
political organization in Profiles in Ethnology, third
edition. The passage I quoted is from page 3. The
definition of political organization I quoted is from
Frank Robert Vivelo’s Cultural Anthropology Hand-
book, page 135.
For a derailed discussion of the rise of the
state, see chapter 13 of Kenneth Feder’s Past in
Perspective.

COMMUNICATION
Sharing What We Need to Know
CHAPTER CONTENTS Language· Language and Evolution • Apes and Language • Language and Culture
• Summary • Contemporary Issues: Are Written Languages More Advanced than Unwritten Ones? • Questions for
Further Thought • Notes, References, and Readings
269

270 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
When a honeybee finds a new source of food-flower pollen andnectar-she flies back to the hive.Within minutes more bees
emerge and, amazingly,fly straight to the food. Their ability to do this
is a result of what goes on in the hive after the first bee flies in.
Inside the hive, that bee does a dance, called a waggling dance, to
communicate to the other bees the direction, distance, and identity of
the food (Figure I 1.1). First, because it’s usually dark in the hive, she
emits sound signals that help the other bees determine where she is
and how she’s moving. She then dances in a figure-eight pattern on a
vertical surface of the hive; the angle of one line of the dance relative
to the vertical ISthe same as the angle between the sun and the food
source. The pace of her dancing tells how far away the food IS;the
faster she dances, the closer the food. At some point, the bees observ-
ing the dance emit sounds that vibrate the hone%comb.This causes the
dancer to stop, and she gives the watchers small samples of the food
so they know its taste, smell and quality After receiving the necessary
Information, the other bees fly out to find the food. They can find food
just as easily on cloudy days as on sunny days because they can see
ultraviolet light.
As amazing as this is, it’s just one example of the many ways in which
organisms communicate with other members of their species.We some-
times think that humans have the only communication system capable of
transmitting such specific information, but as with other traits assumed
to be unique to humans, that’s not the case. The bee dance, as we’ll
discuss, has the rudiments of some features of human communication.
The goal of this chapter is to understand what human communi-
cation is and how it acts as one of our species’ survival mechanisms.
At the base of this understanding is the simple concept that commu-
nication is the way in which Information from the nervous system of
one organism is transmitted to that of another of the same species. It
follows that a species’ communication system reflects the species’ ner-
vous system and the nature of the information being communicated.
A bee, for example, is built to perceive the location and nature of its
food source, and it has evolved the ability to share that information
with its fellow bees. As you might expect, as simple nervous systems
evolved into brains, and as necessary information became more involved,
communication systems became more complex.

£_——————
CHAPTER 11 Communication 271
A look at the specific features of the human communication system
will show how this relationship between an organism’s nervous system
and its communication system works. Although the term ISoften used
more broadly, I use language to refer solely to human communication
by means of shared symbols In the form of sounds or their represen-
tations. (VVealso, of course, communicate in nonlinguistic ways, such as
facial expressions.)
ASYOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. How do we define the human communication system, and what
are its features?
2. How might our language ability have evolved?
3. What can stuoying the linguistic abilities of apes tell us about
human language?
4. In what ways ISa language related to the culture that uses it?
LANGUAGE
Recall from Chapter 4 that the makeup of the human brain allows us
to have culture. Essentially, our neocortex can experience not only pres-
ent events but also events from the past and even hypothetical and
future events. The human brain can do this because it stores massive
FIGURE 11.1
A returning bee begins her
dance to communicate to
the others of her hive the
direction, distance, and
nature of a food source.
language Human communi-
cation by means of shared
symbols in the form of
sounds or representations
of sounds

272 PART THREE Adapting to OUf Worlds
displacement The ability to
communicate about things
and ideas not immediate in
space or time
duality of patterning Here,
the two levels of human lan-
guage: units of sound and
units of meaning that those
units of sound are combined
to create.
phoneme A unit of sound
in a language.
morpheme A unit of
meaning in a language.
productivity Here, the
ability of human languages
to generate limitless
numbers of meanings.
arbitrary Here. the fact
that the features of human
languages bear no direct
relationship to their meanings
but are agreed-on symbols,
amounts of information-derived from experience through the sense
organs-in such a way that all the individual pieces of data are sepa-
rately filed but highly cross-referenced. Thus, they can be manipulated-
taken apart, modified, and put together in a virtually infinite number
of combinations. This ability not only lets us think about experiences but
also enables us to make generalizations about them and derive abstract
ideas and concepts from them. So our communication system must pos-
sess features that reflect these processes and make sharing our data and
ideas possible. In humans, linguistic abilities are housed in a special area
on the left side of the brain (see Figure 5.5), but the functions of that
area are basically the same as those of the neocortex in general.
The Features of Language
First, we can talk about things that are not right in front of us,
things that are not immediate stimuli-for example, the concepts
we’ve been discussing throughout this book. This characteristic is
called displacement. The subjects of our language can be displaced
in time and space.
Second, in contrast to the communication systems of other species,
our language is not made up of a series of individual signals, each with
a single and specific meaning. Our ideas are expressed in units of mean-
ing called sentences, which in turn are made up of smaller units called
words, which themselves are made up of various combinations of
sounds. This feature of language is called duality of patterning. Lan-
guage operates on two levels. Individual sounds, phonemes, which
themselves are meaningless, are strung together in various combinations
that have meaning, proceeding from the smallest meaningful unit, the
morpheme, to larger units such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and
so on.
Duality of patterning makes possible the endless generation of new
combinations of these units to express new experiences, new meanings,
new ideas, and new concepts. This is called productivity. Just as we
manipulate the thoughts in our brains, we manipulate the mechanism
we use to share those thoughts. If we couldn’t do that, we couldn’t
share, and culture, by definition, must be shared.
Finally, since we communicate abstractions, it would be impossible
for our language to be made up of sounds that are iconic (that is,
resemble the thing being talked about) or that are specifically linked
to one meaning. Rather, our sounds and the units of meaning we com-
bine them into are arbitrary. They are culturally agreed-on and shared
symbols for facts, ideas, and concepts. That’s why every language in the
world can have a different linguistic symbol for the same thing. The
Tswana, a southern African people, call one species of nut-bearing tree
mongongo (and the word has been adopted into English). The San call
the same tree /I”gxa (the / is a dental click and the” a glottal flap).

—————–
CHAPTER 11 Communication 273
Apply these features to the communication system of the bees. There
is a degree of displacement, since the flowers are not right in front of the
bee that is communicating information about them. She must remember
their location for the few minutes it takes her to fly back to the hive and
dance. Similarly, the bees receiving the message must remember it long
enough to find the flowers. But the bees can’t share information about
last year’s flowers or even yesterday’s, and they can’t communicate about
food sources in the future. Neither is there duality in the bee’s commu-
nication system. Each aspect of the dance has a meaning of its own, and
that’s it. Thus, there can be no real productivity. All the bees talk about
is the direction, distance, and general type of food. Finally, the bee’s
communication system is not symbolic. The waggling dance is an analog
in that the bee waggles at an angle relative to the sun and paces her
dance in direct correlation to the distance. That’s a lot different from
saying, “Fly 300 yards at 10 degrees east of north.” Those symbols
have meaning only because we have agreed that they do.
Language Acquisition
OUf languages must be learned. We are no more born knowing how to
speak our native language than we are born knowing the rules of our
culture. Languages use abstract, arbitrary symbols that allow people to
speak about abstract concepts. Languages are passed on to future gen-
erations not in the genes but by cultural sharing. And language is facil-
itated through the use of artifacts-written words in literate cultures,
as well as the spoken words themselves, which are also artifacts because
they are created by people.
But there is a biological basis for language. We have to learn the
features of our native language, but that learning itself has a biological
component. Before you ever opened a grammar book in elementary
school, you could already speak your native language with a great deal
of fluency. You made mistakes, of course, and we all do, even through
adulthood. But our linguistic mistakes were, and are, generally excep-
tions to the basic rules of our language’s grammar.
What happens when we are children is that part of our brain is
furiously working to take in data about our communication system
and to formulate the generalizations about it that will enable us to
use it. A child learns the rules of grammar not through repeated
instruction but rather by hearing the language spoken and trying to
speak it.
Consider the grammatical mistakes children make. They usually
concern exceptions to the general rules-exceptions that must be spe-
cifically and individually learned. A child who says “Yesterday I seed a
rabbit” in a language that normally forms the past tense by adding oed
is using logic and is actually demonstrating an understanding of a basic
rule of English grammar.

274 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
descriptive linguistics The
study of the structure of
language in general and of
the specific variations
among languages.
There’s some evidence that language-learning ability decreases
with age. It becomes, for most of us, much harder to learn new lan-
guages once we’re in our teens. Children deprived of human contact
and thus of the opportunity to hear and use language have a very
difficult time making up for the deficit later on. Language ability is
part of our biological makeup and so, it seems, is the ability and
process for learning it.
Descriptive Linguistics
The study of all the arbitrary pieces of human language is called
descriptive linguistics. To give you an idea as to what is involved and
how languages differ from culture to culture, let’s just touch on some
of the essentials of this field.
The basis for any language is the set of sounds it uses. These are
its phonemes, and each language has its own phonemic inventory. Some
of these sounds may be used in other languages as well, but some may
be unique. For instance, the language of the San’ contains four phonemes
that we refer to as clicks. They are real parts of the language. The
difference between one click and another can mean the difference
between one word and another.
Languages also differ in phonemic distinctions. Two of the most
often cited examples involve phonemes in English and Chinese. The t
phoneme in the words tack and stack are, to English speakers, the same.
To a speaker of Chinese, however, they are different. Say them out loud
and notice that the t in tack has a puff of air after it (called aspiration)
but the t in stack does not. This difference in Chinese could alter the
meaning of a word. On the other hand, the first phonemes in lock and
rock are different to an English speaker but are just variations of the
same phoneme to Chinese and Japanese speakers.
The arrangement of phonemes also differs among languages.
For instance, the mb combination may appear in the final position of
a word in English, as in lamb, but never in the initial position, as in
Mbuti (say it with two syllables not three), the name of a Central African
people. An initial nkr, as in Nkrumah (also two syllables), the name of
the first president of Ghana, is also absent from English.
Phonemes don’t have meanings themselves, but when combined
with other phonemes, they form the basic meaningful units of language,
called morphemes. A word is composed of one or more morphemes;
it means something. But not all morphemes aJe words. The word words,
for instance, is made up of two morphemes: word, with its obvious
meaning, and -s~which means “make the preceding morpheme plural.”
A morpheme may come in several versions. The English morpheme
that, as a prefix, makes the attached word negative, comes in four
forms: im-, in-, ir-, and un-, as in impossible, incredible, irresponsible,
and unreasonable.

.—————-
CHAPTER 11 Communication 275
Moreover, pitch and stress can act as morphemes, changing the
meaning of a word or set of words. In Chinese there are four variations
in pitch (the rise or fall of the voice) placed on a combination of pho-
nemes basically pronounced rna, resulting in four different words. In
Russian the difference between a statement and a question does not
have to involve word order, as in English. The changes in pitch as
you say the words of the sentence make the difference. Compare the
following English and Russian sentences (the Russian is written pho-
netically, since that language uses a different alphabet):
I am going to the post office.
Am I going to the post office?
……
Ya idu nah potchtu. (statement)
—–‘”
Ya idu nah p6tchtu. (question)
Finally, morphemes are strung together to make up the unit of
speech that conveys whole ideas, the sentence. Each language differs in
its rules for the order of morphemes in a sentence. This is called syntax.
For instance, if we want to negate the idea expressed in an English
sentence, we usually put a negative morpheme in front of the appro-
priate word: I don’t love you. In German, the negative morpheme nicht
can go at the very end of the sentence: lch Liebedich nicht. (The humor-
ous construction, made famous in the movie Wayne’s World, of putting
not at the end of a sentence, as in I love you … not!, wasn’t funny
when that movie was translated into German.)
An example of the power of the rules of language-the rules that
we generate as children even before we learn them formally-comes
from linguist Noam Chomsky. He offered the following sentence:
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Although it is nonsensical, we easily recognize the sentence as gram-
matically sound. All the morphemes and the words they make up are
in the right places and order. Compare it to this version:
Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.
This one makes no more sense, but neither does it sound like an English
sentence. Anorher famous example comes from Through the Looking
Glass, by Lewis Carroll:
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy roves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Don’t bother consulring a dictionary; you won’t find most of those
words. But you may have thought they were real because the word
structure and order followed the rules of English.
syntax Rules of word order
in a language,

276 PARTTHREEAdapting to Our Worlds
These, then, are the basic pieces of OUf language systems. Within
certain rules, these pieces are broken up, shuffled around, and recom-
bined to facilitate the communication of our thoughts-thoughts that
themselves have been through the same kinds of manipulations.
At this point, two questions should come to mind: How did human
language evolve? And why do human languages differ?
LANGUAGE AND EVOLUTION
How Did Language Evolve?
We can generalize and say that the characteristic features of human
language make ours an open communication system. Because of its
duality and productivity, human language is almost infinitely creative.
The communication systems of nonhumans, on the other hand-
even of the nonhuman primates-are closed systems. That is, there are
certain calls or other signs that have meanings, but those meanings are
specific. For example, chimpanzees have a largerepertoire of calls, facial
expressions, and gestures, but these normally express emotional or
motivational states such as fear, aggression, sexual stimulation, or
excitement over, say, food or the presence of strangers (Figure 11.2).
Thinking back to our discussion of the brain in Chapter 4, we might
say that chimps communicate limbic-system functions-basic survival-
oriented emorions. The chimps do not name rhings. Technically put,
their communication system is not referential; it doesn’t refer to some-
thing in the physical environment. Nor has anyone ever observed a
chimp combining or stringing together calls to convey new meanings.
There is, however, at least one exception. Studies of chimps and even
some African monkeys show that dauger calls may differ depending on
the source of the danger, for example, whether it is on the ground (a
leopard) or in the air (an eagle). Chimps also may specify the presence
of a snake. If there’s anything important enough to “talk” about spe-
cifically, it would be potentially lethal predators.
In terms of human evolution, the question now becomes, How did a
closed call system, no doubt possessed by our ancestors, turn into an open
system? Linguists Charles Hockett and Robert Ascher, in an article titled
“The Human Revolurion,” propose a simple model (which I’m going to
simplify even further here) of how this transition may have occurred.
Hockett and Ascher suggest that some human ancestor found two closed
calls to be appropriate for communicating a certain situation. But instead
of using both calls, this innovative early hominid combined the calls,
perhaps using part of each to make up a brand-new call that conveyed
the meaning of both the old calls. Suppose the call for “food” is made up
of the sounds ABCD and the call for “danger” consists of the sounds
EFGH. Both calls would be appropriate, say, if a leopard were found
standing over a newly killed antelope. Or, one could be “productive” and

—————-
CHAPTER 11 Communication 277
use ABEF, meaning “food but danger too.” This might make the combi-
nation CDCH mean “no food and no danger either,” and ABCH, “food
and no danger.” The system is now open, and all the other calls and their
parts may become phonemes that can be combined into various mor-
phemes, which can, in turn, be combined into words and sentences. To
be sure, it didn’t happen this quickly and simply, but the development of
language must have entailed a process very much like this.
FIGURE 11.2
A male chimpanzee display-
ing a “full open grin:’ This is
a sign of excitement. often
used by a high-ranking
chimp when close to a
subordinate.
When Did Language Evolve?
Until people started writing, only around 5,000 ya, language left no
physical remains. We must rely on indirect evidence, and this comes in
three forms.

278 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 11.3
Natural endocasts from
South African australo-
pithecines. showing the
degree of detail possible.
Notice the blood vessels.
especially in the upper right
cast. Such casts may also be
made artificially and allow us
to compare the brains of
our ancestors with those of
modern humans.
endocasts Natural or
human-made casts of the
inside of a skull. The cast
reflects the surface of the
brain and allows us to
study the brains of even
extinct species
Brain Anatomy First, we know that the brains of living humans are
asymmetrical-the right and left hemispheres are differently shaped
and perform different functions. Language and the ability to use sym-
bols correspond to the left hemisphere, and we know with some pre-
cision just which linguistic functions are located in which specific areas.
By looking back in the fossil record, then, we might try to find at what
point modern-looking brain structure appeared, especially those fea-
tures and areas associated with language.
Fortunately, the inside of the skull reflects some of the features of
the brain it once held. Natural endocasts and artificially produced endo-
casts of fossil skulls provide images of our ancestors’ brains (Figure 11.3).

