.

.


  EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY


    Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff


      American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA

2019


        CC BY-NC 4.0 International, except where otherwise noted

ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7

www.explorations.americananthro.org

Katie Nelson, Ph.D., Inver Hills Community College Lara Braff, Ph.D.,
Grossmont College Beth Shook, Ph.D., California State University, Chico
Kelsie Aguilera, M.A., Leeward Community College


          Learning Objectives

  * Define anthropology and the main anthropological approaches.
  * Describe the origins and early development of anthropology.
  * Identify the four subdisciplines of anthropology and specify the
    focus of each one.
  * Define biological anthropology, describe its key questions, and
    identify major subfields.
  * Explain key components of the scientific method.
  * Differentiate between hypotheses, theories, and laws.
  * Differentiate science from other ways of knowing.

The first time one of the authors [Katie Nelson] heard of biological
anthropology, she was a first-year college student at Macalester College
in Saint Paul, Minnesota, taking her first-ever anthropology course.
Before she enrolled in the class she didn’t really know what
anthropology meant. She knew it had something to do with people, but
didn’t know how it all fit together. The course description appealed to
her, so she signed up. She quickly learned that anthropology was the
study of humans and that it was an incredibly broad discipline that
included explorations of cultural diversity, human origins, past human
societies, and human languages, among a great many other subjects. She
had always been interested in learning about people. She enjoyed
observing the different ways people interacted in public spaces, like
the mall or the zoo. She enjoyed learning Spanish in high school and
loved listening to how people who spoke different languages produced
different sounds. She was curious about how people inherited unique
characteristics from their parents and was especially intrigued by
immigration and migration and what caused people to uproot themselves
and move to another part of the world. During the second week of class
she began to learn about biological anthropology and some of the leading
theories for how and why ancient humans left Africa and migrated
throughout the world. As she sat in class, she vividly remembers
imagining a small group of ancient humans walking barefoot together
through the African savannah. She imagined what they wore, what their
language sounded like, how they held hands, how they shared food, and so
on. She wondered why they were migrating and what they would miss about
their homeland. She was hooked on anthropology!


  WHAT IS ANTHROPOLOGY?

Why are people so diverse? Some people live in the frigid Arctic tundra,
others in the arid deserts of sub-Saharan Africa, and still others in
the dense forests of Papua New Guinea. Human beings speak more than
6,000 distinct languages. Some people are barely five feet tall while
others stoop to fit through a standard door frame. In some places,
people generally have very dark skin, in other places, people are
generally pale. In some societies, eating pig is strictly prohibited; in
others, pork is a rather ordinary food. What makes people differ from
one another? What do we all share in common? How are humans different
from other primates? How have primates adapted to different places? How
and why did humans develop in the first place? These are some of the
questions anthropologists try to answer.

Figure 1.1


    Holism

Derived from Greek, the word “anthropos” means “human” and “logy” refers
to the “study of.” Therefore anthropology, by definition, is the study
of humans. Anthropologists are not the only scholars to focus on the
human condition; biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and others
also examine human nature and societies. However, anthropologists
uniquely draw on four key approaches to do their research: holism,
comparison, dynamism, and fieldwork. Anthropology is an incredibly broad
and dynamic discipline. It studies humanity by exploring our past and
our present and all of our biological and cultural complexity.

Anthropologists are interested in the whole of humanity, in how various
aspects of biological or cultural life intersect. One cannot fully
understand what it means to be human by studying a single aspect of our
complex bodies or societies. By using a holistic approach,
anthropologists ask how different aspects interact with and influence
one another. For example, a biological anthropologist studying monkeys
in South America might consider the species’ physical adaptations,
foraging patterns, ecological conditions, and interactions with humans
in order to answer questions about their social behaviors. By
understanding how nonhuman primates behave, we discover more about
ourselves: after all, as you will learn in this book, humans are
primates! A cultural anthropologist studying marriage in a small village
in India might consider local gender norms, existing family networks,
laws regarding marriage, religious rules, and economic requisites in
order to understand the particular meanings of marriage in that context.
By using a holistic approach, anthropologists appreciate the complexity
of any biological, social, or cultural phenomenon.

Figure 1.2

As we will discuss in more detail, anthropology itself is a holistic
discipline, comprised in the United States) of four major areas of study
called subdisciplines: cultural anthropology, biological anthropology,
linguistic anthropology, and archaeology. We need all four
subdisciplines in order to understand the human experience, which
involves culture, language, and biological and social adaptations, as
well as our history, evolution, and relationship to our closest living
relatives: nonhuman primates.


    Comparison

Anthropology is a comparative discipline: anthropologists compare and
contrast data in order to understand what all humans have in common, how
we differ, and how we have changed over time. The comparative approach
can be historical: How do humans today differ from ancient Homo sapiens?
How has Egyptian society changed since the building of the great
pyramids? How is the English language adapting to

new modes of communication like smartphones? The comparative approach is
also applied to sociocultural phenomena. We can compare the roles of men
and women in different societies or different religious traditions
within a given society. Some anthropologists compare different primate
species, investigating traits shared by all primates including humans!)
or identifying traits that distinguish one primate group from another.
Unlike some other disciplines that also use comparative approaches,
anthropologists do not just consider our own species or society. Our
comparisons span societies, cultures, time, place, and species.


    Dynamism

Humans are one of the most dynamic species. Our ability to change, both
biologically and culturally, has enabled us to persist over the course
of millions of years, and to thrive in many different environments.

Depending on their research focus, anthropologists ask about all kinds
of changes: short-term or long-term, temporary or permanent, cultural or
biological. For example, a cultural anthropologist might look at how
people in a relatively isolated society change in the context of
globalization, the process of interaction and interdependence among
different nations and cultures of the world. A linguistic anthropologist
might ask how a new form of language, like Spanglish, emerges. An
archaeologist might ask how climate change influenced the emergence of
agriculture. A biological anthropologist might consider how diseases
affecting our ancestors led to changes in their bodies. All these
examples highlight the dynamic nature of human bodies and societies.
While we differ from our ancestors who lived hundreds of thousands of
years ago, we share with them this capacity for change.


    Fieldwork

Throughout this book, you will read examples of anthropological research
that will take you around the world. Anthropologists do not only work in
laboratories, libraries, or offices. To collect data, they go to where
their data lives, whether it is a city, village, cave, tropical forest,
or desert. At their field sites, anthropologists collect data which,
depending on subdiscipline, may be interviews with local peoples,
examples of language in use, skeletal remains, or human cultural remains
like potsherds or stone tools. While anthropologists ask an array of
questions and use diverse methods to answer their research questions,
they share this commitment to conducting their research out of their
offices and in the field.


    A Brief History of Anthropology

Imagine only interacting with people who looked, spoke, and acted like
you. Now, how would you begin to understand a seemingly new group of
people? As people first began to explore the world, they grappled with
how to make sense of human differences. Many were adventurers,
missionaries, or traders, motivated by a desire to explore, spread their
religion, or acquire wealth. All of them were familiar with only one way
of life—their own. It was, therefore, through the lens of their own
culture that they viewed people they met during their travels.

Figure 1.3

One of the first examples of someone who attempted to systematically
study and document cultural differences among different peoples is Zhang
Qian Chang Ch’ien 164 BC – 113 BC). Born in the second century BCE in
Hanzhong, China, Zhang was a military officer who was assigned by
Emperor Wu of Han to travel through Central Asia, going as far as what
is today Uzbekistan. He spent more than 25 years traveling and recording
his observations of the peoples and cultures of Central Asia Wood 2004).
The Emperor used this information to establish new relationships and
cultural connections with China’s neighbors to the West. Zhang
discovered many of the trade routes used in the Silk Road and introduced
many new cultural ideas, including Buddhism, into Chinese culture.