CHAPTER 11 Communication 279
.1\\t Pharynx
Larynx
Epiglottis
What we find, howevet, doesn’t really help answer our question. Asym-
metrical brains and language-associated areas are found in all members
of genus Homo and even in Australopithecus. Indeed, we know that
chimp brains are also asymmetrical, even in some of the same ways as
ours. Until we can discover just what these features were used for by our
ancestors, brain anatomy can only hint at mental function.
Vocal Apparatus A second type of evidence comes from the base of
fossil skulls, which scientists use to reconstruct the vocal apparatus.
Even though the vocal apparatus is made up of soft tissue, those
parts are connected to bone. The shape of those bones is correlated
to the shape of the larynx, pharynx, and other anatomical features
(Figure 11.4).
Reconstruction work on australopithecines indicates that their
vocal tract was basically like that of apes, with the larynx and pharynx
high up in the throat. While this allowed them to drink and breathe at
the same time (as human infants can do up to about eighteen months
of age), it did not allow for the precise manipulation of air that is
required for the sounds made by modern human languages. The early
hominids could make sounds, but they would have been more like those
of chimpanzees.
By the time of Homo erectus, however, vocal tracts were more like
those of modern humans, positioned lower in the throat and allowing
for a greater range and speed of sound production. Thus, H. erectus
could have produced vocal communication with precise sound differ-
entiation. Whether or not they were doing so, however, can’t be inferred
from this physical evidence.
Soft palate
Pharynx
Larynx
FIGURE 11.4
The vocal tract of a chimp
compared with a modern
human’s, The high placement
of the chimp’s vocal tract
makes it impossible for it to
produce all of the sounds
that are part of modern
human languages.

280 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
Need The third type of evidence is the least concrete but, to me, the
most compelling at this time. We may ask, At what point did our
ancestors have something to talk about that would require the complex
features that characterize modern human languages? Here I come back
to Homo erectus, who manufactured fairly complex tools, controlled
fire, and had the ability to adapt culturally to a wide range of different
and changing environmental circumstances. As impressionistic as this
may be, I just can’t imagine them using a closed system of communi-
cation given the kinds of information necessary to adapt that way. At
the same time, I also see language as evolving, not suddenly changing.
So I would imagine that could we hear Homo erectus talking, we
would not recognize a thing about their communication system. The
features of modern languages probably did not appear at their current
level of complexity until later. So, in general, the question of just when
language (as opposed to a closed communication system) evolved
remains unanswered.
APES AND LANGUAGE
A different sort of linguistic research reminds us of the biocultural
nature of human language-and reinforces our acknowledgment of
the great apes as our closest relatives. Although chimpanzees, bono-
bas, gorillas, and orangutans lack an open communication system in
the wild, several individuals from each of these species have been
taught to communicate in a human language, with all the traits that
term implies.
Researchers made numerous attempts in the past to teach chim-
panzees to actually speak. These attempts were doomed, of course,
because of the differences in vocal tracts and facial and tongue muscles
between our two species. A chimp named Vicki, for instance, was
trained in the 1950s to “speak” a few words-things like mama, papa,
and cup. The vowels in her words, however, were merely puffs of air,
and Vicki had to hold her lips together with her finger to make the m
and n sounds.
Washoe: The Pioneer
Then, in 1966, a pair of psychologists, Beatrix and Allen Gardner, based
their research on the recognition that not all humans are capable of
speech and that therefore speech is no indication by itself of linguistic
capabilities. They tried a new approach. They acquired a young chimp
named Washoe and began to teach her American Sign Language
(Ameslan). This is the language used by many hearing-impaired people,
and it conveys information with every bit as much detail, efficiency, and
nuance as the spoken word. Indeed, because people signing must look

u_——————
c.
CHAPTER 11 Communication 281
b.
d.
at one another, additional information can be transmitted through body
language and facial expression (Figure 11.5).
Washoe passed away in 2007, at the age of 42, but spent her last
years with four other chimps at rhe Chimpanzee and Human Commu-
nication Institute at Central Washington University. The resident chimps
know and use hundreds of signs. They understand how word order can
change the meaning of sentences. They combine words in varying ways
to name new objects, for example, Washoe’s “water bird” for swan.
They are, thus, using a referential language. One of the chimps, Loulis,
FIGURE 11.5
A sentence in American Sign
Language (Ameslan): “Good
morning. have you had
coffee yet?” This form of sign
language.the most common,
does not have a sign for all
the words in the sentence
and yet clearly conveys the
meaning. Facial expressions
and body language are
important (a) “Good”-
fingers touch lips and
then move forward.
(b) “Morning”-Ieft hand
placed in crook of right arm;
right arm moves upward
(the sun coming up).
(c) “Coffee”-motion
of a coffee grinder.
(d) “Yet”-palm faces back
and hand is moved back and
forth several times (being
behind). The signer’s expres-
sion and slightly tilted head
make it obvious she’s asking
a question

282 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 11.6
A man teaches a chim-
panzee to sign “drink.” The
chimp’s signs are easily
recognized and interpreted
by speakers of American Sign
Language
is Washoe’s adopted son. He learned sign language from Washoe and
the other chimps without human input. The chimps sign to each other
when humans are not present. They also sign to themselves. They talk
about objects and events that are not present and even about things in
the future. Shortly after their special Thanksgiving dinner one year, one
of the chimps starred signing about a “food tree.” He was referring to
the fact that Debbi and Roger Fouts, directors of the institute, would
soon put up a Christmas tree, which they decorate with edible goodies.
When confronted with a new object, the chimps can categorize it
according to attributes it shares with already-known objects. In short,
they are using-although at the level of a smal1 child-a real human
language with al1 the traits that define that communication system.
Besides the chimps of Washoe’s community, there are other chimps,
bono bas, gorillas, and orangutans that sign (Figure 11.6) and yet others
that communicate by using symbols on keyboards or shaped plastic
tokens. Among the most notable are Koko and Michael, signing
gorillas, famous for having and naming pet cats (Figure 11.7), and
Kanzi, the bonobo that learned a symbolic keyboard language by
watching his mother being taught. (Kanzi has also learned how to make
stone flakes. He has used these flakes to cut the string around a box
containing food.)
There were-and still are-a few researchers who claim that these
apes are just mimicking their trainers and are not really generating
language on their own. But most researchers feel that the data from
these studies clearly show that apes have the mental capability to learn
at least the rudiments of our species’ unique communication system. As
Koko puts it, “Fine person gorilla.”

CHAPTER 11 Communication 283
Why Can These Apes Learn Language?
These studies, of course, bring up an obvious question. In the wild, the
great apes use closed call systems. For what purpose, then, do they have
brains capable of learning and using an open communication system, a
trait we always thought was ours alone?
Remember that although our language ability is contained in one
localized, specialized area of our brain, the basic “wiring” in that area
is much the same as that throughout our brain. After all, the nature of
the thoughts we transmit is reflected in the nature of the language.
Given that the brains of apes have the same sort of wiring as ours, even
if not as large and complex, it’s not roo surprising that they can be
taught human linguistic behavior ro some extent.
But why have they evolved such brains in the first place-brains
that experience events and manipulate data? Simply put, apes lead
complex lives. They live in social groups with elaborate personal rela-
tionships and interactions. They rely on learning in order to survive in
their environments. As we see from the variation in behavior from one
group of apes to another, they can alter their behaviors to fit their
FIGURE 11.7
Koko. with Francine Patterson,
signs “Smoky” in reference to
her kitten Smoky.

284 PART THREE Adapt.ing to OUf Worlds
needs and develop forms of a behavior unique to their group and then
pass on these traditions to future generations. They eat a wide range
of foods and need to know where edible foods are, how to get them,
when some foods become ripe, when some are bad to eat, and so on.
Their brains have evolved to facilitate these adaptations. That they
don’t have a complex communication system means that they have no
need to share some of these specific pieces of information beyond the
unintentional sharing accomplished by imitation. Personal knowledge
and sharing of emotional states suffice. But on an individual basis, they
need brains with some of the basic abilities that, in one group of apes,
would eventually evolve into the human brain. Thus, with proper train-
ing, motivation, and a stimulating environment, apes can be taught to
use, and even come to intentionally use and generate, a form of our
communication system.
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
Language, of course, is a human cultural universal. But as with other
cultural universals, language varies enormously from society to society.
Can we explain this? What is the connection between language
and culture?
The World’s Languages
There are some 3,000 languages spoken in the world today. Some of
these, like the cultures that use them, are becoming extinct as the mod-
ern industrial world spreads over the planet. No doubt a large number
of languages we’ve never heard of have already become extinct.
As with cultures in general, languages are related to one another.
They can be arranged taxonomically according to similarities and
differences. A common ancestor language can give rise to several new
languages. By comparing such things as rules of grammar, phonemic
inventories, and, especially, vocabulary, we can begin to understand
the evolutionary histories of languages-which ones gave rise to
which other ones. We can draw family trees and even attempt to
reconstruct hypothetical ancestral languages, such as Proto-Indo-
European (Figure 11.8).
Classifying and reconsrructing languages are difficult tasks, however,
because language is fluid-it changes rapidly and is easily influenced.
The French, for example, now commonly use such English derivatives
as le weekend. American English, a Germanic-language, regularly uses
words whose origins are French, Latin, Greek, Spanish, Celtic, Hebrew,
Italian, and even Sanskrit. Japanese has many borrowed words from
English, with rhe sounds translated to the closest Japanese sounds. Thus
they enjoy the American national pastime basu-boru. Japanese workers

INDO-
EUROPEAN
Modem
Greek
(Medieval
Greek)
(Ancient
Gree k)GREEK
… ….n (Gaulish)
CELTIC L………l…-
(Osee-
Umbrian) I
L..——.I
ITALIC L…1..-
Spanish
Catalan
Portuguese
Romanian
Italian
French
Provencal
Rhaeto-Romanic
Swedish
Danish
Norwegian
Icelandic
GERMANIC
Modern
High German
Yiddish
High German
Modem Low
German
Frisian
Afrikaans
Dutch
Flemish
E eh
(TOCHARIAN)
Low Gennan
(Hittite)(ANATOLIAN) {:Js:~:}~~L.a~”~g~’~”l<~e~'~O~f~Ka>~~hm~;,~…..r Dard and the upper Indus
Indic Bengali Marathi
.~ (Sansknt) Punjabi Gujarati
Hindi Romany
lied,
Pashtc I~ (Avestan)
~~ (Old Persian) Persian I
{~B~’~I”~”;::::f-_JL~===::=~—~LatvianLithuanian
East Slavic
Bulgarian Serbo-
Slavic South Slavic Slovenian Croatian
Polish
Czech
West Slavic Slovak
FIGURE 11.8
A family tree of Indo-European languages The languages in parentheses are no longer spoken,
although some may survive in written form.
285

286 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 11.9 Indo-Euro an Lan
Some words in Indo-
European and non- English one two three mother
brother sister
Indo-European languages, German eln zwei drei Mutter Bruder Schwester
(The words are rendered French un d~ux trois mere frere soreur
phonetically where the Latin unus duo (res mater
(rater soror
alphabet is different. as in Russian odin dva tri mat
beat sestra
Russian, or the language is Old Irish oen do tri mathir brathir- slur
not written, as in Fore.) Lithuanian vienas du trys rnotina brolis seser
Notice the similarities Sanskrit eka duva trayas matar bhratar svasar
among the Indo-European No….ndo.Eu Lan~words. These are cognates,
(From Diamond 1992: 250) Finnish yksi kaksi kolme iti veli sisar
Fore ka tara kakaga nana naganto nanona
historical linguistics The
branch of linguistics that
attempts to classify and
construct a family tree of
languages and to recon-
struct extinct languages.
cognates Words that are
similar in two or more
languages as a result of
common descent.
often finish the day at happii awaa. My Japanese counterpart would
now be sitting at his konpyutaa.
As a result, when trying to classify and reconstruct languages, a
process known as historical linguistics, we use words that are less likely
to change with contact between cultures or with the introduction of
new technologies. These include words for body parts, numbers, and
family relations. We call words that are related by descent cognates
(Figure 11.9).
Most English speakers are familiar with the degree of linguistic
variation in other Indo-European languages. Many of us have taken
courses in one or more of these, and many of us speak another Indo-
European language. But many of us lack an appreciation of the enormous
variation found among languages around the world. I once heard a
person describe someone else as being able to “speak African.” It would
probably amaze that person that there are some 800 languages spoken
in Africa. On the island of New Guinea, which is smaller than Alaska,
there may be (or at least have been in the recent past) as many as 1,000
distinct languages spoken.
These figures illustrate the importance of language to a culture and
its people. Language is the most important way we learn our culture in
the first place-and it is how we pass that culture on. To truly under-
stand another language is to truly understand the culture it represents.
And that’s a monumental task.
Languages and Cultural Systems
Since the beginnings of anthropology, researchers have been trying
to discover the relationships between a cultural system and the
language its people speak. Can everything about a Ianguage-s-irs
phonemes, morphemes, rules of grammar-be related to the culture
that it expresses?

CHAPTER 11 Communication 287
There have been many attempts to describe such relationships,
and they have nearly all met with failure. There seems to be no prac-
tical reason why French has gutteral r’s and Spanish speakers roll
theirs; why German can separate its negative morpheme nicht from
the corresponding verb but English, a closely related language, can-
not; and why clicks as phonemes are found mainly in southern Africa.
Like genes, the specific features of languages seem to undergo
flow, drift, and mutation-random changes not related directly to
cultural adaptation.
Cultural Meanings What is connected to cultural systems directly,
however, are the words themselves. What people call things tells us
what sorts of categories they recognize. How they express ideas tells
us how they view their world. We have already discussed one example
of this-kinship terminology (Chapter 10). Although we used graphic
symbols instead of actual words, our symbols (for example, see Figure
9.19) represented word usage, and the study of which relatives were
called by what terms told us something about the cultures that prac-
ticed each system we described.
As discussed in Chapter 7, the phenomenon of grouping things
according to a society’s world view is called folk taxonomy. The study
of folk taxonomies is known as ethnosemantics, or “cultural meanings.”
As a classic but often misunderstood example, we can look at words
for the white, crystalline matter that falls from the sky in winter. In
English, we call it snow. We modify that word by adding an adjective,
depending on our situation. Thus, when I look out on my snow-covered
driveway, I wonder if it’s a deep snow or a shallow snow or heavy or
lighr snow. When I was a kid, I cared whether it was wet snow or dry
snow, the former being better for snowballs and snow forts. Skiers listen
for reports of powder or granular snow
The Shuar (formerly called the Jivaro), an indigenous group in the
forests of Ecuador, perhaps besr known for their shrinking of human
heads, are said to incorporate the phenomenon of snow into a single
concept represented by a single term. It refers to the Andes Mountains,
with which they are familiar but which play no direct role in their
lives. The term includes the mountains, the snow, the idea of high
altitude, and so on. In short, it means something like “the way it is
up there.”
At the other extreme are the peoples of the Arctic. An old inter-
pretation from the early days of anthropology (and repeated through
the years by many anthropologists, including me) held that the Eskimo
had many separate words for different kinds of and conditions of
snow, with no single root word for snow at all. That sounded good,
but linguistic anthropologist Laura Martin has shown that the Eskimo
do indeed have a root word for snow. Their way of modifying words,
however, is so different from English that their snow words looked
ethnosemantics The study
of the meanings of words,
especially as they relate to
folk taxonomies

288 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
completely different to English-speaking anthropologists. Nonetheless,
the point is that because snow is important to the Eskimo, they recog-
nize and name many different types and conditions of snow. In other
words, their categories-their folk taxonomies-for snow reflect the
role snow plays in their lives. How best to travel, what game will be
present for hunting, how cold the air is, how fast the wind is blowing-
all these depend on or can, in part, be predicted by the nature and
condition of the snow. For example, they have a word for falling snow
and another for snow on the ground; one word for drifting snow and
another for a snow drift; a word for snow that can cause avalanches;
even a word for the bowl-shaped hollow in the snow around the base
of trees (something many of us may never have even noticed). The
words and categories of words that a language uses are intimately
related to the environment, worldview, and cultural system of the society
that uses the language.
Other folk categories have also been studied. Color terms, for
example, vary greatly from society to society. Some groups, such as the
Dani of New Guinea, have only two color terms, roughly correspond-
ing to light and dark. In Western societies, we have dozens of recog-
nized, agreed-on color terms. It’s not that the eyes and brains of the
Dani are different. All normally sighted humans see the same color
spectrum. What’s different is the cultural importance each group gives
to distinguishing and naming the different sections of the visible spec-
trum. Explanations for this diversity are still being sought. It may have
something to do with the nature of the group’s environment. People
living in areas with fewer natural colors-the Arctic or a desert-may
have a simpler color taxonomy than, say, people living in a rain forest.
It may also have to do with art styles. For a society whose art attempts
to be realistic, it becomes important to recreate and name the great
diversity of colors in nature.
Number systems, too, vary. The number system we recognize goes
on counting forever. The Dani, on the other hand, recognize “one,”
“two,” “three,” and “many.” Again, there is no perceptual or intellectual
difference between us and them. It’s just that within their cultural sys-
tem, it is not necessary for them to tally or keep track of the specific
number of anything beyond three. Don’t assume, however, that one can
easily account for all such differences by relating them to environments
or overall levels of cultural complexity. Another highland New Guinea
group, the Kapauku, count into the thousands. As with all cultural
phenomena, the interrelationships can be obscure and complex, and
with language they seem especially so.
Language History Languages also have histories, and a language is
related to the cultural history of a society. The Hutrerites, for example,
are trilingual. They originated in a German-speaking region, and their
conservative outlook and lifestyle would predict that they would keep

the language that was first used to communicate their thoughts and
cultural ideas. Moreover, the German they use is High German, an old
form. English is utilitarian. The Hutterites now live in English-speaking
countries in North America. Their own language, with which they com-
municate information about everyday matters, has a practical history. It
includes words derived from the languages common to the areas in
which the Hutterites have lived during their nearly 500 years. I was able
to pick out some German, Russian, and English in their vocabulary. For
example, they called me the fingerprint mensch, a German-English mix.
In fact, their language uses words and phrases not just from those major
languages but from specific dialects of those languages.
Finally, languages vary according to the social contexts in which
they’re used. The field of sociolinguistics focuses on the way language
differs by geographic region, class, gender, ethnic group, and social set-
ting. For example, in the United States there are several words for the
same food item: hoagie, grinder, sub, and hero are all regional names
for a large sandwich.
So language is an intimate part of any cultural system. It is the mech-
anism whereby each of us, as a youngster, learns the basics of our cultural
system, and it is the means we use to communicate to others-in the
present and the future-the facts, ideas, and norms of our culture. One
feature of a language-the words, their meanings, and their categories-is
a reflection of the very basis of a cultural system, its worldview.
CHAPTER 11 Communication 289
sociolinguistics The study
of language in its social
contexts.
SUMMARY
A communication system functions to transfer
information from the nervous system of one or-
ganism to that of others of its species. It is there-
fore a reflection of the structure and function of
that nervous system. Human communication-
language-has features that enable us to share
information and ideas that are cultural. The
traits of human language reflect the features
of our brain that make culture possible. Thus,
human language is very different from the com-
munication systems of even our closest evolu-
tionary relatives.
We have only indirect evidence for when
language evolved in hominids, but we can get a
glimpse into how it evolved by comparing our
communication system with that of the great
apes and trying to determine under what cir-
cumstances a closed call system would have
evolved into an open symbolic language. The
fact that under certain conditions apes can be
taught to use a human language shows us again
just how similar our species are in terms of
mental abilities. At the same time, since the apes
don’t use such a system in rhe wild, these studies
also show us how intimately connected language
and culture are.
The specific connections between a particu-
lar language and the culture that uses it are nor,
as previously believed, on the level of sounds
and grammatical structure. There are, however,
direct connections between the worldview of a
society, the words people use to talk about that
world, and the categories into which those
words are organized. On a broader scale, fea-
tures of a language can reflect something about
a society’s cultural history.

290 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Are Written Languages More Advanced than Unwritten Ones?
The modern world would be inconceivable with-
out written language. Today’s global society relies
on the accurate and efficient recording and shar-
ing of massive amounts of information. All the
world’s major languages, and many less common
ones, are now written. We usually refer to those
that are not written as preliterate, as if literacy
were the natural outcome of all language evolu-
tion and, thus, as if preliterate languages were
somehow less than fully evolved-less complex,
less accurate, less effkient Is this the case?
First we need to understand that there is no
correlation between the complexity of a society
and the complexity of its language. To be sure,
complex modern industrial societies have larger
vocabularies than small, isolated foraging groups.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
(abridged from the longer version by including
only words In use after 1700 or that appear in
the works of Shakespeare) still contains over
half a million words. But that’s because societies
that use English have more things to name
and more involved relationships to precisely
describe.
That does not mean, however; that English IS
more complex than San or one of the thousand
or so languages from the New Guinea highlands.
Jared Diamond mentions, as just one example,
that the language of the lyau people of New
Guinea uses variations in pitch to give a single
vowel as many as eight different meanings.
Other so-called primitive languages have gram-
matical rules that are far more complex than
those of English and related languages and thus
far more convoluted to nonnative speakers
(such as the linguistic anthropologist trying to
describe them).
Pidgin languages are much simpler than
established languages. Pidgins arise when groups
from two cultures come into intimate contact
with one another-for example, colonists and
native workers-and the twq groups need to
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT
I. Experimentation involvingapes and language is not without controversy Research some of the related
literature or watch a video, such as “Can Chimps Talk?”from the Novo series, for different points of view
on the subject. What do you think? Are the apes communicating in a form that has the characteristics of
human language? If so, are there any ethical implications, for example, in how we treat these species?
2. There are many regional accents in the United States. and from these we can often identify a per-
son’s place of origin. (When I first went to college in Indiana, people Immediately knew I was from
New York.) Why do you think these accents developed as they did? Where did the distinct sounds
come from? Is there anyone “correct” American accent?
3. If you have had any experience with bilingual education, what do you think of such programs? Are
there benefits or drawbacks to providing instruction in two or more languages? How do you think
such instruction should be conducted? What place should dialects of English, such as so-called Black
English Vernacular (BEV), have In U.s. education?

communicate. They concoct a crude and variable
language that uses combinations of sounds and
words from both standard languages. If, however,
the next generations of the groups begin uSing the
pidgin as their native language in more social situa-
tions than those in which the pidgin arose, they
may find Its simplicity inadequate. They will spon-
taneously expand the pidgin into a creole-a fomral
language with larger vocabulary, more complex
grammar, and more consistency. Still less complex
than established languages, creoles nonetheless
have many of the attributes of those languages
and may take on even more over time.
Now, what about writing? WrM:ing is invented
under very special circumstances. In fact, it appears
to have been Independently invented in only four
locations: the Fertile Crescent of Southwest Asia,
Mexico, China, and Egypt (and the last two are
disputed by some authorities who say these cul-
tures either borrowed writing from neighboring
cultures or were inspired to invent it by example).
What do these societies have in common? It was
in these locations that food production first
started and thus where we find the first large,
CHAPTER 11 Communication 291
sedentary, stratified societies with cities and state
political systems. It was these societies that first
required writing for economic, political, and mili-
tary record keeping and for disseminating impor-
tant information. From these powerful societies,
writing or the idea of writing spread to other
populations.
But what about some large food-producing
SOCietiesWith complex political systems that did
not have writing’These include the Inca of South
America, the Hawaiians, large societies and states
of sub-Saharan Afnca, and the large North
American societies ofthe Mississippi Valley. Were
the four states that independently invented writ-
Ing more evolved? Only in the sense that-
because of a combination of geography, climate,
availability of domestlcable species, and timing-
those four populations developed a need for
writing as a result of that sociocultural outcome
of food producing: the city-state. Writing, like so
many other cultural innovations we’ve discussed,
is the result of a need, not of some inevitable
stage of progress toward which all cultures
naturally move.
NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
An article on the communication of bees is “The Sen-
sory Basis of the Honeybee’s Dance Language,” by
Wolfgang Kirchner and William Towne, in the June
1994 Scientific American. Notice that these authors,
as do many, use language and communication inter-
changeably. For some nice graphics, see also “The
Buzz on Bees,” by Jeffrey Kluger and Kristina Dell, in
the November 6, 2006, issue of Time; and for more
on the amazing behaviors of bees, see Edward O.
Wilson’s “How to Make a Social Insect” in the
October 26, 2006, Nature.
For an overview of linguistics try A. R. Akmajian
er al., Linguistics, and for anthropological linguistics,
see Zdenek Salzmann’s Language, Culture, and Society.
See Jane Lancaster’s Primate Behavior and
the Emergence of Human Culture for a detailed
discussion of the differences between human language
and the communication systems of other primates.
The famous article by Charles Hockett and Robert
Ascher, “The Human Revolution,” is in Current
Anthropology, volume 5.
A good summary of the status of the ape-
language studies, focusing on Washoe and her com-
munity, is “Chimpanzee Sign Language Research,”
by Roger and Debbi Fouts, in Phyllis Dolhinow and
Agustin Fuentes’s The Nonhuman Primates. A more
detailed treatment is Roger Fouts’s Next of Kin. The
linguistic achievements of Koko and Michael are
•

292 PARTTHREE Adapting to Our Worlds
discussed, with lots of pictures (including one Koko
took of herself), in “Conversations with a Gorilla,”
by Francine Patterson, in the October 1978 National
Geographic. An article about Kanzi and his linguis-
tic and toolmaking abilities, called “Ape at the
Brink,” by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin,
is in the September 1994 issue of Discover.
An interesting discussion of language families
and their relationships to cultural and genetic groups is
“Genes, Peoples and Languages,” by L. L. Cavalli-
Sforza, in the November 1991 Scientific American.
For the origins of English words, look in any
dictionary or try a dictionary of foreign words and
phrases such as that published by Oxford University
Press. An interesting article about English borrow-
ings into Japanese appeared in the April 4, 1999,
New York Times titled “Help! There’s a Mausu in
My Konpyutaa!” by N. Kristof.
More on folk taxonomies can be found in Ron-
ald Casson’s Language, Culture, and Cognition. The
technical article on Eskimo snow words is by Laura
Martin in American Anthropologist, volume 88, num-
ber 2, and for a delightful description of those words
and the conditions they describe, see The Secret Lan-
guage of Snow, by Terry Tempest Williams and Ted
Major.
The various connections between languages and
history and discussions of language complexity can
be found in Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee
and Guns, Germs, and Steel. The former includes a
description of the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-
European. Some of Diamond’s other ideas in these
books have been called into question, but his data on
languages seem sound. For a critique, see the review
of Yah’s Question by Roger Ivar Lohmann in An-
thropological Quarterly 79 (4).

MAINTENANCE OF ORDER
Making the Worldview Real
CHAPTER CONTENTS Religion· Variation in Religious Systems • Religion and Culture • Law •
Summary • Questions for Further Thought· Contemporary Issues: How Do We Deal with Faith-Based Acts of
Terror in Contemporary Global Society? • Notes, References, and Readings
293

294 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
religion A system of ideas
and rules for behavior based
on supematural explanations.
legal system A set of rules
governing the behavior of
individuals and institutions
within a society.
Commercial television is not known for its profundity, but on occa-sion It does provide a memorable line. One of my favorites ISfrom
the comedy series TaXI, which ran in the 1970s and I980s. In one
episode, one of the employees of the Sunshine Cab Company asks
Latka, a generic foreigner played by Andy Kaufman, why his upcoming
wedding ceremony is so bizarre and complex. Latka answers that In his
country there is a saying that what separates man from the animals is
“mindless superstition and pointless ritual.”
And, honestly, don’t we often think of the beliefs and rituals of
other peoples as mindless and pointless) We even have that view of
some beliefs and rituals of our own culture-the ones that we don’t
happen to practice. It’s a natural reaction, and there’s a good reason
for it.
We see the beliefs of others, and the ways in which they express,
those beliefs, as mindless and pointless because ours are so baSICto us.
Beliefs are important, however; because beliefs-as we discussed in
Chapter 4-are a direct reflection of our worldview, our set of assump-
tions, attitudes, and responses that give rise to and hold together the
cultural fabric of our lives. Except for personal survival, nothing is more
important or more central to our existence.
Specific cultural expressions that reflect worldview can generally be
termed religion, although in complex and multicultural societies, secular
legal systems take the place of religious doctrine for setting formal rules
for human behavior Still,as we’ll see, such legal systems are themselves
often secular restatements of religious principles.
For a basic definition of religion,we can expand on that offered by
anthropologist Edward Norbeck. Religion,he says, is a
distinctive symbolic expression of human life [based on the supernatural] that
interprets man himself and his universe, providing motives for human action.
Moreover. he sees the roles of religion
as explanatory, and in many ways psychologically reassuring, and as socially
supportive by providing validations for existence, motives for human action,
and as a sanction for orderly human relations.
Religions, or legal systems that derive from them, are our way of
making our worldview real.They provide us with a means for commu-
nicating our assumptions about the world. They give us a medium for

s——————-·
CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 295
formulating norms of behavior that correspond to the worldview. They
provide a framework for putting those norms into action in our every-
day dealings with one another and with the world around us. Further-
more, they are the way in which we impart our worldview to future
generations. Little wonder; then, that our religion seems so natural and
theirs so strange.
As with any facet of culture, however; our overriding assumption is
that a religious system makes sense to the people who practice it.We
already saw this when we compared some features of contemporary
Eskimo religion with those of Southwest ASian religion from 10,000 ya.
Let’s now look more closely at religion and related cultural phenomena
and see in what ways cultures are similar and different in their expres-
sions of this important behavior
AS YOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. How do we define religion) What are its functions? How might it
have evolved?
2. What are some of the variable features of religious systems, and
how might we explain this variation?
3. How may we study a religion as a part of the cultural system
that practices it?
4. What are legal systems, and how do they function)
RELIGION
A Definition
Norbeck’s definition indicates what religion does, but just what is it?
Religions vary greatly from sociery ro sociery, but the one trait they all
have in common is the supernatural. Religion is a set of beliefs and
behaviors pertaining to the supernatural.
By supernatural we mean something that is outside the known laws
of nature and that involves some conscious agent who brings about
real phenomena. That agent might be a god or might be a human, but
the relationship between agent and result is beyond scientific investiga-
tion. There is, obviously, variation among cultures and within cultures
as to which phenomena are treated scientifically and which supernatu-
rally, and how. In North America, disease is typically treated scientifi-
cally within the medical community and by most citizens. There are,

296 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
however, elements of the supernatural involved, from individual faith
to institutionalized faith healing, prayer, and alternative (and scientifi-
cally unsubstantiated) forms of medicine.
The Fore of New Guinea (see Chapter 14) explain all illness, indeed
all misfortune, as the result of sorcery, a supernatural explanation with
other humans as agents. Yet they certainly would use practical methods
to treat symptoms-binding and treating wounds, for example.
Not only is a belief in the supernatural universal among religions,
but religion itself is a cultural universal. As with the other cultural
universals we discussed in Chapter 7, the universality of religion requires
an explanation.
The Basis of Religious Belief
A basis of religion can be found in our big brain that evolved as our
species adapted by understanding its environment and by using that
understanding to manipulate the environment for survival. The potential
to understand, however, does not guarantee that ‘everything will be under-
stood. Some natural phenomena are within the intellectual grasp of
humans, but others are not. These, however, also need to be explained-
which is one place where forces outside of nature come in.
People need to feel some control over the circumstances of their
worlds, even if only in the form of understanding those circumstances.
So, when some natural phenomenon was beyond the reach of a peo-
ple’s practical knowledge, the supernatural was invoked. If the phe-
nomenon seemed to be beyond the laws of nature, so then was the
explanation. Thus all aspects of their world were put into concrete
terms that could be communicated. The worldview, in other words,
was made real.
Another proposed explanation for the origin of religious belief
comes from our sense of “intersubjective engagement”-eare about
what others intend and feel. In other words, we think about “agents”
of actions and we attribute “agency” to natural phenomena, feeling that
some other being, or even some inanimate object, intentionally causes
things to happen. We then attribute to these beings and objects, as
Darwin suggested in The Descent of Man, the same feelings of justice
and affection that we ourselves feel. Moreover, we tend to want to see
purpose in phenomena, including our own lives, rather than some
mechanistic explanation. These tendencies have been verified in studies
of children but clearly extend into adulthood.
The universality of religion, then, is a result of our big, complex
brain, which proves to be both a blessing and a curse. It gives us the
ability and the desire to understand the world around us, yet we are
acurely aware of the fact that we can’t understand everything, including
our own mortality (Figure 12.1; see also Figure 6.25)-a focus of much
religious beliefs and ritual.

CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 297
Antecedents to Religion
As we have done throughout this book, we should ask again if there
are any antecedents to human religion to be found among nonhumans.
Are there any clues that some other creatures might even dimly ask
some form of the questions that religions answer? There is one. Granted,
it’s open to interpretation, but it’s also rather tantalizing since it comes
from our closest relatives, the chimpanzees.
During a violent thunderstorm at the Gombe Stream Reserve in
Tanzania, Jane Goodall observed what she called a “rain display” or
“rain dance.” At the height of the storm, several male chimps took turns
running to the top of a hill and then hurtling down it screaming, jump-
ing into trees along the route, tearing branches from the trees, and
FIGURE 12.1
Ritualsperformed around
death and burial are not just
recent cultural phenomena.
In this grave from the nearly
7.000-year-old site of
Vedbaek in Denmark, a
mother and newborn child
were buried together: The
mother’s head was placed
on a cushion of material
decorated with snail shells
and deer teeth. Similar
materials were found
around her waist evidence
of some sort of dress. Her
childwas buried with a flint
knife (the blue object among
the child’s bones), as were
all males in this cemetery,
and was laid to rest on the
wing of a swan, Although
we can’t know the exact
meaning of these features,
they clearly meant
something,

298 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 12.2
An artist’s depiction of a
chimp “rain dance,” As
lightning flashes in the
background. several males
hurtle down the hill.
swinging around trees and
tearing off branches. while
females and young watch
safely off to the side,
waving them around (Figure 12.2). When one male reached the bottom,
he returned to the top to start over, during which time the other males
performed and a gallery of females and youngsters observed from the
sides of the route. This was an uncommon event; Goodall saw it only
a few times during her more than thirty years at Gombe.
Just what the rain dance means to the chimps is probably an
unanswerable question. One is tempted, however, to imagine the dance
as a reaction to the anxiety that the chimps feel toward what must,
even for wild creatures, be a frightening phenomenon. Perhaps the
chimps are trying to scare away the storm that is scaring them, rec-
ognizing an agency on the part of the storm as well as their own
agency. If that’s the case, their dance may be seen as having the rudi-
ments of a religious ritual. Maybe, of course, they are just performing
what animal behaviorists call a displacement activity, like our whis-
tling in the dark. Or, as Goodall also proposes, perhaps all that ru n-
ning around just helps them keep warm.
Could human religion have started in a similar way-by some
behavior aimed at influencing an unexplained phenomenon? Neandertal
burials (see Chapter 6) probably had the objective of somehow intlu-
encing the event of death–either for the benefit of the deceased, if the
burials demonstrated a belief in an afterlife, or for the emotional benefit
of the living, if the burials simply showed a reverence for the physical
remains of a member of the family and group. In either case, something
beyond concrete, observable nature was being invoked.

.——————
CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 299
The same can probably be said of the Upper Paleolithic cave art
(Chapter 6). One hypothesis as to the meaning of this art is that it
influenced natural phenomena such as fertility or hunting success. The
recognition of some agent would seem to be a necessary component of
such a perceived connection between art and nature.
VARIATION IN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS
Let’s look at the ways in which religious expressiou differs among cul-
tures. Like any cultural expression, religion varies in how it is geared
to individual culture systems and in how it changes to keep pace with
them. There are, of course, as many specific religious systems as there
are cultures, but we can get an overview by noting the variation in how
religions deal with the supernatural.
Number of Supernatural Beings We already discussed in Chapter 9
the distinction between monotheistic and polytheistic religions and the
connection between these and some general types of worldview. Poly-
theism tends to be found in societies, such as the foraging San or
Eskimo, that interact with their environments on a more personal level,
where the people see themselves as one of many natural phenomena.
Groups practicing polytheism tend not to have political systems with
formal leadership. The supernatural reflects the natural in terms of
social organization as well.
Monotheistic systems and hierarchical polytheistic systems (such as
in ancient Egypt) are found in groups that have gained distinct control
over their habitats-groups such as the early agricnlturalists of South-
west Asia. These groups tend to have a hierarchical political system
with formal leadership and full-time labor specialists.
Nonetheless, the dichotomy between monotheism and polytheism
isn’t always clear-cut. It has been said, for instance, that true monothe-
ism is rare. For example, while Christianity has a single, all-powerful
deity, that deity comes in three forms: the Holy Trinity of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Virgin Mary is virtually
deified by some Christian churches, and all sorts of angels and saints
are included among Christianity’s beings with supernatural powers, as
is the devil.
Judaism, on the other hand, from which Christianity branched,
is more truly monotheistic (although it also recognizes angels and the
devil). The difference in the recognized number of supernatural beings
between Judaism and Christianity probably can be traced to the wide
spread of the latter and the diversity of the cultural systems that
adopted it (voluntarily or otherwise), each system giving the basic
religion a slightly different spin. Remember, worldview is generated
by a combination of environment plus history.

300 PART THREE Adapting to OUf Worlds
FIGURE 12.3
The town of Sedona,
Arizona, and the surround-
ing area are said to contain
numerous vortexes,
places with supernatural
properties, specifically where
energy is concentrated in
such a way as to enhance
one’s psychic powers. At
Boynton Canyon, believers
have left offerings atop a
tree stump at the supposed
heart of a vortex. This
vortex is said to help one
recall past lives. (It didn’t
work for me.)
Categories of the Supernatural The nature of the supernatural also dif-
fers among humankind’s religions, and we can categorize three basic kinds
of beliefs. The first is animism. It refers to the belief in a force possessed
by a person, an animal, a place, or a nonliving thing (Figure 12.3). Charms,
such as lucky rabbits’ feet or New Age crystals, are examples. So are the
sacred black and green stones venerated by the Dani of New Guinea.
People can also possess such a force-for example, the San healers (see
Figure 9.6). And many cultures have taboos against contact with certain
objects, for example, the “unclean” foods listed in the Bible (see Chapter
14). They are said to have negative mana (from a Polynesian word).
The second kind is a belief in supernatural beings of human origin-
ancestors and ghosts. Recall the importance of ghosts of the deceased
for the San (Chapter 9). The lives of the Dani are very much ruled by
the ghosts of their ancestors. Such supernatural beings are important
among peoples for whom the kinship group is the major social, political,
and decision-making unit. Thus, not only are living humans important,
so too are the spirits of deceased humans. Again, the real and the
supernatural reflect one another.
The third kind is belief in supernatural beings of nonhuman origin.
These are beings who created themselves, or who always existed, and
then made the world with all its creatures, including people. These
beings may take the form of a single, all-powerful god or a number of