Another early traveler of note was Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Battuta
known most widely as Ibn Battuta) 1304-1369). Ibn Battuta was an Amazigh
Berber) Moroccan Muslim scholar. Over a period of nearly 30 years during
the fourteenth century, Ibn Battuta’s travels covered nearly the whole
of the Islamic world, including parts of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa,
India, and China. Upon his return to the Kingdom of Morocco, he
documented the customs and traditions of the people he encountered in a
book called Tuhfat al-anzar fi gharaaib al-amsar wa ajaaib al asfar A
Gift to those who Contemplate the Wonders of Cities and the Marvels of
Traveling), but became commonly known as Al Rihla, which means “travels”
in Arabic McIntosh-Smith 2003: ix). This book became part of a genre of
Arabic literature that included descriptions of the people and places
visited along with commentary about the cultures encountered. Some
scholars consider Rihla to be among the first examples of early pre-
anthropological writing.

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5

Egypt from Jules Verne’s book Discovery of the Earth.

Later, from the 1400s through 1700s, during the so-called “Age of
Discovery,” Europeans began to not only explore the world but also
colonize it. Europeans exploited natural resources and human labor,
exerting social and political control over people they encountered. New
trade routes, along with the slave trade, fueled a growing European
empire, while forever disrupting previously independent cultures in the
Old World. European ethnocentrism—the belief that one’s own culture is
better than others—was used to justify the subjugation of non European
societies.

As European empires expanded, new ways of understanding the world and
its people arose. Beginning in the eighteenth century in Europe, the Age
of Enlightenment was a social and philosophical movement that privileged
science, rationality, and empiricism while critiquing religious
authority. This crucial period of intellectual development planted the
seeds for many academic disciplines, including anthropology. It gave
ordinary people the capacity to learn through observation and
experience: Anyone could ask questions and use rational thought to
discover things about the natural and social world.

For example, Charles Lyell 1797–1875), a geologist, would observe layers
of rock and argue that Earth’s surface must have changed gradually over
long periods of time, such that it could not be only 6,000 years old as
the Young Earth interpretation in the Bible contends). Charles Darwin
1809–1882), a naturalist and biologist, would observe similarities
between fossils and living specimens, leading him to argue that all life
is descended from a common ancestor. Philosopher John Locke 1632–1704)
would contemplate the origins of society itself. He wrote that people
lived in relative isolation until they agreed to form a society in which
the government would protect their personal property.

These radical ideas about the earth, evolution, and society influenced
early social scientists into the nineteenth century. For example,
Herbert Spencer 1820–1903), inspired by scientific principles, used
biological evolution as a model to understand social evolution: just as
biological life evolved from simple to complex multicellular organisms,
he postulated that societies “evolve” to become larger and more complex.
Lewis Henry Morgan 1818–1881) argued that all societies “progress”
through the same stages of development: savagery—barbarism—civilization.
Societies were classified into these stages based on their kinship
patterns, technologies, subsistence patterns, and so forth. So-called
savage societies, ones that used rudimentary tools and foraged for food,
were said to be stalled in their mental and moral development.

Figure 1.6

Ethnocentric ideas, like those of Morgan, were challenged by
anthropologists in the early twentieth century in both Europe and the
United States. During World War I, Bronislaw Malinowski 1884–1942), a
Polish anthropologist, became stranded on the Trobriand Islands, where
he started to do participant-observation fieldwork: the method of
immersive, long-term fieldwork that cultural anthropologists use today.
By living with and observing the Trobrianders, he realized that their
culture was not “savage,” but rather fulfilled the needs of the people.
He developed a theory to explain human cultural diversity: Each culture
functions to satisfy the specific biological and psychological needs of
its people. While this theory has been critiqued for overemphasizing
individuals apart from culture, it was an early attempt to view other
cultures in more relativistic ways.

Around the same time in the United States, Franz Boas 1858–1942), widely
regarded as the founder of American anthropology, developed the cultural
relativistic approach: the view that cultures differ but are not better
or worse than one another. In his critique of ethnocentric views, Boas
insisted that physical and behavioral differences among so called racial
groups in the United States were shaped by environmental and social
conditions, not biology. In fact, he argued, culture and biology are
distinct realms of experience: Human behaviors are socially learned,
contextual, and flexible, not innate. Further, Boas worked to transform
anthropology into a professional and empirical academic discipline that
integrated the four subdisciplines: cultural anthropology, linguistic
anthropology, archaeology, and biological anthropology.


  THE SUBDISCIPLINES

Figure 1.7

Because human experiences are varied and complex, we need a diversified
tool kit to study them. Anthropology therefore comprises four
subdisciplines: Some are more scientific like biological anthropology),
while others are more humanistic like cultural anthropology). The
scientific subdisciplines tend to use the scientific method to develop
theories that explain human origins, evolution, material remains, or
behaviors. The humanistic subdisciplines tend to use observational
methods and interpretive approaches to understand human beliefs,
languages, behaviors, cultures, and social organization. Findings from
all four subdisciplines contribute to a multifaceted appreciation of
human bio cultural experiences, past and present.


    Cultural Anthropology

Figure 1.8

Cultural anthropologists focus on similarities and differences among
living societies. They suspend their own sense of what is “normal” in
order to understand the perspectives of the people they study cultural
relativism). They learn these perspectives through participant-
observation fieldwork: a method that involves living with, observing,
and learning from the people one studies. Beyond describing another way
of life, cultural anthropologists ask broader questions about humankind:
Are human emotions universal or culturally specific? Does globalization
make us all the same or do we maintain cultural differences? For
cultural anthropologists, no aspect of human life is outside their
purview: They study art, religion, healing, natural disasters, video
gaming, even pet cemeteries. While many cultural anthropologists are
intrigued by human diversity, they realize that people around the world
share much in common.

One famous American cultural anthropologist, Margaret Mead 1901–1978),
conducted several cross-cultural studies of gender and socialization
practices. In the early twentieth century in the United States, people
wondered if the emotional turbulence of American adolescence was caused
by the biology of puberty and thus natural and universal) or something
else. To find out, Mead set off for the Samoan Islands, where she lived
for several months getting to know Samoan teenagers. She learned that
Samoan adolescence was not angst-ridden like it was in the United
States), but rather a relatively tranquil and happy life stage. Upon
returning to the United States, Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa, a
best-selling book that was both sensational and scandalous Mead 1928).
In it, she critiqued U.S. parenting as overly restrictive, and
contrasted it to Samoan parenting, which allowed teenagers to freely
explore their community and even their sexuality. Ultimately, she argued
that nurture i.e., socialization) more than nature played a key role in
the experience of child development.

Figure 1.9

Cultural anthropologists do not always travel far to provide insight
into human experience. In the 1980s, American anthropologist Philippe
Bourgois 1956–) wanted to understand how pockets of extreme poverty
persist amid the wealth and overall high quality of life in the United
States. To answer this question, he lived with Puerto Rican crack
dealers in East Harlem, contextualizing their experiences both
historically in terms of socioeconomic dynamics in Puerto Rico and in
the United States) and presently in terms of social marginalization and
institutional racism). Rather than blame crack dealers for their poor
choices or blame our society for perpetuating inequality, he argued that
both individual choices and social inequality can trap people in the
overlapping worlds of drugs and poverty Bourgois 2003).


    Linguistic Anthropology

Language is a defining trait of human beings. While other animals have
communication systems, only humans have complex, symbolic languages—more
than 6,000 of them! Human language makes it possible to teach and learn,
to plan and think abstractly, to coordinate our efforts, and to
contemplate even our own demise. Linguistic anthropologists ask
questions like: How did language first emerge? How has it evolved and
diversified over time? How has language helped us succeed as a species?
How does language indicate social identity? How does language influence
our views of the world? If you speak two or more languages, you may
experience how language affects you. For example, in English, we say: “I
love you.” But Spanish speakers use different terms—“te amo,” “te
adoro,” “te quiero,” and so on—to convey different kinds of love:
romantic love, platonic love, maternal love, etc. The Spanish language
arguably expresses more nuanced versions of love than the English language

One intriguing line of linguistic anthropological research focuses on
the relationships between language, thought, and culture. It may seem
intuitive that our thoughts come first; after all, we like to say,
“Think before you speak.” However, according to the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis also known as linguistic relativity), the language you speak
allows you to think about some things and not other things. When
Benjamin Whorf 1897–1941) studied the Hopi language, he not only found
word-level differences, but also grammatical differences between Hopi
and English tenses. He wrote that Hopi has no grammatical tenses to
convey the passage of time. Rather, Hopi language only indicates whether
or not something has “manifested.” Whorf argued that English grammatical
tenses past, present, future) inspire a linear sense of time, while Hopi
language inspires a cyclical experience of time Whorf 1956). Some
critics, like German American linguist Ekkehart Malotki 1938–), refute
Whorf’s theory, arguing that Hopi do have linguistic terms for time and
that a linear sense of time is natural and perhaps universal. At the
same time, Malotki recognized that English and Hopi tenses differ,
albeit in ways less pronounced than Whorf proposed Malotki 1983).

Figure 1.10

Other linguistic anthropologists track the emergence and diversification
of languages, while others focus on language use in today’s social
contexts. Still others explore how language is crucial to socialization:
children learn their culture and social identities through language and
nonverbal forms of communication Ochs and Schieffelin 2012).


    Archaeology

Archaeologists focus on the material past: the tools, food, pottery,
art, shelters, seeds, and other objects left behind by people.
Prehistoric archaeologists recover and analyze these materials to
reconstruct the lifeways of past societies that lacked writing. They ask
specific questions like: How did people in a particular area live? What
did they eat? What happened to them? They ask general questions about
humankind: When and why did humans first develop agriculture? How did
cities first develop? What type of interactions did prehistoric people
have with their neighbors?

One key method that archaeologists use to answer their questions is
excavation—a method of careful digging and removing of dirt and stones
to uncover material remains while recording their context.
Archaeological research spans millions of years from human origins to
the present. For example, Kathleen Kenyon 1906–1978), a British
archaeologist, was one of few women working in this field in the 1940s.
While excavating at Jericho which dates back to 10,000 BCE), she
discovered city structures and cemeteries built during the Early Bronze
Age 3,200 yBP in Europe). Based on her findings, she argued that Jericho
is the oldest city continuously occupied by different groups of people
Kenyon 1979).

Figure 1.11

Historical archaeologists study recent societies using material remains
to complement the written record. For example, the Garbage Project,
which began in the 1970s, is an archaeological project based in Tucson,
Arizona. It involves excavating a contemporary landfill as if it were a
conventional dig site. Archaeologists found a difference between what
people say they throw out and what is actually in their trash. In fact,
many landfills hold large amounts of paper products and construction
debris Rathje and Murphy 1992). This finding has practical implications
for creating more environmentally sustainable waste-disposal practices.


    Biological Anthropology

Biological anthropology, which will be thoroughly introduced later in
this chapter, is the study of human origins, evolution, and variation.
Some biological anthropologists focus on our closest living relatives:
monkeys and apes. They examine the biological and behavioral
similarities and differences between nonhuman primates and human
primates us!). Other biological anthropologists focus on extinct human
species, asking questions like: What did our ancestors look like? What
did they eat? When did they start to speak? And, how did they adapt to
new environments?

Many biological anthropologists explore how human genetic and phenotypic
observable) traits vary in response to environmental conditions. For
instance, Nina Jablonski 1953–) asks why darker skin pigmentation is
more prevalent in high ultraviolet UV) contexts like Central Africa),
while lighter skin pigmentation is more prevalent in low UV contexts
like Nordic countries). She explains this pattern in terms of the
interplay among skin pigmentation, UV radiation, folic acid, and vitamin
D. In brief, UV radiation breaks down folic acid, which is essential to
DNA and cell production. Dark skin helps to block UV, thereby protecting
the body’s folic acid reserves in high-UV contexts. Light skin evolved
when humans migrated out of Africa to low-UV contexts, where dark skin
blocks too much UV radiation, compromising the body’s ability to absorb
vitamin D from the sun vitamin D is essential to calcium absorption and
a healthy skeleton). Jablonski shows that the spectrum of skin
pigmentation that we see today evolved to balance UV exposure with the
bodily need for vitamin D and folic acid Jablonski 2012).

Figure 1.12

While some biological anthropologists study hominins modern-day humans
and human ancestors), others focus on nonhuman primates. For example,
Jane Goodall 1934–) has devoted her life to studying wild chimpanzees
Goodall 1996). Beginning in the 1960s when she began her research in
Tanzania, Goodall challenged widely held assumptions about the inherent
differences between humans and apes. At the time, it was assumed that
monkeys and apes lacked the social and emotional traits that made human
beings such exceptional creatures. However, Goodall discovered that,
like humans, chimpanzees also make tools, socialize their young, have
intense emotional lives, and form strong maternal infant bonds. Her work
highlights the value of field-based research in natural settings as it
can reveal the complex lives of nonhuman primates. Throughout this book,
we will learn about many examples of biological anthropological research
that explores our earliest ancestors, our evolution, and our nonhuman
primate cousins.

Figure 1.13


    Applied Anthropology

Sometimes considered a fifth subdiscipline, applied anthropology
involves the practical application of anthropological theories, methods,
and findings to solve real-world problems. Applied anthropologists are
employed outside of academic settings, in both the public and private
sectors, including business or consulting firms, advertising companies,
city government, law enforcement, the medical field, nongovernmental
organizations, and even the military.

Applied anthropologists span the subdisciplines. An applied
archaeologist might work in cultural resource management to assess a
potentially significant archaeological site unearthed during a
construction project. An applied cultural anthropologist could work for
a technology company that seeks to understand the human-technology
interface in order to design better tools.

Medical anthropology is an example of both an applied and theoretical
area of study that draws on all four subdisciplines to understand the
interrelationship of health, illness, and culture. Rather than assume
that disease resides only within the individual body, medical
anthropologists explore the environmental, social, and cultural
conditions that impact the experience of illness. For example, in some
cultures, people believe that illness is caused by an imbalance within
the community. Therefore, a communal response, such as a group healing
ceremony, is necessary to restore the health of the person and the
group. In other cultures, like mainstream U.S. society, people typically
go to a doctor to find the biological cause of an illness and then take
medicine to restore the individual body.

Trained as both a physician and medical anthropologist, Paul Farmer
1959– ) demonstrates the potential of applied anthropology. During his
college years in North Carolina, Farmer’s interest in the Haitian
migrants working on nearby farms inspired him to visit Haiti. There, he
was struck by the poor living conditions and lack of health care
facilities. Eventually, as a physician, he would return to Haiti to
treat diseases, like tuberculosis and cholera, that were rarely seen in
the United States. As an anthropologist, he would contextualize the
suffering of his Haitian patients in relation to the historical, social,
and political forces that impact Haiti, the poorest country in the
Western Hemisphere Farmer 2006). Today, he not only writes academic
books about human suffering, he also takes action. Through the work of
Partners in Health, a nonprofit organization that he cofounded, he has
opened health clinics in many resource-poor countries and trained local
staff to administer care. In this way, he applies his medical and
anthropological training to improve people’s lives.

Figure 1.14


  WHAT IS BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY?

The focus of this book is the anthropological subdiscipline of
biological anthropology, which is the study of the human species from a
biological perspective. Biological anthropology uses a scientific and
evolutionary approach to answer many of the same questions all
anthropologists are concerned with: What does it mean to be human? Where
do we come from? Who are we today? Biological anthropologists are
concerned with exploring how humans vary biologically, how humans adapt
to their changing environments, and how humans have evolved over time
and continue to evolve today. Some biological anthropologists also study
nonhuman primates to learn about what we have in common and how we differ.

You may have heard biological anthropology referred to by another name—
physical anthropology. Physical anthropology is an area of research that
dates to as far back as the eighteenth century, when it focused mostly
on physical variation among humans. Some early physical anthropologists
were also physicians interested in comparing and contrasting human
skeletons. These researchers dedicated themselves to measuring bodies
and skulls anthropometry and craniometry) in great detail. Many also
acted under the misguided and oftentimes racist belief that human
biological races existed and it was possible to differentiate between,
or even rank, such races by measuring differences in human anatomy. Most
anthropologists today agree that there are no biological human races and
that all humans alive today are members of the same species and
subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. We recognize that the differences we
can see between peoples’ bodies are due to a wide variety of factors,
including our environment, our diet, the activities we engage in, and
our genetic makeup.