2_——————-
CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 30 I
individual spirits, such as those that control the natural features of the
Eskimo’s world. A culture, of course, may recognize a combination of
these types of supernatural beings or forces. The San, for instance, have
both human ghosts as well as spirits of natural phenomena. They also
recognize two powerful gods who created everything in the first place
and who generally keep things going.
Personalities of the Supernatural Supernatural beings also differ in
personality. Some are benevolent, some malevolent, some mischievous.
This may be connected to how a group of people perceives their envi-
ronment: Is it harsh, as for the Eskimo? Or is life fairly easy and pre-
dictable, as for the Dani? Indeed, for the horticultural Dani, basic
subsistence seems so easy that their main supernatural beings, the ghosts
of their ancestors, are known mostly for their mischievous deeds. The
supernatural forces recognized by another New Guinea group, the Fore,
are mostly malevolent, as we will discuss in Chapter 14.
It has also been suggested that the personality of the supernatural
may correspond to a society’s child-rearing habits. If they treat their
children gently, their gods are gentle gods. If they are strict disciplinar-
ians, the gods are to be feared. Notice how the Christian deity is referred
to as “God the Father,” and the followers as “His children” or “His
flock.” Gods are often linguistically classified as parents.
Intervention Iry the Supernatural Also showing variation is the degree to
which the supernatural intervenes in the daily affairs of people. Generally,
the more important scientific knowledge is to a society, the less direct the
influence of the gods is. Natural phenomena, including human actions, are
attributed to natural forces. The degree and kind of intervention may also
be related to the complexity of the social order. Especially where there are
inequalities in wealth and power, rules for human behavior that are said
to come directly from the supernatural may help to maintain the existing
order (and, thus, the wealth and power of those who have it).
Religious Specialists The kind of person who specializes in taking care
of the religious knowledge and welfare of a people varies as well. Here
we may define two basic categories. The first are part-time specialists,
usually called on only in times of crises such as illnesses. They are often
referred to as shamans (after a Siberian word). Shamans receive their
powers directly from the supernatural; they are “chosen” for this posi-
tion. They use trances and dreams to intervene with the spirits to correct
sickness and other problems. This type of religious specialist is found
in egalitarian and less complex horticultural societies where there are
no full-time labor specialists and where religious knowledge, so vital to
survival, is known and practiced by everyone. Only special situations,
such as curing, require the extra help of shamans. The San healers
would be an example.
~~~¥~, …
….. ,Ik • .A:A “”It. ..,t.;<,c Ai shaman A part-time, supernaturally chosen reli- gious specialist who can manipulate the supernatural. 302 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds FIGURE 12.4 A Catholic priest conducting a mass. He is a priest in the anthropological sense in that he has chosen his profession and has trained for it. Priests, unlike shamans, possess knowledge as opposed to supernatural powers. priest A full-time. trained religious specialist who can interpret the supernatural and petition the supernatu- ral on behalf of humans. More complex cultures have priests. In anthropological terminology, priests are full-time specialists who train for their profession, learning what is passed down by their predecessors. They are the repository of religious knowledge and thus are the persons who know best what the gods say, how best to interpret their words, and how best to get in touch with the gods. Whereas shamans have real supernatural power, priests have knowledge of the supernatural. Put another way, priests tell us what to do on behalf of the supernatural, and shamans (often for a fee from a client) tell the supernatural what to do on behalf of us. Priests in the Catholic Church would be an example of priests in the anthro- pological sense (Figure 12.4). With priests' knowledge often comes power of a more down-to- earth nature-political power. In some cultures it can be difficult to separate the political system from the religious system and political leaders from the religious ones. This was true for the ancient Aztecs of Mexico, for instance, and to a great extent for Europeans during medi- eval and Renaissance times. a CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 303 Contacting the Supernatural Finally, the ways in which people get in touch with the supernatural show variation. People may pray in a con- gtegation or alone. The prayer itself may be individual or may involve group recitation of prescribed words. Some form of eating may be involved-everything from a feast to the taking of communion, the symbolic ingestion of the body and blood of Christ. Sacrifice is a common way of pleasing the supernatural. The sacrifice may entail the actual killing of an animal or a human (the latter also found among the Aztecs), or it may involve some sort of abstinence, as some Christians practice during Lent and some Jews on the Sabbath. Music, noise, and dance are also ways of attracting the attention of the gods or spirits, as is art-drawings or some symbol representing the supernatural. And in some cases, people feel closer to the super- natural during a transcendent experience, sometimes brought about by taking drugs. The Shuar of Ecuador and the Yanomamo of Brazil do this (Figure 12.5). Such psychological states may also be brought on by fasting, exhaustion, or mutilation. Among the Dani, the female relatives of a person who has died have one or two fingers chopped off at the first joint. (All women, however, keep at least the thumb and first two fingers of one hand.) In James Michener's famous novel FIGURE 12.5 Yanomarno men take hallu- cinogenic drugs almost daily. One man blowsa powder- made from the leaves of a plant-up the nose of another. The Yanomamo believe the powder brings them closer to important beings in the spirit world. 304 PART THREE Adapring to Our Worlds magic The use of ritual and paraphemalia to compel or manipulate the supernatural to act in desired ways. sorcery Magical acts with evil intent witchcraft Traditionally. evil acts performed by individuals who possess inherent powers. Hau/aii, there is a graphic description of a Hawaiian who mutilates himself following a relative's death. Walking on fire, self-flagellation with whips and chains, and piercing the cheeks with long skewers all fall into this category. Magic is the use of rituals and paraphernalia to compel or manip- ulate the supernatural to act in desired ways (Prayer is a petition to the supernatural.) If such acts have evil intent, they are called sorcery. Magic and sorcery provide a sense of control over important matters. For example, the Fore of New Guinea (see Chapter 14) see disease as the result of sorcery. Such an explanation reflects the political and economic tensions, rivalries, and jealousies that are characteristic of Fore society. Thus, since diseases are caused by humans, other humans may take actions against those who invoked the diseases and so against the dis- eases themselves. Witchcraft is often confused with sorcery and has many current ver- nacular definitions. Technically, witches are those with inherent powers that allow them to do harm without necessarily using magical paraphernalia. The witch is thus a supernatural being. "Witches" come in all sorts, from characters on TV shows such as Rufty the Vampire Slayer to followers of Wicca (who consider themselves "white"-that is, good-witches). This, then, is what religion is and some of the general ways in which it varies from culture to culture. The richness of this variation, and the explanations for individual expressions within particular cultures, is a broad and complex topic. We may, however, take a closer look at one religion and see how some of its major features relate to the overall cultural systems of its followers and how these features have changed over time and space. We can then look at some of its variations. RELIGION AND CULTURE It's easier, in a way, to examine the religion of some "exotic" group of people, since we can analyze it from afar and remain culturally and emotionally detached. But whether we examine an exotic or familiar religion, the same anthropological ideas apply. To demonstrate this, let's discuss a religious tradition that many of us either practice or at least have some knowledge of-one that in a broad historical context helps make up the moral and ethical outlook of North American soci- ety. It's also a religion about which we have extensive written records. Let's look at Christianity. The Origins of Christianity From an anthropological perspective, Christianity must be viewed as a branch of Judaism, because that's how it originated. The first Jewish kingdom was founded by David (of David and Goliath fame) in Palestine u_------------------- CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 305 in the early 900s B.C. David was considered a messiah, which originally meant one who had great holiness and power. Shortly after David's death his kingdom was divided, and a few hundred years later it was conquered. There followed hundreds of years of oppression of the Jews by several other nations. A result of this long period of colonialism and economic oppression was the development of the idea that someday, if the Jews kept their covenant with God, another messiah would come. This messiah would lead the Jews in military conquest over their oppressors. The idea peaked during Roman rule, which began in 40 B.C. During that time, a number of "messiahs" appeared and led groups of Jews in what the late anthro- pologist Marvin Harris calls guerrilla warfare against the Romans. It was into this political environment that Jesus was born. He is seen today, of course, as a peaceful messiah, but there is good evidence that he was, in his time, part of the military messiah tradition. Jesus was captured and crucified-the standard form of execution for such rebels, because it was slow and painful and provided a pow- erful warning to others. Death had ended the brief tenures of Jesus' predecessors, but a number of his ardent disciples claimed that rather than proving Jesus wasn't the promised messiah, his death was a test of his followers' faith. If they kept that faith, he would one day return. So, a small cult of Jewish Christians formed and began to spread, preaching this new variation of Jewish doctrine but still maintaining ties with the religion at large. Over the next thirty years (Jesus was killed in A.D. 33), the cult spread as far as Rome itself and was being taken up by some non-Jews. Thus began a split between the Jews of Palestine and those outside the homeland. The separation became complete when, after the Jewish uprisings had become a serious problem for the Romans, Vespasian and his son launched a military campaign that culminated in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the fall of the famous fortress of Masada in A.D. 73 (Figure 12.6). (You should remember Vespasian from the story of Maiden Castle in England.) With the temple-the heart of Judaism-destroyed, connections between Jews and the Jewish Christians were severed. The Palestin- ian Jews had to cease, or at least not actively pursue, their messianic beliefs-for a time anyway. The Jewish Christians, though, responded differently, especially in other parts of the Roman Empire, including Rome itself. Jesus became a peaceful savior, bringing salvation not in this world but in the next-hardly a threat to the Romans. It was about this time that the first of the Gospels, the Book of Mark, was written to tell the story of Jesus and outline his teachings, confirm- ing his emphasis on heavenly rather than earthly reward (although they retain some of his more militant statements). Differences between the new Christianity and Jewish tradition were formalized. The food laws from the Old Testament, for example, were ignored, 306 PART THREE Adapting co OUf Worlds FIGURE 12.6 The Romans laid siege to the fortress of Masada (left center) for several months in A.D.73. living in camps like the one near the cliff in the foreground. Finally.when it was clear they could hold out no longer.the 960 de- fenders of Masada chose suicide rather than surrender. CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 307 and circumcision was no longer prescribed. Christianity, as we rec- ognize it today, had begun. Numbers of communities banded together to await the Second Coming of Jesus and to preach the teachings of this new religion. Some of this early history is recounted in Acts of the Apostles in such passages as 2:44: "And all that believed were together, and had all things com- mon." Sound familiar? It's the passage on which the Huttcrites base their communal lifestyle. We can now see their lifestyle as descending directly from some of the first Christian communities. The origin of Christianity, then, can be understood as a branching off from the long-standing traditions of Judaism, stimulated by a par- ticular set of historical circumstances and the reactions of a group of people to them. The basic tenets of the religion are a reflection and an affirmation of a particular worldview-a view generated by all the aspects of the founding group's environment and history. Over nearly 2,000 years, the basic idea of Christianity has spread throughout the world, has been adopted by many different societies, has developed all sorts of variations, and has undergone extensive historical change. There are now three major branches of Chris- tianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, each, especially the last, with a number of subbranches. Let's look at two subbranches of Protestantism as further examples of the anthropology of religion. Some Examples The Hutterites You recall that the Hutterites were founded as part of the Anabaptist movement of the early 1500s. The Anabaptists com- prised many groups that repudiated infant baptism (hence the name), believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (especially the New Tes- tament), and disliked state-controlled religion. At the time of the Anabaptist movement, an innovation in Europe was changing the way people could acquire information. Advances in printing had put the Bible in the hands of the common citizen. Now, for literate persons (mostly townsfolk and artisans) or persons who knew someone who could read, there was no need to rely on the church for knowledge about the content and interpretation of the Bible. Some people began to think for themselves about religious issues, and the Anabaptist ideas noted above were three important and common conclusions. Such conclusions, however, were not viewed kindly by the main- stream Catholic and Protestant churches, which were, at the time, inex- tricably linked to the state. Repudiating infant baptism had been considered heresy for some time, but their "real" crime, of course, was their threat to the church's and state's hold over the religious lives- and, thus, the economic lives-of their subjects. Many of the religious 308 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds FIGURE 12.7 Torture and public burnings of witches and heretics, such as the Anabaptists, were common in Europe from the 14005 through the 16005, rebels were tortured and burned at the stake (Figure 12.7). Among them was Jacob Hutter, whose followers took his name in tribute. Living communally and self-sufficiently, apart from society at large, was not an original part of the Anabaptist belief system, but it became necessary in the face of continual persecution. The self-sufficiency was possible since many of the people, as noted, were literate urban artisans and craftspersons. So the early Hutterite communities began to pro- duce their own food and to manufacture their own houses, clothing, and other artifacts (Figure 12.8). The Hutterites' agricultural lifestyle, of course, has lasted to the present. So too has their craftsmanship. One still finds shoemakers, carpenters, and even bookbinders in a Hutterite colony. The ideological basis for such economic and social communism was found, not surprisingly, in the Bible. The social system of the Hutterites- having "all things common"-is modeled after the communities of early Christians, who gathered together, separate from the larger society, to follow the teachings of Christ while awaiting his return, as the Hutter- ires do. The Holiness Churches Now, compare the Hutterites' version of Chris- tianity with that of another North American group. This branch is generally less well defined than the Hutterites and is quite variable, but we can focus on its most extreme form. It's called by a number of names depending on the region, but a common one is the Holiness Church, and its followers are known as the Holy Ghost People. 2_------------------- CHAPTER12 Maintenance of Order 309 Holiness churches started in the first decade of the twentieth century in Tennessee and are now found mostly in Appalachia and the Southeast- Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. The basis for their form of Christianity comes from the Gospel of Mark, 16:17-18. Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says, And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. The Holy Ghost People feel that if they believe strongly enough, the Holy Ghost enters their bodies. The manifestations of this are, as predicted in Mark, "speaking in tongues" (a babbling, rolling sort of speech whose meaning is thought to be intelligible only to others with the Holy Ghost), convulsive dancing and trancelike states, the ability to "lay hands on" the sick and cure them, and a "call" to handle venomous snakes or drink poison (Figure 12.9). The snakes are local rattlesnakes and copperheads. The poison is a dilute strychnine or lye solution. The meaning of these acts, always performed at the height of the service, when the music is loud and many persons are manifesting the Holy Ghost, has to do with professing one's faith. "God," they are saying, "will protect me from this dangerous act, so strong is my belief. But if I die from it, that's God's will, and I will FIGURE 12.8 An eighteenth-century illustration of Hutterite straw-roof construction. The Hutterites became well known for their self- sufficiency, the quality of their products, and their farming techniques. 310 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds FIGURE 12.9 This man, at a Holiness service, has been called by the Holy Ghost to show his faith by handling poisonous snakes accept it." Persons bitten by the snakes or who become very ill from the poison will not accept medical aid. At least twenty adherents are known to have died over the last eighty years from snakebites. Although the practice is outlawed in most of the states listed, it persists. Besides these biblically sanctioned features, there are some others that characterize and distinguish Holiness Church services. There is often, for example, no formal minister. The leader is chosen much like the San choose the man who decides where to hunt. It is based on out- goingness, charisma, speaking ability, or, perhaps, just whoever gets up and starts. Sometimes, it's the person who has been bitten by snakes most often. Moreover, what goes on during a service is often individual rather than group-oriented. People pray in their own words, kneeling if they want or standing, dancing, or lying down. Possession of the Holy Ghost is an individual matter. It doesn't happen to everyone, and for those to whom it does happen, how they manifest the experience is up to the Holy Ghost. A Holiness service can appear rather chaotic. There are quiet peri- ods, such as when the collection plate is passed or when individuals "tes- tify," telling personal stories about their experiences with the Holy Ghost. But during the height of the service, some participants play music, some pray, others dance or lay hands on the sick, and still others handle snakes or drink poison. --------------- CHAPTER12 Maintenance of Order 31 I The Holy Ghost People's relationship with God is unique in Chris- tianity. Most Christians' prayer is in the form of a request to God. But as one man puts it in a film of a Holiness service, these Christians feel that "if you believe, God is obligated to answer your prayer." God is still supreme and can do with His followers as He chooses, but a strong enough faith on the part of the people "obligates" God to them. How may we interpret this somewhat unusual version of Christianity? The fact that the Holy Ghost People are Christians lies in the history of the culture to which they belong, but their specific practices can in part be accounted for in economic and social terms. The Holiness Church is largely a phenomenon of poor, rural Appalachia (although it has moved into urban areas with the migration of people). Appalachia is home to some of the poorest people in rhe United States. They are small-scale farmers, local merchants, or employees of coal-mining or other large com- panies. They don't, in other words, have rhe kind of control over rheir economic welfare that many Americans have-or think they have. But the image of American affluence that comes across in books, magazines, and television is quite different from the lives led by people in poor, rural America. Having little more than this image with which to compare themselves, they may feel out of step with mainstream American life. The religious expression of the Holiness Church provides a sense of control. The practitioners of this religion have a oneness with God in the possibility that rhey may be possessed by the Holy Ghost, who can then choose to act through their bodies. In fact, simply by believing strongly enough, they can even obligate God to them. Moreover, in an environment economically near the bottom of America's social stratification, the Holiness service is an opportunity for egalitarianism. There is no formal hierarchy. Everyone is important. Everyone expresses himself or herself as an individual. The only differ- ence between people-the possession of the Holy Ghost-is a difference that can be equalized by strong belief. Possession of the Holy Ghost is open to all. Finally, anthropologist Wesren LaBarre suggests that the Holi- ness service may provide a mechanism for sexual expression. During a Holiness service, as depicted in the film Holy Ghost People, social interaction between members of the opposite sex (and not necessarily between recognized couples) includes much physical contact in the form of touching and dancing. The idea is to pass on and share the presence of the Holy Ghost. There is, of course, no overt sexuality, but the inter- action may serve to provide an outlet for sexual identity and expression, which are normally repressed in a conservative society such as this. As with most other cultural (and biological) behaviors, however, these practices developed gradually-in other words, they evolved- and their current functions don't necessarily account for their origins. Nor