Figure 1.15

The subdiscipline has changed a great deal since these early years.
Biological anthropologists no longer set out to identify human
differences in order to assign people to groups, like races. The focus
is instead understanding how and why human and primate variation
developed through evolutionary processes. The name for the subdiscipline
has transitioned in recent years to reflect these changes. Many believe
the term biological anthropology better reflects the subdiscipline’s
focus today, which includes genetic and molecular research.
Nevertheless, the term physical anthropology is still common.


    The Scope of Biological Anthropology

Just as anthropology as a discipline is wide ranging and holistic, so
too is the subdiscipline of biological anthropology. There are at least
six subfields within biological anthropology. Each subfield focuses on a
different dimension of what it means to be human from a biological
perspective. Through their varied research in these subfields,
biological anthropologists try to answer the following key questions:

  * What is our place in nature? How are we related to other organisms?
    What makes us unique?
  * What are our origins? What influenced our evolution?
  * How and when did we move/migrate across the globe?
  * How are humans around the world today different from and similar to
    each other? What influences these patterns
      o f variation? What are the patterns of our recent evolution and
        how do we continue to evolve?

The terms subfield and subdiscipline are very similar and can be
confusing because they are often used interchangeably. In this book we
use subdiscipline to refer to the four major areas of focus that make up
the discipline of anthropology: biological anthropology, cultural
anthropology, archaeological anthropology, and linguistic anthropology.
When we use the term subfield we are referring to the different
specializations within biological anthropology. These subfields include
primatology, paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, bioarchaeology,
forensic anthropology, and human biology.


    Primatology

Primatologists study the anatomy, behavior, ecology and genetics of
living and extinct nonhuman primates, including apes, monkeys, tarsiers,
lemurs, and lorises, because nonhuman primates are our closest living
biological relatives. The research done by primatologists gives us
insights into how evolution has shaped our species and primates in
general. Through such studies we have learned that all primates share a
suite of traits. Primates, for instance, have nails instead of claws,
have hands that can grasp and manipulate objects, invest great amounts
of time and energy in raising just a few offspring, and have complex
social behaviors.

Figure 1.16

Similar to Jane Goodall’s studies of wild chimpanzees, Dian Fossey’s
research among mountain gorillas provided scientists with some
illuminating insights into our primate cousins. She learned, for
instance, that gorillas are like humans in that they have families and
form strong maternal-infant relationships. Gorillas mourn the death of
their group members, and also exhibit behaviors similar to humans such
as playing and tickling. Importantly, the work of Dian Fossey, Jane
Goodall, Karen B. Strier see Appendix B), and others focus on primate
conservation: They have brought attention to the fact that 60% of
primates are currently threatened with extinction Estrada et al. 2017).


    Paleoanthropology

Figure 1.17

Paleoanthropologists study human ancestors from the distant past to
learn how, why, and where they evolved. Because these ancestors lived
before there were written records, paleoanthropologists have to rely on
various types of physical evidence to come to their conclusions. This
evidence includes fossilized remains particularly fossilized bones),
artifacts such as stone tools, and the contexts in which these items are
found. Paleoanthropologists have made some monumental discoveries that
have shaped the way we understand hominin evolution hominin refers to
humans and fossil relatives that are more similar to us than chimpanzees).

Figure 1.18

One such discovery was made in Ethiopia in 1974 by paleoanthropologist
Donald C. Johanson. He found the remains of a 3.2-million-year-old
fossilized skeleton he named Lucy she was named after the Beatles song
“Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which the archaeologists played
repeatedly at the celebration the evening after her discovery). Lucy was
a remarkable find because she represented a new hominin species,
Australopithecus afarensis, and the skeleton was over 40% complete. Like
humans, she was bipedal walked on two legs) and likely used tools.
However she had a much smaller brain than humans, larger teeth and
likely spent time in trees and on the ground. She was, in many ways, a
transitional species between humans and earlier primates.

Since the discovery of Lucy, several hundred more Australopithicus
fossils have been found in Africa, as you will learn more about in
chapter nine. From these finds, we know that many Australopithicus
species flourished for millions of years. Some of these species likely
led to our genus Homo), while others appear to have died off. These
findings helped us learn that human evolution did not occur in a simple,
straight line, but branched out in many directions. Most branches were
evolutionary “dead ends.” Humans are now the only hominins left living
on planet Earth. Paleoanthropologists frequently work together with
other scientists such as archaeologists, geologists, and paleontologists
to interpret and understand the evidence they find. Paleoanthropology is
a dynamic subfield of biological anthropology that contributes
significantly to our understanding of human origins and evolution.


    Molecular Anthropology

Molecular anthropologists use molecular techniques primarily genetics)
to compare ancient and modern populations and to study living
populations of humans and nonhuman primates. By examining DNA sequences
in different populations, molecular anthropologists can estimate how
closely related two populations are, as well as identify population
events, like a population decline, that explain the observed genetic
patterns. This information helps scientists trace patterns of migration
or identify how people have adapted to different environments over time.

Some exciting work that molecular anthropologists are doing today is
studying the genetic material they find in ancient specimens. From this
work we have learned, for instance, that many people in the world today
have inherited some DNA from Neanderthals and/or a newly discovered
species known as Denisovans. This tells us that at some point in our
ancient past our modern human ancestors mated with Neanderthals and
Denisovans and their genes were passed down to us. Moreover, it is now
believed some of these genes helped our human ancestors survive.

From the work of molecular anthropologists we have also learned which
genes distinguish us genetically from our closest living relatives:
chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. In the case of chimpanzees, our
genomes are somewhere between 96% and 99% identical Prufer et al. 2012;
Relethford and Bolnick 2018). Yet that 2-4% contributes to a lot of
physical morphological) and behavioral differences! Molecular
anthropology is a field changing quickly as new techniques and
discoveries shape our understanding of ourselves and our nonhuman
primate cousins.


    Bioarchaeology

Bioarchaeologists study human skeletal remains and the soils and other
materials found in and around the remains. They use the research methods
of skeletal biology, mortuary studies, osteology, and archaeology to
answer questions about the lives and lifeways of past populations.
Through studying the bones and burials of past peoples,
bioarchaeologists search for answers to how people lived and died. For
example, bioarchaeologists can estimate the sex, height, and age at
which someone died. They can also gather clues about their lifestyle
based on the skeleton, since bones respond to muscle use and developed
muscle attachments may indicate extensive muscle use. Most
bioarchaeologists study not just individuals, but populations, to reveal
biological and cultural patterns.

Bioarchaeologists are also interested in learning about ancient people’s
health and nutrition, the diseases they suffered from and injuries they
suffered. They may also look for clues to what people ate by examining
the wear and condition of teeth or, in the case of well preserved
specimens, the residue from their last meals. Chemical studies of bones
and teeth can also provide information about people’s diets as well as
where people lived and moved during their lives. Bioarchaeologists can
reconstruct human migration and track the growth or decline of
populations by looking for patterns of malnutrition, disease, and
activities.

Not all places are ideal for finding well-preserved human remains.
Environments that are very cold, very dry, or devoid of oxygen can
preserve corpses for many years, sometimes centuries. In 1991, a group
of hikers found the body of a man frozen in the Italian Alps. Because of
how well-preserved the body was, the discoverers initially thought he
might be a hiker who had died several years prior. However, once
bioarchaeologists had a chance to study the body, they discovered the
man had died around 5,300 years ago! Nicknamed Őtzi, or the Iceman,
bioarchaeologists determined he was wearing leggings, a coat, and shoes
made of leather and fur when he died. They also discovered he had an
arrow embedded in his left life. shoulder, suffered from osteoporosis,
had multiple tattoo patterns throughout his body and was infected by the
bacterium H. pylori, a common human stomach pathogen that likely gave
him significant stomach pain. Researchers later found similarities
between the strain of H. plyori bacterium that plagued Őtzi and the
strains seen today in parts of Central and Southern Asia. Modern-day
Europeans have strains of the bacterium that reflect mixtures of both
African and Asian strains. This research helped scientists demonstrate
that for thousands of years after Őtzi died human groups were migrating
all over the world, even returning to Africa and then moving back north
again. Research within the subfield of bioarchaeology is continually
providing important insights into humanity’s past.