are people always consciously aware of those functions. In the case of the Holiness Church, though, the fact that it is a relatively 312 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds new denomination and is still found in its place of origin lends sup- port to the idea that, here, current functions are original functions. From this brief examination of Christianity in general, and of two denominations in particular, you should have an idea of how anthropol- ogy looks at religion. First, we look for some general principles regarding what types of religions are found in certain types of cultures. Second, we examine specific religious traditions by delving into the cultural histories of the societies involved and into the people's reactions to the social, political, and economic situations woven into these histories. Religion is part of a cultural system that is intimately connected to all other parts. But, it must be noted, this scientific approach does not make a religion any less real for those who practice it and is not intended to dismiss religious beliefs. So basic are religious beliefs to peoples' lives- as members of cultures and as individuals-that they cannot entirely be reduced to or explained by the objectivity of scientific investigation. The reality of religious beliefs operates at many levels. If religion acts to provide motivations and sanctions for human actions, what about societies that are so populous, complex, technolog- ically and scientifically elaborate, and multicultural (with religious plu- ralism) that no one religion can serve those society-wide functions? What maintains order in such societies? LAW We may lump other order-maintaining systems into a single category and call them legal systems. Legal systems define the premise on which human interactions in the society are based. They outline specific behaviors that correspond to this premise, and they provide rules for handling disputes about and transgressions of these behaviors. Although often secular, laws can be based on the religious principles that express the worldview of the culture in question. Let's take as an example another familiar, as opposed to "exotic," culture-the United States. The basis of our legal system is found in Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the core principles of which are expressed by such ideas as "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18); "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12); and "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged" (Luke 6:37). What is the essential premise of our legal system? Nowhere is it better stated than in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien- able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. ------------------ CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 313 The Constitution lays out the foundation of a government formed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. In the first ten amendments, or Bill of Rights, the Constitution outlines some specific ideas aimed at protecting the rights named in the Declara- tion and at fairly punishing those who are accused of trespassing on the rights of others. Viewed in this way, our legal system is a translation of some basic Judea-Christian religious principles into secular terms and the formulation of specific laws to implement those principles in the real world. All this seems rather obvious and, for us, there seems no other system that could protect and ensure those rights. But there are. Although it would be accurate to say that all people seek to be alive, free, and happy, just how cultures define rhose ideals in practical terms differs greatly. For the Dani of New Guinea, for example, the taking of human lives is a regular, formalized tradition that is central to their existence. The Dani have a system of ritualized warfare (which we will examine more fully in Chapter 14) that involves the killing of an enemy to placate the ghost of a slain member of one's own group. In return, the enemy must slay a member of the first group to placate the ghost of its member, and so on. These groups, it is important to understand, are groups within Dani society. And so important is this revenge cycle that a woman or child may be killed in place of a male warrior if too much time has passed without avenging a death. Certainly, we in the United States are familiar with violence-from the level of individual acts to officially sanctioned wars. Still, it may be difficult for many of us to view the Dani's ritualized warfare with any degree of cultural relativity. How, we might ask, could a society con- done the killing of its own members? We must remember, however, that there is a reason for their behaviors within their larger cultural system and that through it they are pursuing happiness as they define it-just based on a very different premise from ours. One might say (and I don't mean this sarcastically) that their premise is something like "do unto others what others did unto you." And their culture has persisted successfully for thousands of years. The nature of legal systems differs among types of cultures. Band societies have no formal legal system or set of formal laws. Rather, behaviors that are disruptive to the group are dealt with through social pressure, group consensus, possible physical conflict, or splitting up of the group. Procedures may differ according to the particular situation. As societies become more complex, legal systems and the laws they uphold become more formalized. In tribal societies, the focus is still on the maintenance of community relations, but there is often someone-a headman or council of elders-who presides over attempts to settle disputes or correct some transgression. In chiefdoms, more authority 314 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds is placed in the hands of a leader, rules are more rigid, and specific punishments are recognized and applied. In state societies, formal and complex legal institutions are required. Laws are codified and specific and are based on standards that relate to the whole culture; they can no longer vary according to each specific case. SUMMARY A world view is an abstract set of assumptions about the conditions that are central to any cul- tural system. But worldview requires a mecha- nism to give it reality, to allow it to be transmitted among a people and to future generations, to answer questions about the world, to translate its assumptions into values that regulate human behavior, and to formulate rules of behavior that put those values into action. These are the func- tions of religion and secular legal systems. Religion, distinguished from secular systems by its focus on the supernatural, is, like any facet of culture, highly variable from society to soci- ety. It is, however, a cultural universal, explained by our need for a way to understand the com- plex world around us and to coordinate our ac- tions accordingly. Many features of the natural world can be explained scientifically. Many oth- ers, however, cannot; they require explanations that are beyond science. Religion also serves to regulate the various levels of human interaction- to tell us how to behave. Religion, as one of several aspects of cul- tural behavior, has variables that correspond to QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT other features of the related culture. Since his- tory also affects worldview, we must look at the historical dimension of a religious system in order to understand its origins, basic characteristics, and meaning. In many, if not most, societies, some of the rules guiding human behavior have evolved from strictly religious to 'more secular terms. In societies like our own, where the answers to worldview questions are largely scientific and rational, the vast majority of our basic rules are secular laws. Laws perform the same functions as religious systems, at least with regard to de- fining the premises for human action and out- lining the specific actions that correspond to these premises. Laws also take care of disputes about those regulated actions and provide for the punishment of those who transgress them. Even where a society is regulated almost exclu- sively by a secular legal system, there is often at the basis of that system a religious tradition. The religious rules have been translated into secular ones. I. In March 2002 a fire broke out in a public girl's school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Religious police prevented emergency personnel from rescuing the students because they were not wearing the head scarves and black robes required by strict Islamic law. Police beat some of the girls to prevent them from leaving the school and being seen in public. Fiftygirls were injured, and fifteen died, Because this incident involved religious befief is It beyond critiosrn/ Should the anthropological concept of cultural relativity apply? If so, how? Does it matter that this act stemmed from one interpretation of Islamicscripture? 2. In 2004 a bill was passed in France to ban religious symbolism in public schools. Included were large crucifixes and yarmulkes, but the bill was aimed essentially at Muslim girls and their head scarves. Is CHAPTER 12 Maintenance of Order 315 ..,~,. .. , t'T' -y_ A .... ~•• --".v:.....- VY.VTTr:r"9"'''l!''· .....::''1! ~.A ..t. ti. }. ,,"\ a. . ~ ,’rlands
~9i’:b,
Solomon Q. •6\ ,
~ea ~
‘”, .
Coral
Sea
-. ,
FIGURE 14,5
Map of New Guinea
locating the Dani and Fore, present, My information comes largely from ethnographic studies by
anthropologist Karl Heider.
There are about 100,000 people who speak the Dani language, but
the group we’re concerned with, about 50,000 individuals, lives in the
Grand Valley of the Balim River, an area of about 250 square miles,
The Dani are horticulturalists, using digging sticks and human labor to
break ground and plant, care for, and harvest their crops. They use an
extensive system of ditches that have four functions: to bring water to
crops, drain excess water away from crops, serve as a barrier to protect
crops from pigs, and make compost,
Their major crop, making up perhaps 90 percent of their diet, is
the sweet potato, Almost their only source of meat comes from domes-
tic pigs, In contrast to Southwest Asia, highland New Guinea is an ideal
place for pigs-it’s not too hot, there’s plenty of moisture, and because
of the successful sweet potato farming, there’s plenty of food for both
pigs and people. New Guinea had little natural game to begin with,
and much of that has been hunted out,
In general, the Grand Valley is a nice place to live. The average
year-round temperature is about 70° Fahrenheit, and there is plenty of
rain. Although there are seasonal fluctuations in rainfall and tempera-
ture, there is essentially a year-round growing season. The elevation is
high enough so rhat tropical diseases are uncommon. One might think
that people in snch a place would live happy, peaceful lives. Happy,

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 345
perhaps; indeed, Heider describes the people themselves as “gentle” and
“nonaggressive.’ But peaceful, hardly. For the Dani are continually at
war, and not with outsiders but with one another.
The Grand Valley Dani are divided into about twelve alliances,
which are subdivided into a total of about fifty confederations. There
has existed, for how long no one knows, a state of ritual war between
various alliances. The motivation is the placation of ghosts. The ghost
of a person slain in warfare demands revenge. This requires that the
life of an enemy be taken in return. That death, of course, requires
revenge as well, making the cycle self-perpetuating.
The opportunity to take lives is provided by large battles (Figure 14.6).
These take place, by mutual agreement, on a no-man’s-land between
alliance territories, usually only on days when the weather is nice. The
weapons used are bows and arrows and I3-foot spears. These weapons
are not particularly well made, and an alert warrior can usually see them
in flight and avoid being hit. When a man is killed or badly wounded,
however, the battle ceases, for there is concern that no more than one life
FIGURE 14.6
A Dani war dance.
I

346 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 14.7
Holistic summary of Dani
warfare.
be taken in revenge, even in response to multiple deaths. The battle has
the appearance of a huge game, though one with very high stakes.
If several of these battles fail to result in the required death, the group
needing the kill may resort to ambush. Here, an unwary woman or child
may be the victim and serve the purpose of revenge as well as a warrior
in battle. When a person has been killed, all other activities cease and
both sides perform rites: one a dance of joy that their ghost has been
avenged, the other a funeral with all the display of emotion one would
expect, especially if the deceased is a child.
On reading about the Dani or watching Robert Gardner’s marvelous
film Dead Birds (so called because the Dani see themselves as birds,
which are mortal, as opposed to snakes, which shed their skins and so
are immortal), many people see such a cycle of death as incongruous
given the relatively “temperate” (as Heider says) conditions of their envi-
ronment and personalities. Why do people who seem to have no real
economic hardships and who feel normal emotions of grief and sorrow
have a cultural practice that ensures that a violent death takes place on
a regular basis? Moreover, the men seem obsessed by war and death, as
most of their daily activities are centered on watching for the enemy,
making weapons, and weaving bands decorated with shells that are
traded only at funerals. How can we explain such a cultural system?
Follow Figure 14.7 as we address this.
( Hi”o’y of \
V,.mernal;ensionsj.. .,……..———– …………
Definition of allies
and enemies
Need for
entertainment,, .. ~
Spare …..-~… – ..·~personal and –
(
time group identity.
and success
Advantageous
environmental
conditions
P I Co-wife .-
o ygyny ~esentment

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior
You should know that the titual battle is not the only kind of war
the Dani fight. They also have periodic secular wars. These are fairly
rare, occurring maybe every ten years. They are so rare, in fact, that
Heider didn’t know of their existence when he first studied the Dani.
These wars take place for secular reasons, usually arguments over wives
or pigs (both are commodities and signs of status to the polygynous
Dani) or some other matter that gets out of hand and cannot be
resolved peacefully.
Secular wars are usually fought between confederations within an
alliance, because it is between such groups that potentially contentious
economic and social issues arise. Secular wars are not played by rules.
The idea is to kill members of the enemy confederation and to take
their goods and land. The last such war took place in 1966, when some
125 people, of both sexes and all ages, were massacred. It was this war
that prompted the Indonesians, who had taken over West Papua
(known then as Irian Jaya) from the Dutch in 1963, to step up their
attempts to pacify the Dani.
War, as most of us normally think of it, is thus possible within
the Dani cultural system and has obviously been part of it. While these
secular wars are few and far between, the ritual wars are continual. It
almost appears as if the ritual war fills in the time between “real”
wars-and, to an extent, I think that’s the case.
The ecological conditions of the Grand Valley make basic subsis-
tence a fairly easy task. With relatively little labor, the Dani can grow
sweet potatoes in sufficient quantities to feed everyone, and this vege-
table seems to be nutritious enough to make up the bulk of their diet.
The pigs, raised and cared for with little labor, provide additional sus-
. tenance. The majority of the food-related labor, in fact, is done by
women and children. The men usually break ground for a new garden,
the hardest work involved, but after that women do the farming. Chil-
dren are largely responsible for the pigs. The men, as a consequence,
have lots of spare time.
Now, don’t get the idea thar rhe men dreamed up this elaborate game
to relieve their boredom. It’s not that simple. It’s more accurate to say
that an important current function of the ritual war, and part of the rea-
son it has persisted, is that it gives the men something to do. It provides
a focus for their daily lives. It gives them a social and personal identity.
It’s exciting. But this is not why it originated.
The ritual war derived from some already existing behavior-
namely, the secular wars-and the secular war came about for some
down-to-earth practical reasons. Over maybe tens of thousands of years,
the Dani were able to spread out over this temperate, isolated valley and
easily raise pigs and grow sweet potatoes. The population increased.
Almost naturally some units of this population-depending on many
variables-had more arable land than others, grew more sweet potatoes,
had more pigs. Perhaps some men had more wives than others. A sense
347
I

348 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
co-wife resentment Tension
among the wives of one
man in polygynous societies,
often caused by the differing
statuses of those wives.
of “mine “and “thine” arose, and social inequalities developed. Conflicts
could easily arise over these factors as well as over matters of relative
power, influence, and social status. Polygyny itself carries the seeds of
tensions, because the common phenomenon of co-wife resentment can
sometimes cause one wife to go back to her parental village, which in
turn creates ill will between her husband and her kinsmen.
In other words, these conditions, and the Dani’s reactions to them,
set the stage for a world view where tension and potential conflict are
normal (or at least not abnormal) states of affair. Territories are estab-
lished, statuses are acknowledged, and wealth is unequally distributed-
all things we don’t see among egalitarian foragers, who may act
violently toward one another but not on the scale of warfare.
So, the ritual war has derived from-is an extension of, a symbol
of, a metaphor for-the secular conflicts and the conditions that
brought them about. The exact relationship and history we’ll probably
never know. But the ritual war caught on, in part because of its identity
as a derivative of the other tensions and conflicts and in part because
it fills the time and provides a major theme for ‘Dani life. It may even
serve to maintain readiness for a potential secular war, a “war game”
as we use the phrase.
The importance of the ritual war is evidenced by its justification
within the Dani religious system. It is not just a frivolous game but a
vital part of their worldview and most deeply held beliefs. Recall the
cultural feedback loop described earlier in this chapter: ideas guide
behaviors, and in turn bebaviors guide ideas. In the case of the Dani:
The tensions and secular wars (behavior) gave rise to the revenge
cycle for the ghosts of the slain (idea) which guided the ritual
war and its central place in Dani culture (behavior).
Are any other relationships in operation here? During the ritual
war, a no-man’s-land exist~between rival factions. This land is not planted,
although when alliances shift (confederation and alliance membership
is not stable) it may be farmed once again. After a secular war, there is
usually much shifting of people, alliance membership, and land. This
shifting allows areas of land to lie fallow for a time, which lets the
nutrients build back up, which in turn may add to the overall success
of Dani farming. Whether the Dani are aware of this is unclear, nor do
we know whether it really makes a difference. But it’s one area of
possible investigation.
Another economic relationship exists as well. Tension and war are
justifications for ceremonies-funerals as well as feasts-that help
strengthen alliance relationships. Ceremonies are not only important
symbolically but are also events during which food is consumed and
goods are exchanged. Pigs, for example, are normally eaten only in
some ceremonial context. Ceremonies, then, serve as a means of wealth
redistribution-of both symbolic shell bands and pig flesh.

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 349
One would think that when the Dutch and then the Indonesians
pacified the Dani and put an end to the warfare cycle in the early 1960s,
the whole of Dani society would have unraveled, lacking such an inte-
gral part of their culture. Something with so many interrelationships
and to which the Dani devoted so much time and concern must be
something they couldn’t do without. But that’s not what happened. The
Dani took the imposed change quite calmly. The men continued to sit
in watchtowers, guarding against an enemy attack that would never
come. They found other occasions to eat pigs. They carried their
weapons and wore their finest battle garb fat fights that would never
happen. Taking away the actual war made little difference to them.
What we see here, then, is a complex interaction of ideas and behav-
iors that evolved over many years and resulted in the manifestation of
Dani culture in the early 1960s. (And what I’ve outlined is only part of
the story; see Karl Heider’s book for more detail.) Although we have
been able to see how all the aspects of Dani culture can interact, we can’t
know for certain how they really do and did interact. Obviously, the calm
with which the Dani accepted pacification tells us there’s something else
involved. The above analysis is only a hypothesis that requires testing.
Because of the changes to Dani life, such testing may be impossible. At
any rate, it is by observing, describing, and proposing relationships
between ideas and behaviors that we may begin to approach the under-
standing of individual cultural systems and of culture in genera!.
The Fore
For a second example, let’s move to the eastern half of New Guinea-
now rhe largest part of the independent nation of Papua New Guinea-
and another society I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this book, the Fore
(fa-RAY). Again, I use the ethnographic present.
There are about 14,000 people who consider themselves Fore. Our
discussion, however, centers largely on a subgroup, the South Fore, who
number about 8,000. Like the Dani, the Fore are horticulturalists and
pig keepers. Also like the Dani, their major crop is the sweet potato,
although they grow a greater variety of minor crops. The Fore also do
more hunting than the Dani.
As with any culture, the Fore exhibit a set of cultural features that
makes them unique. But when first extensively studied, they exhibited
another distinction as well-a disease found occasionally in surround-
ing groups but heavily concentrated among the South Fore. They call
the disease kuru, and we have adopted that name. It is a degenerative
disease of the central nervous system. Its symptoms follow an almost
unvarying pattern, starting with loss of balance and followed by loss of
motor coordination, slurred speech, abnormal behavior (such as uncon-
trollable laughter), and finally complete motor incapacity and death. It
takes on average a year for this sequence to progress (Figure 14.8).

350 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 14.8
A Fore woman in the
terminal phase of kuru,
supported by her husband.
She can no longer sit up