    Forensic Anthropology

Figure 1.19

Forensic anthropologists use many of the same techniques as
bioarchaeologists to develop a biological profile for unidentified
individuals including estimating sex, age at death, height, ancestry,
diseases they had, or other unique identifying features. They may also
go to a crime or accident scene to assist in the search and recovery of
human remains, and/or identify trauma, like fractures, on bones. The
popular television program Bones told the fictional story of a forensic
anthropologist, Dr. Temperance Brennan, who brilliantly interpreted
clues from victims’ bones and helped solve crimes. While the show
includes forensic anthropology techniques and responsibilities, it also
includes many inaccuracies. For example, forensic anthropologists
generally do not collect trace evidence like hair or fibers, run DNA
tests, carry weapons, or solve criminal cases. These researchers play an
important role in aiding law enforcement to identify human remains.

Some forensic anthropologists have been called on to interpret the
remains of victims of mass murders, such as the case of the town of El
Mozote in El Salvador. In December of 1981, during the country’s intense
civil war, over 1,000 people were brutally killed by the Salvadoran
right wing military in and around a church in the town of El Mozote.
Researchers later discovered that the U.S. government, under President
Reagan, funded and trained the Special Forces of the Salvadoran Army who
perpetrated the massacre. Starting in the mid-1990s, human rights
organizations began to investigate the incident as a war crime, and
finally, in 2015, a team of forensic anthropologists were called upon to
study the bones of the deceased and try to reconstruct what happened at
El Mozote and how the victims died Binford 2016). Their work provided
important clues that helped bring some closure to the families and
survivors of this horrible incident. It also provided answers to
investigators looking to bring accountability to those responsible.

Figure 1.20

Forensic anthropology is considered an “applied” area of biological
anthropology, since it is a practical application of anthropological
theories, methods, and findings to solve real-world problems. While many
forensic anthropologists are also academics and work for colleges and
universities, some are employed by other agencies. Forensic anthropology
is an active area of applied biological anthropology and a career that
is useful all over the world.


    Human Biology

Many biological anthropologists do work that falls under the label human
biology. This type of research is varied, but tends to explore how the
human body is impacted by different physical environments, cultural
influences, and nutrition. These include studies of human variation or
the physiological differences among humans around the world. For
instance, some humans have the ability to digest lactase in milk into
adulthood, and others lack this ability. Some humans have an enhanced
ability to resist malarial infections. Some humans tend to be very tall
and lean while others are short and stocky. Still others tend to have
dark skin and others lighter brown and even pale skin colors.

Some of these anthropologists study human adaptations to extreme
environments, which includes individual physiological responses and
genetic advantages populations develop to help them live there. For
example, people born at very high elevations adapt to life in an
environment with decreased oxygen. Research has shown that populations
that have lived for many generations at very high elevations, such as
those in parts of Tibet, Peru, and Ethiopia, have developed long-term
physiological adaptations. These include large lungs and chests and
enhanced oxygen respiration and blood circulation systems that help them
survive in an environment that otherwise might cause life-threatening
hypoxia oxygen deprivation) Bigham 2016). Some anthropologists believe
Tibetans’ adaptation to living in high altitudes, estimated to have
occurred in less than 3,000 years, is one of the fastest cases of human
evolution in the scientific record!

In addition to studying how humans adapt to their physical environments
and vary biologically, some biological anthropologists are interested in
how nutrition and disease affect human growth and development. The
modern Western diet that is high in processed starches, refined
carbohydrates, saturated fats, sugar, and salt is increasingly causing a
number of metabolic conditions. As cultural groups around the world
begin to replace their traditional diets with these processed food
products, they begin to experience a rise in diseases that plague
Western societies, such as diabetes, heart disease, and hormonal
imbalances. Other biological anthropologists have asked why girls in
Western societies have begun to menstruate earlier sometimes as young as
seven years of age). A definitive explanation is still unresolved. Some
speculate this may have to do with changes in our diet, while others
believe it may also have to do with exposure to chemicals in the
environment or other factors. Biological anthropologists engage in a
wide range of research that span the breadth of human biological diversity.

The six subfields of biological anthropology—primatology,
paleoanthropology, bioarchaeology, molecular anthropology, forensic
anthropology, and human biology—all help us understand what it means to
be biologically human. From molecular analyses of our cells, to studies
of our changing skeleton, to research on our nonhuman primate cousins,
biological anthropology helps answer the central question of the larger
discipline of anthropology: What does it mean to be human? Despite their
different foci, all biological anthropologists share a commitment to
using a scientific approach to study how we became the complex,
adaptable species we are today.


  ANTHROPOLOGISTS AS SCIENTISTS

Biological anthropologists use the scientific method as a way of
learning about the world around them. Many people think of science as
taking place in a sterile laboratory, and sometimes it does, but in
biological anthropology it also occurs many other places, such as at a
research station in Ethiopia, a field site in Tanzania, and a town in El
Salvador. To understand how information in this field is established, it
is important to recognize what science is and is not) as well as
understand how the scientific method actually works.


    Recognizing Science

Science combines our natural curiosity with our ability to experiment so
we can understand the world around us and address needs in our
communities. Thanks to science, meteorologists can predict the weather,
it takes only a relatively small number of farmers to grow enough food
to feed our large population, our medicine continues to improve, and
over 90% of Americans have a cell phone.

Anyone can participate in science—not just academics. In fact, children
are often some of the best scientists. An early, well-known
psychologist, Jean Piaget 1896–1980), argued that a child is a “little
scientist,” internally motivated to experiment and explore their world.
This can be seen when an infant repeatedly drops a toy to see if the
parent will pick it up, or when a four-year-old sincerely asks “why”
again and again. Maria Montessori 1870–1952), an Italian doctor and
educator, was interested in how children learn. Through her research,
she also recognized that children have natural scientific tendencies.
Children have a desire to explore their environment, ask questions, use
their imaginations, and learn by doing. In 1907, Montessori opened a
school to foster children’s natural desire to learn this way. This
developed a child-centered teaching method that has spread around the
world and is being used in over 22,000 schools today. In anthropology
and other scientific fields, the process of learning is more formalized,
but scientists still benefit from the curiosity that motivates children
and still experience the thrill of discovery.

Science represents both a body of knowledge and the process for learning
that knowledge the scientific method). Scientific claims can, at times,
be difficult to distinguish from other information. Science also
incorporates a broad range of methods to collect data, adding to the
difficulty of knowing what science really is. This section of the
chapter will address four key characteristics that help define and
recognize science: 1) science studies the physical and natural world and
how it works, 2) scientific explanations must be testable and refutable,
3) science relies on empirical evidence, and 4) science involves the
scientific community.


      Science Studies the Physical and Natural World and How It Works

Figure 1.21

There are very few questions that are considered off-limits in science.
That being said, the scope of scientific investigation is generally
focused on natural phenomena and natural processes and excludes the
supernatural. People often regard the supernatural, whether it be a
ghost, luck, or god, as working outside the laws of the universe, which
makes it difficult to study with a scientific approach. Science neither
supports nor contradicts the existence of supernatural powers—it simply
does not include the supernatural in its explanations.

Figure 1.22

Our physical and natural universe ranges from very small e.g.,
electrons) to the very large e.g., Earth itself and galaxies beyond it).
Scientists often design their research to address how and why natural
forces influence our physical and natural word. In biological
anthropology, we focus our questions on humans as well as primate
species, both living and extinct. We ask questions like: What influences
a primate’s diet? Why do humans walk bipedally? And did Neanderthals and
modern humans interbreed?


      Scientific Explanations Must Be Testable and Refutable

The goal of scientists is to identify a research question and then
identify the best answer s) to that question. For example, an excavation
of a prehistoric cemetery may reveal that many of the people buried
there had unhealed fractures when they died, and the lead anthropologist
may ask, “Why did this population experience more broken bones than
their neighbors?” There might be multiple explanations to address this
question, such as a lack of calcium in their diets, participation in
dangerous work, or violent conflict with neighbors; these explanations
are considered hypotheses. In the past, you might have learned that a
hypothesis is an “educated guess,” but in science, hypotheses are much
more than that. A scientific hypothesis reflects a scientist’s
knowledge-based experiences and background research. A hypothesis is
better defined as an explanation of observed facts; hypotheses explain
how and why observed phenomena are the way they are.

Scientific hypotheses should generate expectations that are testable.
For example, if the best explanation regarding our prehistoric
population was that they were experiencing violent conflict with their
neighbors, we should expect to find clues, like weapons or protective
walls around their homes, in the anthropological record to support this.
Alternatively, if this population did not experience violent conflict
with their neighbors, we may eventually be able to gather enough
evidence to rule out refute) this explanation. An important part of
science is rigorous testing. Science does not prove any hypothesis.
However, a strong hypothesis is one that has strong supporting evidence
and has not yet been disproven.


      Science Relies on Empirical Evidence

The word “empirical” refers to experience that is verified by
observation rather than evidence that derives primarily from logic or
theory). In anthropology, much evidence about our world is collected by
observation through fieldwork or in a laboratory. The most reliable
studies are based on accurately and precisely recorded observations.
Scientists value studies that explain exactly what methods were used, so
their data collection and analysis processes are reproducible. This
allows for other scientists to expand the study or provide new insights
into the observations.


      Science Involves the Scientific Community

Contrary to many Hollywood science fiction films, good science is not
carried out in isolation in a secret basement laboratory but rather is
done as part of a community. Scientists pay attention to what others
have done before them, present new ideas to each other, and publish in
scientific journals. Most scientific research is collaborative, bringing
together researchers with different types of specialized knowledge to
work on a shared project. Today, thanks to technology, scientific
projects can bring together researchers from different backgrounds,
experiences, locations, and perspectives. Most big anthropological
questions—“Where did modern humans develop?” “What genetic changes make
us uniquely human?” “How did cooperative behavior evolve?”—cannot be
addressed with one simple study, but are tested with different lines of
evidence and by different scientists over time.

Working within a scientific community supports one of the most valuable
aspects of science: that science is self correcting. Science that is
openly communicated with others allows for a system with checks and
balances: competing explanations can be proposed and questionable
studies can be reevaluated. Ultimately, the belief is that through
science the best explanations will stand the test of time.


    How Science Works: The Scientific Method

Most students have learned the scientific method as a simple linear, or
perhaps circular, process. Textbooks may phrase each step differently,
but students usually recognize that the process begins with making
observations about the natural world. Another important step is the
selection or development of a scientific hypothesis. From the hypothesis
a set of predictions can be made, which are then tested by
experimentation or by making additional observations. Scientific
predictions are often phrased as “if… then…” statements, such as “If
hypothesis A is true, then this experiment will show outcome B.” The
results of a scientific study should then either support or reject the
hypothesis.

Figure 1.23

This relatively simple version of the scientific method is valuable as
it highlights the key aspects that should be present in any scientific
research experiment or scientific paper. However, this simplistic view
of the scientific method does not accurately represent the dynamic and
creative side of science, nor does it highlight the complex steps that
are incorporated into a scientist’s routine.

Figure 1.24

Figure 1.24 provides an alternative representation of the scientific
method that emphasizes the many paths to scientific discovery. While
still incorporating the key components of making observations, testing
ideas, and interpreting results, this chart shows that scientific ideas
have many possible starting points and influences, and scientists often
repeat steps and circle back around. Gathering evidence does not always
rest on experiments in the laboratory. Evaluating data is not always
clear-cut, and results are sometimes surprising or inconclusive. Many
important discoveries were in fact made by mistake. For example,
engineer Percy Spencer accidentally melted a chocolate bar in his pocket
with a magnetron, which became the first microwave, and Spencer Silver
invented the adhesive for 3M Post-it ® notes while trying to develop a
strong glue. The real scientific process is more similar to the
philosophy of the animated television character Ms. Frizzle from The
Magic School Bus, “Take chances, make mistakes, get messy.”

Two key components lacking in the simple version of the scientific
method are exploration and discovery. There are many reasons that a
scientist might choose a particular research question: they may be
motivated by personal experience, struck by something they read about,
or inspired by a student’s question in class. Often scientific research
reveals more questions than answers, so experienced researchers rarely
lack problems to solve. But identifying a research question is just part
of the process; most scientists spend more time exploring the
literature, sharing ideas, asking questions, and planning their research
project than conducting the test itself.

Science itself is a social enterprise that is influenced by cultural
issues and values, as well as funding priorities. For example,
corporations are the biggest funders of scientific research, followed
next by government agencies like the National Science Foundation which
often fund research done by academics at colleges and universities).
Those organizations have great influence on what is considered valuable
research at any given time. For example, there are many diseases that
the World Health Organization WHO) has classified as “neglected tropical
diseases,” including dengue, leprosy, rabies, and hookworm, that affect
an estimated 1 billion people, mostly in impoverished areas. These
debilitating diseases can be as deadly as diseases that receive more
attention, like AIDS and tuberculosis, but these tropical diseases
receive comparatively little funding when it comes to research, drug
development, and health care development Farmer et al. 2013).

Also very important to the scientific process are interactions within
the scientific community. Scientific collaboration can take place
through informal discussion over a cup of coffee, but also includes more
formal interactions, such as presenting at conferences and engaging in
scholarly peer review. Scholarly peer review is the process where an
author’s work must pass the scrutiny of other experts in the field
before being published in a journal or book. This helps keep scientists
accountable for ethically responsible research projects and papers.
Additionally, presenting data at conferences and in articles and books
allows researchers to potentially receive critical feedback from
academic peers and others to test these ideas and further the field of
science toward identifying the best explanations.


    Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws

Scientific investigation occurs at many levels, from investigating
individual cases for example, “What is causing this child’s mysterious
illness?”) to understanding processes that affect most of us “What is
the ideal amount of sleep for an adult?”). All of these questions are
important and will generate different types of testable scientific
explanations. So far, we have used the term “hypothesis” to describe
these scientific explanations for why observed phenomena are the way
they are. Hypotheses are typically explanations that address a narrow
set of phenomena, such as in anthropology), a particular population or
primate species.

In science, a theory is an explanation of observations that addresses a
wide range of phenomena. Like hypotheses, theories also explain how or
why something occurs, rely on empirical evidence, and are testable and
able to be refuted. Because the term theory is often used casually
outside of science, you may hear people try to dismiss a scientific
claim as “just a theory.” In science there are often multiple competing
theories, but over time some are eliminated, leaving the theory or
theories that best explain the most evidence. Scientific theories that
have stood the test of time are thus supported by many lines of evidence
and are usually reliable. Some well-tested theories accepted by most
scientists include the theory of general relativity, which explains the
law of gravitation and its relation to other forces, and evolutionary
theory, which describes how heritable traits can change in a population
over time.

While scientific hypotheses and theories share many characteristics,
laws are quite different. A law is a prediction about what will happen
given certain conditions, not an explanation for how or why it happens.
A law is not a “mature” version of a theory. For example, Newton’s
universal law of gravity allows us to predict the gravitational force F)
between any two objects using the equation F = G m1m2)/r2, but it does
not explain why gravity works. Laws are often mathematical, and some
well-known laws include Newton’s three laws of motion and laws of
genetic inheritance. Laws are important, and their discovery often
promotes the development of theories.

To demonstrate how important laws can be—and show how unusual things can
inspire scientific discoveries—we can use the story of the ancient Greek
mathematician and inventor Archimedes. Archimedes’ buoyancy principle is
a law that is useful for many things, including density calculations and
designing ships. Purportedly, he made this discovery when he noticed the
water level rise in the bathtub when he climbed in it. Realizing its
importance, he is said to have shouted “Eureka” and proceeded to run
naked through the city of Syracuse. While this is a fun story that may
or may not be true), it does remain that scientific laws, alongside
scientific hypotheses and theories, do have a very important role in the
scientific process and in generating scientific explanations about our
natural world.

Figure 1.25


  WAYS OF KNOWING: SCIENCE, FAITH, AND ANTHROPOLOGY

In anthropology, we recognize that there are many ways people have of
knowing things. Human knowledge is very diverse. For instance, you might
know that fingernails are softer than metal because as a child you
accidentally stapled through your fingernail while doing an art project
a coauthor of this chapter once experienced this). This would be an
example of knowledge you gained through experience. You might also know
that inserting a knife into an electrical outlet is dangerous and could
harm your health. Hopefully you know this not from personal experience,
but through instruction from parents, teachers, and others in your
social group. The degree to which humans rely on and benefit from the
experiential knowledge of others is an important characteristic of what
makes us human!