unaided and, although she
appears to be smiling, has
lost control of her facial
muscles
When kuru was first discovered among the Fore, its cause was a
mystery, and it displayed a strange distribution. Between 1957 and
1968 there were 2,500 deaths from kuru in the area, about 80 percent
of them among the South Fore. The most common victims by far were
adult women, in whom it was nearly eight times as frequent as in adult
men. Children of both sexes were the next most common victims,
followed by elderly men. There was clearly a lot to explain.
The first problem was to discover the cause of the disease. At first,
because of its isolated nature, kuru was thought to be genetic. But there
is no genetic mechanism that would account for the distribution of the
disease among the Fore. Anyway, it was too frequent to be genetic.
A disease that is 100 percent lethal would have been selected out of
existence, except for isolated new cases, long ago.
A clue came from veterinary medicine. It was reported that a similar
disease called scrapie was known among sheep and goats that deteriorated
brain tissue. This led to further investigation.
We now know that kuru is ca used by prion proteins. Prions are
normal proteins in the nervous tissue that sometimes fold up in an
abnormal configuration. In this form they trigger the same folding up of
the normal proteins, wbich then build up in and eventually destroy brain
tissue. The condition is called spongiform encephalopathy. Expressions

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 351
Protein
shortages
Wives of Big Men
have more access to
human flesh
Increase in \ FI 1__ .. _..;._….. ow a
sorcery wealth to
accusations curers
t
Gutside
ecneeee
(
Feac 01 those
Market less wealthy
economy
‘-. Social (Dec”,'” in .
~stratif1cation
of this disease include mad cow disease in cattle, scrapie in sheep and
goats, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and kuru in humans. Although the
trigger for the abnormal shape of the protein may come, not surpris-
ingly, from a genetic mutation, the frightening thing about prions is that
they can be transmitted across species. Moreover, they are very hard to
destroy. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, mad cow disease spread
throughout England, presumably because cattle there were fed meal that
contained the remains of other domestic animals. Even though these
remains were cooked and processed into meal, the prions survived and
were passed to other cows through ingestion. Dating from the mid-1990s,
at least ninety-one cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob in England, France, and
Ireland can be traced to human consumption of infected beef. In other
words, these are all essentially the same disease.
Since people the world over may get the disease, why was it so
concentrated among the Fore? How was it being passed from one per-
son to another, and why in such an odd pattern? The answer, first
proposed by anthropologists Shirley Lindenbaum and Robert Glasse,
was cannibalism, which was largely practiced by women, who shared
the human flesh with their children and, sometimes, with elderly men.
Consuming the flesh of someone who died from kuru, even though
the flesh was cooked, passed the prion proteins on to others. Because
they practiced endocannibalism, the disease was concentrated and
found almost exclusively among the South Fore (Figure 14.9).
FIGURE 14.9
A holistic summary of the
kuru phenomenon among
the Fore.
endocannibalism The eating
of humanflesh from mem-
bers of one’s own society.

352 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
Why were they practicing cannibalism, and why was it mostly the
women who practiced it? Fore cannibalism seemed to have been practiced
for reasons somewhere between ritual and nutrition. The Fore seek to
acquire a “fertilizing” effect from the bodies. As Lindenbaum states,
“Dead bodies buried in gardens encourage the growth of crops. In a
similar manner human flesh, like pig meat, helps some humans regenerate.
The flesh of the deceased was thought particularly suitable for invalids.”
But when we step back and look at broader relationships, we
may see this practice as having a more material origin. It appears to
have been taken up by women-in the relatively recent past, an idea
borrowed from some surrounding societies-to supplement their diet in
what was fast becoming a protein-poor society where men, who dom-
inate Fore society, had first access to the small supply of wild game and
pigs that were available. So, indeed, cannibalism here does seem to have
a nutritional function at its origin.
Why was the society becoming protein-poor? Complex economic
changes brought about by the Australian government (which controlled
Papua New Guinea from 1906 to 1975) had turned these former for-
agers and horticulturalists into settled farmers, with an emphasis on the
sweet potato and the pig, as well as on cash crops such as coffee. This
way of life, and the larger, more sedentary populations it produced, had
gradually depleted the forests and the game they contained, making
protein increasingly scarce. Moreover, now that they were part of a
larger, money-oriented economic system, these fairly egalitarian people
began to exhibit stratification in both wealth and status. In this envi-
ronment, for the reasons noted, cannibalism arose and quickly became
part of the Fore cultural system, endowed with symbolic meaning.
Again, we see the mutual influences of behaviors and ideas. In a tragic
coincidence, then, the practice of cannibalism transmitted and increased
the frequency of a devastating disease, which otherwise would have
affected only the few individuals in whom the abnormal protein occurred.
But this cycle caused even more changes. The Fore explain serious
diseases as the work of sorcerers, people who for one reason or another
bear a person ill will and act to cause that person harm (see Chapter 12).
As kuru increased, the Fore began to fear that their women would all
die and that they as a society would perish, and they naturally
explained this in terms of the acts of many powerful sorcerers. Who
were these sorcerers? People who were not faring well in the new eco-
nomic stratification. So the increase in kuru coincided with the coming
of economic differences and rivalries. In addition, it seems as if the
wives of the “Big Men”-those with the most power and wealth-had
more access to human flesh than the wives of the less powerful, with
the result that kuru was more frequent among families of the Big
Men, who, then, naturally saw themselves as being victimized by those
of lesser status and wealth. The invocation of sorcery to explain the
disease thus made perfect sense within the Fore cultural system.

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 353
Finally, to whom did the Big Men turn to try to counteract this
sorcery? To their own sorcerers, of course, who did not come cheaply.
Thus, the wealth of the Big Men began to pass to others in the form
of fees to the counter-sorcerers or bribes to the accused sorcerers them-
selves. Lindenbaum calls this an example of redistribution, which acted
to even out some of the differences in wealth and status.
These fWO examples from New Guinea and the brief analysis of
the biblical food laws show the intimate connection not only among
different aspects of cultural systems but also between culture and biol-
ogy. We had to understand the biology of pigs, for example, and the
nature of a bizarre anomalous protein in order to explain cultural phe-
nomena and the cultural systems of which they are a part. But are there
any more direct connections between biology and culture? Just how
much influence does biology have over our actions?
BIOLOGY AND CULTURE IN INTERACTION
The Question of Altruism
On the cold, stormy evening of January 13, 1982, during the Washington,
DC, rush hour, Air Florida flight 90 out of National Airport apparently
iced up during takeoff and moments later crashed into the Potomac
River, killing seventy-eight people. Only a handful of the plane’s passen-
gers survived, and one of them probably owes her life to a young man
named M. L. Skutnik.
Skutnik, a government worker, was stopped in the traffic jam resulting
‘from the crash. He was watching the rescue operations when he noticed
a woman survivor in the water unable to grab on to a lifeline. Removing
his coat and shoes, he dived into the icy Potomac and saved her life.
In June of the following year, Kansas City Chiefs running back Joe
Delaney saw three young boys in trouble out in the water of a Louisiana
lake. Delaney jumped in to help them. Others came to their aid, but unfor-
tunately, two of the boys drowned. So did Delaney, who couldn’t swim.
In July 2004, Kathleen Imel was driving down a street in Aloha,
Oregon, when she saw fWO pit bulls chasing 7-year-old Joshua Pia Perez.
By the time Imel, 51, reached the boy in her car, he was being mauled
by the larger of the two dogs, weighing approximately 70 pounds. Imel
then ran to the boy and tried unsuccessfully to scare off the dogs. As a
last resort, Imel shielded the boy with her body until neighbors, and later
police, arrived to help. Imel and the boy survived, but both suffered mul-
tiple severe wounds to their faces and bodies that required surgery.
These heroic deeds fall into a category of behavior called aItruism-
acts performed for rhe benefit of others with no regard for one’s own wel-
fare. The question that comes immediately to mind is why anyone would
perform such an act. Why did these individuals do what they did?
I
altruism Acting to benefit
others while disregarding
one’s own welfare,

Perhaps they were responding to learned cultural ideals. There
would, however, have been no retribution-legal or moral-if they hadn’t
acted. Under the circumstances, their deeds were extremely dangerous.
No one and nothing was forcing them to act. No one would have blamed
them if they hadn’t. Perhaps, though, what they did was an automatic
response to some biological instinct, coded somehow in their genes. But
one of the strongest instincts is surely that of personal survival, and all
these people put their lives at risk (and Delaney lost his) for people they
didn’t even know. Perhaps, then, their deeds involved some complex
interaction between culture and hiology.
354 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
biological determinism The
idea that human behaviors
have a biological basis
with minimal influence
from culture.
cultural determinism The
idea that human behaviors
are almost totally the result
of leamed cultural infor-
mation, with few or no
instinctive responses.
Nature and Nurture
Such questions are part of a larger issue that has long been debated in
many scholarly areas. There are two extreme points of view on the sub-
ject, which we call biological determinism and cultural determinism Of,
more simply, “nature versus nurture.” The first position holds that
much human hehavior is biologically determined, though, of course,
mediated by culture. The second purports that humans are born pretty
much as behavioral “blank slates” and that culture then “writes in”
everything that needs to go on those slates. These extremes are rarely
held today, although there are those who lean in one direction or the
other. As so often occurs in such cases, evidence points to an interac-
tion of biology and culture, a middle ground between the nature and
nurture extremes. But let’s first examine the extremes.
Cultural Determinism Is Untenable The nurture, or cultural determin-
ism, school of thought is clearly untenable. It posits, to use a computer
metaphor, that we arrive in this world like computers with internal
hardware but nothing programmed. But one can’t load dara into a
computer without the appropriate application software. If the human
brain were not already “programmed,” for example, to learn language,
no amount of exposure to language would result in a person’s being
able to speak.
This point of view also implies that at some point in our evolution
we left behind our biological heritage and became something qualita-
tively different. But, obviously, we carry the anatomical and physiolog-
ical imprints of our evolutionary past. Why not the behavioral ones as
well, even if only in terms of general behavioral themes?
Biological Determinism Is Untenable A strict nature, or biological
deterministic, point of view is also untenable, but for more complex rea-
sons, and real or perceived support of this position is what has generated
the controversy around this question.
It’s obvious, and unconrroversial, that the behavior of non-
culture-bearing species is programmed in their genes in a complex

s
CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 355
FIGURE 14.10
A prairie dog acting as a
sentinel. giving what animal
behaviorists call a jump-yip, a
signal meaning “all clear”
series of stimulus-response reactions. The nest-building behavior of the
weaver ants I described in Chapter 4 is an example. It has even been
shown that social behaviors can be biologically based and, thus,
explained by the operation of natural selection-even behaviors that
may benefit the group rather than the individual.
Take altruism, for example, which-in its broad definition-seems
to exist in nonhuman species. In some mammalian species such as
ground squirrels and prairie dogs, certain individuals act as guards or
sentinels, watching for predators while the others forage (Figure 14.10).
If a predator is sighted, the sentinel gives an alarm call and the others
literally hit the dirt. In some species the sentinel is at more risk than
the others. How, then, could such behavior have been selected for if it
might lead to less chance of passing on one’s genes?
Kin Selection as an Example The proposed answer is a phenomenon
called kin selection. If the members of such a mammal group are closely
related, they share many of their genes. As a result, the fitness of a set of
genes (and, thus, the adaptiveness of the phenotype) is measured not only
by the reproductive success of tbe individual but also by the reproductive
success of all those possessing the gene. (See the description of baboon
kin selection Promoting
the passing on of one’s
genes by aiding the survival
or reproduction of one’s
close kin.

356 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
sociobiology The scientific
study that examines evolu-
tionary explanations for social
behaviors within species
evolutionary psychology A
synonym for sociobiology.
behavioral ecology A
synonym for sociobiology,
behavior in Chapter 10.) Thus, any behavior that aids the passing on
of the gene in question is selected for. This would include any behavior
that benefits the related group as a whole, even if it might not neces-
sarily benefit particular individuals. Over time, a set of genes for sentinel
behavior will increase in frequency because, at any given time, some
individuals possessing those genes will perform guard duty and, even if
they are eaten and lose their opportunity to pass on any more genes,
they will have helped save the lives of many related individuals who
share the genes.
Biology and Human Behavior
So, complex behaviors in other species can be accounted for in terms of
natural selection and the other processes of biological evolution. The
problem arises when such reasoning is applied to humans. Could there
be a similar biological basis for our behaviors? An area of study, variously
known as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, or behavioral ecology,
has suggested that this is possible-that certain typical human behaviors
arose and became part of our behavioral repertoire because they conferred
a reproductive advantage to those possessing them. In other words,
because these behaviors had a genetic basis, they developed through the
mechanism of natural selection.
One reaction to this model came from those who interpreted “bio-
logically based” to mean “biologically determined,” that is, that this
idea implied severe limits on human free will and thus on the power
of culture. Other objections were more political. They claimed that the
idea was racist and sexist, or at least potentially promoted racism and
sexism. The reasoning behind such accusations was that if human
behaviors are genetically determined, then the differences in human
behaviors lie in genetic differences, and so the two sexes and people
from different populations, being genetically different, can thus be seen
as unequal on a very basic biological level.
But there are scientific, as well as political, objections to an extreme
“nature” viewpoint. Essentially, this model implies that our behaviors
are all aimed at maximizing our reproductive success. It can even be
seen as implying that cultural variations on these behaviors have
evolved for that reason. Some of the more popular versions of this idea
assume that people, in performing some behavior, are at some level still
aware of the biological advantage that may have selected for the behav-
ior in the first place. But not all cultural behaviors and ideas are aimed
at reproductive success. Polyandry, for example (see Chapter 10), is
hardly the best method for passing on a maximum number of one’s
genes. Rather, there are important and complex cultural reasons for this
variation on the family model.
To give another example, journalist Robert Wright, in his book The
Moral Animal, posits that infanticide may be the result of a “mental

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 357
organ that implicitly calculates when killing a newborn will maximize
genetic fitness.” In nonculrural creatures, this may be the case. Lions
kill biologically unrelated offspring so they can mate with lionesses and
produce cubs that will inherit their genes. But in humans infanticide is
not always done with this calculus anywhere in mind. People kill infants
to maximize something, and so clearly the potential to kill one’s off-
spring is there, but what’s maximized is not always, and maybe never,
one’s genetic fitness. For example, the Ya nomamo of Brazil and
Venezuela traditionally killed female infants. The reason was their
emphasis on male warriors. Because of tension and competition among
Yanomarno villages, the very survival of each village depended on the
ability to defend and conduct offensive war, which was a vehicle for
procuring land for farming and hunting. So women had to give to their
husbands and their villages new potential warriors, and a first-born
daughter or the second of two daughters born in a row was commonly
killed. The benefit was symbolic. In fact, it was actually counter-
productive genetically, since Yanornarno villages often had, as a result, a
shortage of marriageable females, and so another reason to go to war
was to steal women to provide wives. The behavior was important, and
it was culturally selected for, but there’s no logic in thinking it evolved
in any biological sense.
Can these two extreme views be reconciled? In fact, I’ve already
discussed two examples at length in Chapter 7: marriage and the incest
taboo. We may come “preprogrammed” with some general behavioral
themes or potentials-such as the attraction and bonding between
males and females and the avoidance of mating with immediate family
members. These may, in our evolutionary past, have been so important
‘adaptively (in maximizing reproductive potential) that they channeled
and placed strict limitations on our behavior. But then the web of
relationships that makes up a cultural system provides the motivating
factor for how specific versions of those themes are expressed and
explains the specific function of those expressions. Culture, as in the
case of inbred ancient Egyptian royalty, can reverse the behavioral
norm. But these cultural expressions may still be seen-in all their rich
diversity-as variations on behavioral themes that were selected for
before we became the cultural primate. In this way, biology and cultural
systems interact.
Altruism Revisited
Now, what about Skutnik, Delaney, and Imel? Is this model applicable
to their deeds of heroism? Perhaps the fact that they were able to
spontaneously place their own lives at risk to help fellow species members
is based on some ancient biological program similar to the noncultural
one that programs individuals in other species to act as sentinels for
their group or to defend their young. But those behaviors evolved to

358 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Are Humans Naturally Violent?
Perhaps the most common question regarding a
biological basis for our species’ behavior con-
cerns violence. A brief glance at human history-
or simply a look at today’s newspaper-could
easily convince you that the answer to the above
question must be yes. Although most people
probably go through their entire lives without
committing a truly violent act, the frequency of
human violence and the intensity of some violent
acts-from individual murders to the genocide
of millions-certainly make it seem reasonable
that aggression is part of our species’ behavioral
repertoire. Although most of us can suppress or
rechannel our aggressive tendencies. those ten-
dencies can. under sometimes inexplicable
circumstances. be expressed. The biological basis
for violence has been the premise of numerous
popular and even scientific works, perhaps the
most famous (or infamous) of which were Arr/-
can GenesIS (1961) and The Terr/tono/lmperatlve
(1966), both written by playwright-turned-
amateur-anthropologist Robert Ardrey. They
are better written than most examples of the
genre, but their arguments are typical.
Based on the accepted fact that humans are
the products of an evolutionary history, Ardrey
claims that the violent acts humans commit to-
ward one another can be traced to our descent
from apes that were “armed killers”-that is,
our australopithecine ancestors whom he char-
acterizes as roaming the savannas of Africa with
weapons, killingother animals for food and, on oc-
casion, killingone another in defense of their terri-
tories. An instinct for violence is thus, he said. in
our genes, and it is expressed by war and other
aggressive acts that seem at times to have
become a hallmark of our species. Indeed, Ardrey
claims that war, territoriality, and competition have
led to the great accomplishments of civilization
but that, at the same time, “civilization is a com-
pensatory consequence of our killingimperative;
the one could not exist without the other” ThIS
is because civilization is also a natural result of
evolution that acts to sublimate and inhibit our
“inherent talent for disorder.”
As further evidence of the instinctive nature
of human aggresSiveness, Ardrey offers the ob-
servation that we also possess instinctive behav-
iors that seek to limit aggress.on, much like the
submissive behavior of dogs and wolves or the
threat gestures of some nonhuman primates-
behaviors that make the pomt of showing who’s
boss without bloodshed. A good example IS”that
innate aggressor the athlete … [who] accepts
and absorbs the rules and regulations of his
sport without in many cases, benefit of a
registerable IQ.”AggreSSion, competition, and
violence are so much a part of our biology, says
Ardrey, that we can’t do without them, so we
also have evolved ways of inhibiting them to
keep “within the bounds of danger” Oftentimes,
however-whether in athletic competition or
the waging of war-we go well beyond those
bounds. So, by such arguments, violence is a