A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of people and is used
to explain and predict phenomena is called a knowledge system. Human
knowledge systems are diverse and reflect the wide range of cultures and
societies throughout the world and through time.

Science and religion are both knowledge systems and it is useful to
understand how they differ. The type of knowledge gained from science is
oftentimes called scientific understanding. As we have explored in the
previous section, scientific understanding can change and relies on
evidence and rigorous, repeated testing. Religious ways of knowing are
called belief, which is different from scientific understanding because
it does not require repeated testing or validation

although it can rely on observations and experiences). Instead,
religious belief relies on trust and faith.

Since the beginning of the discipline, anthropologists have been
interested in understanding religion because it can be important to
understanding human cultures. However, religion as well as magic,
witchcraft, and other faith-based traditions) has proven notoriously
difficult to define from an anthropological perspective, partly because
there are so many religious practices and beliefs throughout the world
that play different roles in people’s lives. For instance, some
religions have multiple supernatural deities or gods, such as Hinduism,
while others have hardly any supernatural elements, such as Buddhism.
Some have beliefs that relate to energies and powers found in certain
objects, animals, and people, while others place faith in ancestors and
collective cultural heritage. Some religions provide instruction on
nearly every day-to-day activity a person does, while others provide
merely a rough framework for how one should act and behave. Emile
Durkheim 1858-1917), an early social scientist, offered a definition of
religion as “a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred
things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and
practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who
adhere to them” Durkheim 2008).

Different individuals, cultures and societies may place more value on
one type of knowing than another, although most use a combination that
includes science and religion. In fact, in the early twentieth century,
Bronisław Malinowski 1884-1942), an important early anthropologist,
concluded that all societies use religion and science in some way or
another. These are common ways that humans have of knowing our world.

In contemporary societies such as the United States, science and some)
religions conflict on the topic of human origins. Nearly every culture
and society has a unique origin story that explains where they came from
and how they came to be who they are today. These stories are often
integrated into the culture’s religious belief system. Many
anthropologists are interested in faith-based origin stories and other
beliefs because they show us how a particular group of people explain
the world and their place in it. Anthropologists also value scientific
understanding as the basis for how humans vary biologically and change
over time. In other words, anthropologists value the multiple knowledge
systems of different groups and use them to understand the human
condition in a broad and inclusive way.

It is also important to note that scientists often depend on the local
knowledge of the people they work with to help them understand elements
of the natural or physical world that science has not yet investigated.
Many groups, including indigenous peoples, know about the world through
prolonged relationships with the environment. Indigenous knowledge
systems—those ways of knowing about and explaining the world that are
specific to an indigenous community or group—are informed by their own
empirical observation of a specific environment and passed down over
generations.

While religion and indigenous knowledge systems may play a complementary
role in helping anthropologists understand the human condition, they are
distinct from science. The anthropological subdiscipline of biological
anthropology is based on scientific ways of knowing about humans and
human origins. In this text we will exclusively explore what science
tells us about how humans came to be and why we are the way we are
today. Therefore, you do not need to believe in evolution to master this
material, because belief is not a scientific way of knowing. For this
textbook, you only need to understand the scientific perspective s) of
evolution.

Throughout our lives, each of us work to reconcile and integrate into
our worldview the different ways we have of knowing things. This is part
of our lifelong intellectual journey. It is also, in our opinion, one of
the most exciting parts of learning. We are pleased you have joined us
on this journey of knowledge about humanity and yourself! Welcome!


    Review Questions

  * What are some key approaches to anthropological research?
  * How has the discipline of anthropology changed over time?
  * What are some similarities and differences between the
    subdisciplines? How does the “fifth subdiscipline” of applied
    anthropology fit within the larger discipline of anthropology?
  * What are some subfields of biological anthropology and what do those
    anthropologists study?
  * What is science? What is the scientific method? How does science
    compare to other ways of knowing?


    Key Terms

Belief (religious): A firmly held opinion or conviction typically based
on spiritual apprehension rather than empirical proof.

Bipedal: Habitually using only two legs to walk. Cultural relativism:
The anthropological practice of suspending judgment and seeking to
understand another culture on its own terms sympathetically enough so
that the culture appears to be a coherent and meaningful design for
living. Empirical: Evidence that is verifiable by observation or
experience instead of relying primarily on logic or theory.
Ethnocentrism: The opinion that one’s own way of life is natural or
correct and the only true way of being fully human. Faith (religious):
Complete trust or confidence in the doctrines of a religion, typically
based on spiritual apprehension rather than empirical proof.

Historical archaeologists: Archaeologists who excavate and analyze
material remains to supplement a society’s written records.

Holism: The idea that the parts of a system interconnect and interact to
make up the whole. Hominins: Species that are regarded as human,
directly ancestral to humans, or very closely related to humans. Human
variation: The range of forms of any human characteristic, such as body
shape or skin color. Human adaptation: The ways in which human bodies,
people, or cultures change, often in ways better suited to the
environment or social context.

Hypothesis: Explanation of observed facts; explains how and why observed
phenomena are the way they are. Scientific hypotheses rely on empirical
evidence, are testable, and are able to be refuted.

Indigenous: Refers to people who are the original settlers of a given
region and have deep ties to that place. Also known as First Peoples,
Aboriginal Peoples, or Native Peoples, these populations are in contrast
to other groups who have settled, occupied, or colonized the area more
recently.

Knowledge system: A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of
people and is used to explain and predict phenomena.

Law: A prediction about what will happen given certain conditions;
typically mathematical. Participant observation: A research method
common in cultural anthropology that involves living with, observing,
and participating in the same activities as the people one studies.

Prehistoric archaeologists: Archaeologists who survey, excavate, and
analyze material remains to study civilizations that lacked written records.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The principle that the language you speak allows
you to think about some things and not other things. This is also known
as the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Scholarly peer review: The process where an author’s work must pass the
scrutiny of other experts in the field before being published in a
journal or book.

Subdiscipline: These refer to the four major areas that make up the
discipline of anthropology: biological anthropology, cultural
anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology.

Subfield: In this book, subfield refers to the different specializations
within biological anthropology, including primatology,
paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, bioarchaeology, forensic
anthropology, and human biology.

Theory: An explanation of observations that typically addresses a wide
range of phenomena. Understanding (scientific): Knowledge accumulated by
systematic scientific study, supported by rigorous testing and organized
by general principles.


    About the Authors

Katie Nelson, Ph.D.


      Inver Hills Community College, knelson@inverhills.edu,
      www.kanelson.com


        Katie Nelson

Katie Nelson is an instructor of anthropology at Inver Hills Community
College. Her research focuses on migration in human history and
citizenship s), identity, belonging and state mechanisms of migrant
control in the contemporary United States, Mexico, and Morocco.

She received her B.A. in anthropology and Latin American studies from
Macalester College, her M.A. in anthropology from the University of
California, Santa Barbara, an M.A. in education and instructional
technology from the University of Saint Thomas, and her Ph.D. fromCIESAS
Occidente Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologi
a Social –Center for Research and Higher Education in Social
Anthropology), based in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Katie views teaching and learning as central to her practice as an
anthropologist and as mutually reinforcing elements of her professional
life. She is the former chair of the Teaching Anthropology Interest
Group 2016–2018) of the General A nthropology Division of the A merican
A nthropological A ssociation and currently serves as the online content
editor for theTeaching and Learning Anthropology Journal. She has
contributed to several open access textbook projects, both as an author
and an editor, and views the affordability of quality learning materials
as an important piece of the equity and inclusion puzzle in higher
education.

Lara Braff, Ph.D.


      Grossmont College, Lara.Braff@gcccd.edu


        Lara Braff

Beth Shook, Ph.D.

Lara Braff is an instructor of anthropology at Grossmont College, where
she teaches cultural anthropology and biological anthropology courses.
She received her B.A. in anthropology and Spanish from the University of
California at Berkeley and both her M.A. and Ph.D. in comparative human
development from the University of Chicago, where she specialized in
medical anthropology. Her research has focused on social identities and
disparities in the context of reproduction and medicine in Mexico and
the U.S..

Lara’s concerns about the social ramifications of inequality have guided
her research projects, teaching practices, and involvement with open
access projects like this textbook. Recently, motivated by the desire to
make college more affordable and accessible to all students, she has
been serving as co-coordinator of Grossmont College’s Open Educational
Resources OER) and Zero Textbook Cost ZTC) degree initiatives.


      California State University, Chico, bashook@csuchico.edu


        Beth Shook

Beth Shook is a lecturer in the anthropology department at California
State University, Chico. She received her B.A. in anthropology and in
molecular biology from Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa) and her
M.A. and Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of California, Davis.
While she is broadly trained in anthropology, her research has been in
molecular anthropology and research interests have focused on
prehistory, history, and contemporary concerns of indigenous North
Americans.

Beth enjoys teaching courses in multiple subdisciplines, as well as
mentoring graduate students in teaching. Additionally, she coleads Chico
State’s Affordable Learning Solutions CAL$) program, is committed to
programs that prioritize diversity, and serves on the Society for
Anthropology in Community Colleges

SACC) Executive Board as vice president for Membership and Development &
Regional Networks chair.

Kelsie Aguilera, M.A.


      Leeward Community College, kelsieag@hawaii.edu

Kelsie Aguilera

Kelsie Aguilera is an assistant professor of anthropology at Leeward
Community College. Located on the island of O’ahu, Leeward Community
College is part of the University of Hawai’i System and holds a special
commitment to Native Hawaiian education. At Leeward, Kelsie teaches
anthropology courses in all of the subdisciplines and serves on the Open
Educational Resources committee. Committed to the open-door mission of
community colleges, she previously taught anthropology at Miami-Dade
College.

Kelsie received her B.A. in anthropology from the University of Miami
and her M.A. in anthropology from Binghamton University. She serves as
treasurer on the executive board of the Society for Anthropology in
Community Colleges SACC) and continues to work hard toward making
anthropology accessible and relevant for her students.


    For Further Exploration

American Anthropological Association website: https://
www.americananthro.org/ <https://www.americananthro.org/> Partners in
Health: https://www.pih.org/ <https://www.pih.org/> Understanding
Science. 2018. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 3 January.

http://www.understandingscience.org. <http://www.understandingscience.org./>

Anticole, Matt. What’s the difference between a scientific law and
theory? TedEd Lesson. https://ed.ted.com/lessons/ <https://ed.ted.com/
lessons/>

what-s-the-difference-between-a-scientific-law-and-theory-matt-
anticole#watch


    References


      Bigham, Abigail W. 2016. “Genetics of Human Origin and Evolution:
      High-Altitude Adaptations.” Current Opinion in

Genetics & Development 41: 8–13.


      Binford, Leigh. 2016. The El Mozote Massacre: Human Rights and
      Global Implications. Tucson: University of Arizona

Press.

Bourgois, Phillippe. 2003. In Search of Respect. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Durkheim, Emile. 2008. The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life. Translated by Carol Cosman and Edited by Mark S.

Cladis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Farmer, Paul. 2006. AIDS and Accusation: Haiti and the Geography of
Blame. Berkeley: University of California Press. Farmer, Paul, Matthew
Basilico, Vanessa Kerry, Madeleine Ballard, Anne Becker, Gene Bukhman,
Ophelia Dahl, et al. “Global Health Priorities for the Early Twenty-
first Century.” In Reimagining Global Health: An Introduction, edited by
Paul Farmer, Jim Yong Kim, Arthur Kleinman, and Matthew Basilico, 302–
339. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goodall, Jane. 1996. My
Life With the Chimpanzees. Aladdin Press.

Jablonski, Nina. 2012. Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning
of Skin Color. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Kenyon, Kathleen. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: W.W.
Norton & Co. Malotki, Ekkehart. 1983. Hopi Time.

The Hague: Mouton.

McIntosh-Smith, Tim. 2002. The Travels of Ibn Battutah. London: Picador.

Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow. Ochs,
Elinor, and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2012. “The theory of language
socialization.” In The Handbook of Language Socialization. Edited by
Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi Schieffelin, 1–21. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pru fer, Kay, Kasper Munch, Ines Hellmann, Keiko
Akagi, Jason R. Miller, Brian Walenz, Sergey Koren, et al. 2012. “The

Bonobo Genome Compared with the Chimpanzee and Human Genomes.” Nature
486 June): 527–531.

Rathje, William, and Cullen Murphy. 1992. Rubbish!: The Archaeology of
Garbage. New York: HarperCollins.


      Relethford, John, and Deborah Bolnick. 2018. Reflections of our
      Past: How Human History Is Revealed in our Genes. 2nd

ed. New York: Routledge.

Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge: MIT
Press. Wood, Frances. 2004. The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the
Heart of Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press.


    Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Lahcen Mourad, J.D., Moroccan Arabic educator and
scholar, for sharing insights from his scholarship on the legacy of Ibn
Battuta and his influence on the early development of the social sciences.


    Figure Attributions

Figure 1.1 Untitled by Mission de I’ONU au Mali – UN Mission in Mali/
Gema Cortes is under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 License; Untitled in Middle East
by Mark Fischer is used under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 License; Smiling Blonde
Girl by Egor Gribanov from St. Petersburg, Russia is under aCC BY 2.0
License; Steppe Gobi Desert Mongolia Nomadic Man Travel at MaxPixel has
been designated to the public domain CC0).

Figure 1.2 Holism original to Explorations: An Open Invitation to
Biological Anthropology by Mary Nelson is under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.3 Untitled by Luke Berhow is under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
Figure 1.4 Statue of Zhang Qian in Chenggu by Debi Lander is used with
permission. Figure 1.5 Ibn Batuta en Égypte by Léon Benett is in the
public domain.

Figure 1.6 Charles Darwin Standing by unknown photographer is in the
public domain. Figure 1.7 FranzBoas by unknown photographer is in the
public domain. This image is from the collection of the Canadian Museum
of Civilization, Negative 79-796.

Figure 1.8 Subdisciplines of anthropology original to Explorations: An
Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology by Mary Nelson is under a CC
BY-NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.9 Margaret Mead – Image from page 47 of “A brief expedition
into science at the American Museum of Natural History” 1969) by
Internet Archive Book Images is in the public domain.

Figure 1.10 Babytalk by Torbein Rønning is under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
License. Figure 1.11 Jerycho8 by A. Sobkowski has been designated to the
public domain CC0). Figure 1.12 Chimpanzees by Klaus Post is under a CC
BY 2.0License.

Figure 1.13 Untitled at pxhere.com has been designated to the public
domain CC0). Figure 1.14 PEF-with-mom-and-baby—Quy-Ton-12-2003 1-1-310
by Cjmadson is under a CC BY 3.0 License. Figure 1.15 Head-Measurer of
Tremearne side view) by A.J.N. Tremearne, Man 15 1914): 87-88 is in the
public domain.

Figure 1.16 Subfields of biological anthropology original to
Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology by Mary
Nelson is under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.17 Mountain gorilla finger detail.KMRA by Kurt Ackermann
English Wikipedia username KMRA) is under a CC BY 2.5 License.

Figure 1.18 Donald Johanson 2009 by Julesasu has been designated to the
public domain CC0 1.0). Figure 1.19 Oetzi the Iceman Rekonstruktion 1 by
Thilo Parg is under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License. Figure 1.20 Untitled by
Presidencia El Salvadorhas been designated to the public domain CC0
1.0). Figure 1.21 Child Scientists by Beth Shook is under a CC BY-NC 4.0
License.

Figure 1.22 Science Checklist original to Explorations: An Open
Invitation to Biological Anthropology is under a CC BY NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.23 Simple depiction of the scientific method original to
Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is under a
CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.24 Complex Science Flowchart 2018) by Understanding Science,
University of California Museum of Paleontology is used by permission
and available here under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Figure 1.25 Eureka! Archimede by Giammaria Mazzucchelli is in the public
domain.