natural behavior because it makes Darwinian
sense-having been selected for because it con-
ferred such a powerful reproductive advantage
for early horninids that it became part of our
species’ behavioral repertoire.
Are we biologically capable of violence? Of
course; humans commit violent acts. Might vio-
lence have a specific biological component?

CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 359
Scientists have demonstrated correlations between
tendencies toward violence in some individuals
and imbalances in important brain chemicals. But is
violence something we have inherited from our
evolutionary past because it was naturally selected
for and stillmakes sense in terms of enhancing
one’s reproductive success? We have already
discussed this issue with regard to other human
behavioral themes, but let’s look specifically at this
one. It is an important issue, and arguments such
as Ardrey’s can be quite persuasive.
The first problem with Ardrey’s Idea ISthat he
lumps diverse acts together under one category.
Killing something for food-which he claimed
our remote savanna ancestors did, and which is
an aggressive act-is not necessarily the same as
the planned genocide of other members of
one’s species because of ethnic, religious,or political
differences. A hunting instinct has very different
origins, immediate motives, and functions from
conscious and planned murder.
Even If we could consider all examples of hu-
man aggression as the same, there is no evidence
that the australopithecines were “armed killers”
. (and the evidence was slim when Ardrey was
writing). They did not make stone tools, there IS
no evidence of other tools (much less weapons
as Ardrey claims), and if they ate any meat, they
scavenged it. Nor is there evidence of any terri-
torial homicide.
Second, such ideas assume that even if a con-
nection existed between a behavior and repro-
ductive success, that connection has existed
over the millions of years the behavior was
passed along in our evolution and still exists
now. As we discussed with the issue of infanti-
cide or the more benign practice of polyandry,
there are presumably reasons for these behav-
iors, but the reasons may have nothing to do
•
with reproductive success. They can be ex-
plained as parts of cultural systems, and both
their functions and the motives underlying them
may have nothing to do With reproduction. In
fact, they can be counterproductive in this
regard. Certainly murder seldom serves to
promote the passing on of one’s genes.
Throughout our evolutionary history and at
any point In that history, biology and culture
have interacted in complex ways. But seeking to
explain specific cultural phenomena as the result
of naturally selected behaviors that maximize
reproductive success both oversimplifies the
complexity of natural selection and minimizes
the nature of cultural systems and the power of
cultural motivations.
Acts of aggression expressed by human
beings need to be examined and dealt with as
cultural phenomena. We may have the biological
potential to commit violent acts against mem-
bers of our species, and the baSISfor that
potential may lie within some basic instincts-
unsurprising and uncontroversial things like
self-preservation or protection of family mem-
bers. But these acts (except for those clearly the
result of neurological or neurochemical defects)
are triggered by cultural Ideas and Ideals. They
are responses of human beings as members of
cultural systems-as individuals or groups of
individuals interpreting and responding to their
world and worldview. As a result, we gain noth-
ing by oversimplifying the source of human
violence (since the reasons for violence are
embedded deep within cultural systems) nor
by adopting some fatalistic, pessimistic view-
point that all violent acts are expressions of
some ancient genetic program that we’re
stuck With.

360 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
promote the passing on of one’s genes, even if they are in the body of
a related individual. The three people mentioned didn’t even know the
people whose lives they tried to save.
Maybe, as with the case in the kibbutzim (see Chapter 7), culture
has fooled Mother Nature. Those three heroes may have been among
those who take seriously the cultural idea that we’re all brothers and
sisters or that we should treat others as we would be treated. Naturally,
none of them felt the same about all people, but their belief in a moral
abstraction may have been enough to trigger an altruistic response and
lead to what, by adaptive criteria, were irrational acts-but acts full of
positive cultural meaning.
SUMMARY
Culture consists of both ideas and behaviors.
One area of debate within anthropology focuses
on the direction of the influence between the
two. Some feel that behaviors give rise to and
guide ideas; others say that ideas give rise to and
guide behaviors. An examination of cultural
phenomena shows that the influence is in both
directions. Practical behaviors become translated
into ideas that become part of integrated, holistic
cultural systems. Ideas then influence behaviors,
since behaviors must meet practical needs as
well as remain consistent with and help main-
tain the cultural system itself. This mutual influ-
ence can be demonstrated more persuasively
when entire cultural systems (or at least large
portions of them) are examined.
A long-standing question in anthropology
and other human-oriented disciplines relates to
the relative influences of biology and culture on
human behavior patterns. As with the issue
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHERTHOUGHT
above, there have been two extreme views.
One claims that culture creates minor modifica-
tions in some biologically based and naturally
selected-for behaviors. The opposite view says
that biology has little or no real influence and
that human behaviors are entirely cultural.
Again, examining behaviors seems to show a
complex interaction between biology and cul-
ture. While the immediate motivation for and
function of our behavior patterns relate to their
place within our cultural systems, those general
patterns themselves may have been selected for
in our precultural stage because they conferred an
adaptive-that is, a reproductive-advantage.
Variations in behavior patterns such as marriage,
incest taboo, and language are explained by
variations in cultural systems. That there is mar-
riage, incest avoidance, and the ability to produce
symbolic language have, at their base, a biologi-
cal explanation.
I. Can you think of another set of dietary laws that might be examined using the model from this
chapter? How about the Hindu prohibition against eating cows?
2. Some extreme acts of violence in the world today-such as the 9/1 I attacks and suicide bombings
in the Middle East-force us to look again at the question of innate human violence, These acts
seem to defy what is perhaps the most innate human behavior-self-preservation. Analyze these
behaviors in light of this chapter’s discussion.

NOTES, REFERENCES, AND READINGS
The debate over the direction of influence between
ideas and behaviors in culture is discussed in Marvin
Harris’s book Theories of Culture in Postmodern
Times, in which, among other things, he evaluates an
extreme nature position on the influence of biology.
Mary Douglas’s model of cultural analysis can
be found in her Purity and Danger: An Analysis of
Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. The discussion
here is from her chapter “The Abominations of
Leviticus.” Marvin Harris’s ideas on cultural materi-
alism are detailed in his technical Cultural Material-
ism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture and more
entertainingly in Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The
Riddles of Culture and Cannibals and Kings: The
Origins of Cultures. The quotes I use are from page 5
of Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches and pages 202 and
206 of Cannibals and Kings.
For more information about the Dani, see Karl
Heider’s Grand Valley Dani: Peaceful Warriors. Be
sure to see Robert Gardner’s movie Dead Birds,
which is available through a number of academic
film rental organizations. The story of the Fore and
kuru is detailed in one of the best examples of holis-
tic anthropology available, Shirley Lindenbaum’s
Kuru Sorcery: Disease and Danger in the New Guinea
Highlands. The quote I used is from page 22. A more
recent piece, which also talks interestingly about some
aspects of scientific research, is “Fieldwork in the
South Fore: The Process of Ethnographic Inquiry,”
CHAPTER 14 The Evolution of Our Behavior 361
by Robert Glasse and Shirley Lindenbaum. A more
up-co-date discussion of kuru, related diseases, and
prion proteins (with a graphic description of Fore can-
nibalism) is Deadly Feasts, by Pulitzer Prize-winning
author Richard Rhodes.
Still a good book on the Darwinian basis of ani-
mal behavior, and the book that started the modern
nature-nurture controversy through its application of
sociobiological ideas to human behavior, is Edward
O. Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. A
collection of works on all sides of the debate, and on
the debate itself, is Arthur Caplan’s The Sociobiology
Debate, which is now out of print but worth looking
for. A new collection on all aspects of human behav-
ioral evolution is The Biological Basis of Human
Behavior: A Critical Review, by Robert Sussman.
Robert Wright’s recent argument for a biological basis
for specific human behaviors is The Moral Animal:
Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life.
For a different interpretation of some altruistic-
looking behavior among animals, see “Selfish Senti-
nels,” by Daniel Blumstein, in the June 4, 1999, issue
of Science, page 1633.
For an extreme nature, or biological determinist,
point of view on human violence, see African Genesis
and The Territorial Imperative, both by Robert
Ardrey. The quotes used in the “Contemporary
Issues” box are from pages 355 and 359 of the
former and p’age 317 of the latter.

ANTHROPOLOGY
IN TODAY’S WORLD
Problems and Contributions
CHAPTER CONTENTS Change in the Modern World • Applying Anthropology • The Hurnan Species Today
• The Human Species in the Future • Contemporary Issues:What Kinds of Careers Are There in Anthropology?
• Questions for Further Thought • Notes, References, and Readings
363

364 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
Anthropology is often seen as dealing with the past or with so-calledexotic cultures. But as you should understand by now. It deals very
much with the present. with one’s own culture, and with the global
“village” our world has become.
The societies we have touched on in this book have, of course,
changed Since anthropologists first visited and described them. Those
that remain are all very much a part of our global society with all its
benefits and problems, and anthropology not only studies ongoing
changes in them but also plays a part in helping societies through such
changes. There are other ways in which anthropology may be applied
as well, as we will discuss in this chapter
Because anthropology studies the human species as a whole, we
may legitimately ask where our species is now and where it might go
in the future.
AS YOU READ, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
I. What has happened to some of the societies we’ve studied In
this book?
2. How can anthropological knowledge be applied to modern
concerns, such as overpopulation and the depletion of natural
resources?
3. What is the status of our species today, and what can we say
about our species’ future?
CHANGE IN THE MODERN WORLD
Although culrure change, as described in Chapter 13, may be the norm,
it can present problems, especially during the process of acculturation
or when a society is trying to realign and maintain its system in the
face of change. Such situations are, of course, more common as our
world becomes effectively smaller. Let’s look at recent changes in some
of the societies we’ve discussed as just a few representative examples.
The Hutterites
In rhe summer of 1983, ten years after my first visit to two Canadian
Hutterite Bruderhofs, I went to two American Bruderhofs, and the dif-
ferences I perceived between the Canadian and American Hutterites-
and rhe difference of a decade-were striking.

CHAPTER 15 Anthropology in Today’s World 365
It had been said, and it was my impression (although based on a small
sample), that the American Hutterites tended to be a little less open and
a little more suspicious of outsiders than those in Canada. This may be
in part because during World War I many U.S. Hutterites who resisted
the military draft because of their pacifist beliefs were jailed as draft
resisters. In fact, two Hutterites died in prison as a result of maltreatment.
In addition, the Hutterites felt that how their colonies were taxed in the
United States was unfair. As a result, most Hutterires moved to Canada,
where they were not drafted and where some tax arrangements were
made. (Since then, the United States has made similar accommodations.
About 29 percent of all Hutterite colonies are now in the United Srates.)
The modern world has brought changes to the Hutterite way of
life. The colonies depend on the income acquired from the sale of pro-
duce and, to a lesser extent, handmade goods and services such as the
repair of farm equipment. Hutterites must be, and are, well versed in the
mainstream market system. That system, however, is becoming increas-
ingly complex, as is farming and the technologies needed to support it.
As a result) the Hutterites require more information, enough to warrant
changing their educational practices.
Until recently, Hutterite youths received standard schooling within
the colony from an outside licensed teacher until they were old enough
to legally drop out. With the need for more education, Hutterites now
go to school through grade twelve. This need, in turn, has led to a desire
to have their own licensed teachers. Some young people are also acquir-
ing vocational degrees as well as college degrees in some of the tech-
nological skills required to maintain the colonies’ self-sufficiency.
At the same time, the Hutterites must try even harder to keep the
outside world from influencing their young people too much and threat-
ening the very continuation of their culture. The young man who became
my informant had, in fact, left the colony for a time to attend college. He
had no plans to return following graduation but found himself unable to
adapt to the kind of individualized existence found on the outside and
missed the security of colony life. After a few years he returned. His sister,
however, had left and married a non-Hutterite. One of his brothers had
also left, and a second brother, whom I met-with styled hair, jeans instead
of homemade pants, and Nike running shoes-struck me as at least a
potential candidate for leaving. Even the young man himself, although he
had returned, married, and had a son) was different from other Hutterites
(Figure 15.1). He had an extensive library that reflected his continued
interest in worldly matters outside the concerns of most colony members.
A Bible and a few works by Hutterites are the usual extent of a member’s
reading material.
Because keeping young people in the colony means the survival of
the culture, the Hutterites were reluctant to talk about how many peo-
ple had left. Although I could get no hard data, I had the distinct
impression that the case of this one family was not unusual. After over

366 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
FIGURE 15.1
My informant and his first
child. one of the next
generation of Hutterites.
400 years of successfully maintaining their separation from the world
while still being in it, they are now confronting a situation where that
kind of separation seems impossible. On their solution to this problem
rests their very future.
One approach-and, in a way, one they have always used-is to let
in just enough of the outside world to maintain the financial success that
sustains their independence and to keep their young people from feeling
too out of touch and different from mainstream culture. Sending some
young people to college is part of this approach. And, recently, a group of
Hutterite high schoolers in Manitoba created a Web site with extensive
data about the lives, history, and beliefs of the society.There is a saying in
anthropology that cultures change just enough so they don’t have to change
profoundly. That seems true of the Hutterites and is, I think, along with
their devout religious beliefs, a key to their longevity.
The Dani
By contrast, the Dani have not had the luxury of exercising much
control over changes in their society. By the time Karl Heider visited
the area in 1970, the Indonesian government had stopped the war-
fare, and there was, in their territory, an army and police post (inside
which the Dani were not permitted to carry their weapons), a first
aid station, a landing field, a Catholic mission, a school, and even
tourists. Today, a major road, the Trans-Irian Highway, connects the
north and south coasts of the country, running through the Grand
Valley town of Wamena. That town, not even mentioned on the earliest

CHAPTER 15 Anthropology in Today’sWorld 367
maps of the region, now has a population of 10,000 (Figure 15.2).
Mining and logging companies are changing the face of much of the
landscape. Although the Dani try to cling to old ways-some still
dress in the traditional style-they are now involved in trading rice,
cattle, fish, and coffee; leading tourists on treks; selling, as Heider
puts it, “garish tourist artifacts”; and worshiping at Christian
churches. A Dani Baptist deacon is quoted as telling his congregation,
“There is no fighting. You don’t have to hunt or garden. Everything
good comes to you.” That remains to be seen.
FIGURE 15.2
A Dani man in traditional
dress tries to warm himself in
the evening chill amidst the
shops and traffic of modern
Wamena, West Papua,
The San
The San have experienced what anthropologist Richard Lee calls
“directed social change.” In 1960 the San of Namibia, then a country
under the control of South Africa, were settled in an area set aside

368 PART THREE Adapting to Our Worlds
for them as part of South Africa’s apartheid (racial separation) policy.
Some of rhe men worked on road gangs or in workshops, but many
were unemployed-a concept that would have made no sense to them
just a few years before. Women spent their time with household
chores, and the children were supposed to go to school, but absentee-
ism was high. Everyone was fed by the government. Boredom, alco-
holism (alcohol was an important item the government made available
in their stores), and violence increased.
Starting in 1966 some native peoples of Namibia began fighting for
independence from South Africa under the South-West African People’s
Organization (SWAPO). To combat SWAPO, the South African govern-
ment not only sent in its own troops but also recruited locals, including
the San (Figure 15.3). Induced by good wages (up to $500 a month),
the San enlisted in large numbers for a war that few really understood
and that involved the killing of an “enemy” made up of some of their
fellow Narnibians. Raids were even made over the border into neigh-
boring Angola. Besides the obvious dangers of warfare and the further
divisions among the indigenous peoples, the ANT 111: Introduction to Anthropology _____________________________ ________ Writing Assignment Rubric*

*All parts and sections do not count equally

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Th

es
is

/I
nt

Introduction The Introduction is inviting,
states the main topic,
thesis, and position.
Previews the structure and
organization of the paper.

The introduction clearly
states main topic, thesis,
and position. Previews the
structure and organization
of the paper, but is not
particularly inviting to the
reader.

The introduction states the
main topic or position, but
does not have a strong
thesis and/or does not
preview structure of the
paper.

No clear
introduction of the
main topic, position,
or structure of the
paper.

Pa
rt

1
: Focus on

Topic, Thesis
Statement

There is one clear, well-
focused topic and strong
thesis statement. Main idea
stands out and is supported
by detailed information.

Main idea is clear, but the
supporting information is
general.

Main idea is somewhat
clear, but there is need for
a thesis statement and/or
more supporting
information

Main idea is not
clear. There is a
random collection
of information.

Pa
rt

2
: B

od
y/

Co
nt

en
t Understanding

and Support
Relevant, telling, quality
details give the reader
important information that
goes beyond the obvious or
predictable. Clear
understanding of the
readings and creative
incorporation into
arguments.

Supporting details and
information are relevant,
but reflect an average
engagement with course
materials. Decent
understanding of course
content. Some lines of
evidence may not be well
supported or explained.

Supporting details and
information are relevant,
but reflect lack of
engagement or
misunderstanding of course
materials. Various aspects
of thesis are not well
supported or explained.

Supporting details
and information are
not clear or not
related to topic.
Major anthro
concepts
misunderstood or
confused.

Pa
rt

3
: C

on
cl

us
io

Br
oa

de
r

A
nt

hr
o

Conclusion The conclusion is strong and
leaves the reader with a
feeling that they
understand the overall
purpose. Explains why the
topic/assignment matters
within anthropology.

The conclusion is
recognizable and ties up
loose ends. Overall purpose
of argument is less clear. No
connection to broader
purpose of the assignment
within anthropology.

The conclusion is
recognizable, but does not
tie up loose ends. No
broader relationship to
course or general
anthropology.

No clear conclusion.

rt
4

: M
ec

ha
ni

cs
,

G
ra

m
m

ar
, C

it
at

io
ns

Word Choice Author uses vivid words and
phrases. Choice and
placement of words seems
accurate, natural, and not
forced.

Author uses vivid words and
phrases. The choice and
placement of words is
sometimes overdone or
awkward.

Author uses words that
communicate clearly, but
writing is often or mostly
overdone or awkward.

Author uses a
limited vocabulary,
jargon, or clichés.
Difficult to
understand.

Grammar &
Spelling

Writer makes just 1-2 errors
in grammar or spelling.
Sentences are well
constructed and varied in
structure and length.

Writer makes 3-4 errors that
begin to distract from
content. Most sentences are
well constructed and varied
in structure and length.

Writer makes 7-8 errors
that distract from content.
Sentences have a
monotonous structure, and
some may be difficult to
understand.

Writer makes many
errors that distract
from content.
Sentences are
awkward, repetitive,
or difficult to
understand.

Citations Uses all required materials
from class readings, citing
them correctly in text and in
bibliography.

Uses some required
materials from class, and/or
has 1-2 errors in citations
and bibliography.

May use some/all required
materials, but many errors
present in citations and
biblio and/or wrong style.

Does not reference
required materials
and/or has no
citations or
bibliography.

Comments:

1) Great job!

2) For next time, improve

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Anthropology ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now