Hello. Welcome to Anthropology 225, Introduction
to Biological Anthropology. My name is Megan
Greenholder and I'll be one of your TAs this
semester. I don't really like this little
video thing, so I'm going to kill that real
quick and get it out of the way. I will not
be your regular lecturer.
That's Doctor Grewsky. I volunteered to lecture
today on the history of developmental, blah.
I volunteered to lecture on the History of
Biological Anthropology as a discipline. Because
I think it's terribly important to understand
how we came to be where we are as a discipline.
In order to understand why we think about
certain topics the way we do.
It's kind of a pet interest. I was expecting
this lecture to be at the other end of the
series, but it turns out that I get to introduce
the class. So, Welcome to Bioanth. We're not
going to go through the whole syllabus, you
should already have read that on your own.
I just wanted to recount really quickly the
goals of this class. There is actually only
one. To provide you with an introduction to
the field of physical anthropology. Over the
course of this semester we're going to look
at human genetics and human variation. Primates
and primatology, fossil, primates and human
ancestors, which is paleoanthropology.
Talk about human evolution, and even the applications
of evolutionary theory to human behavior.
It's not on the syllabus, but it's cliché
and naive as it might sound. I personally
hope that this class gets you to think about
why we study people, and why in these ways.
About science and evolution and the impact
of these ideas on our understanding of the
universe as we observe it.
And about what it means to be human. Don't
just memorize all the information we throw
at you. But also try to think about why it's
important. Anyway, enough of that. Today is
the introduction to the introduction. But
first I wanna talk about what is biological
anthropology is now, its areas of study, and
why these are considered biological anthropology.
Most of these will be covered at greater length
later in the course as well. Especially human
variation in paleoanthropology, primatology,
and bio-archeology. Next we're going to discuss
the development of the discipline, major theoretical
shifts, etc. When I say theoretical here,
I don't mean that I am theorizing that this
is what happened.
But rather, what they were thinking when they
did their research. Theory in a sense is the
philosophy of academia. And then finally we
will discuss a little bit of politics theory
and why it's important to question motives
in research. By the end of this lecture you
should be able to explain what bioanthropologists
in different specializations are trying to
do in the broadest sense.
And how these goals relate to the overall
interests of biological anthropology. Be able
to explain why this class is taught from an
evolutionary perspective. Be familiar with
the historical development of biological anthropology
as an academic. Discipline, and be able to
discuss the importance of examining the motives
of any research or study.
I'm personally not concerned about whether
you know all the dates and the names of who
did what, when. At least, not at this stage,
mostly because I, myself, am terrible with
both names and dates. That's what reference
books and the internet are for. If you ever
need to know, you can look it up.
What I want you to get out of today's class
are the broad strokes of the development of
physical anthropology. And a little bit of
insight into why the discipline developed
the way it did. So, part one. What is Bioanth?
Biological anthropology is also known as physical
anthropology, bioanth, phsyanth and I have
a habit of using all of these terms interchangeably.
Sorry about that. We'll talk about the technical
distinction between the terms a little bit
more in the history section. Biological anthropology
is also one of the four major sub-fields in
anthropology. You may recall from Ant 201,
that here at Texas A and M, we have four fields.
Which are, cultural anthropology, biological
anthropology, archaeology, and nautical archaeology.
In most four field programs, the fourth field
is linguistics, not nautical. Each of the
four subfields gives a different perspective
on what it means to be human. Roughly, how
humans interact, and how they behave in the
present, how humans evolved and function biologically.
How humans lived in the past based on their
material culture and how humans think and
communicate.
This course focuses on the biological aspect
of anthropology. Understanding what it means
to be homo sapiens and where we came from
as a species. Biological anthropology is currently
divided into several areas of study. Human
Variation, Human Evolution, Primatology, Genetic
Anthropology, Bioarchaeology, Forensic Anthropology,
and Medical Anthropology. All of which contribute
to, or are built on, our understanding of
what it means to be human, in the biological
sense of the word.
The study of The study of human variation
entails looking at physical differences and
similarities between different populations
and sometimes different time periods. These
differences can range from morphological.
Such as is there a functional difference in
nose shape and sinus capacity at different
latitudes. To biochemical. Is there a difference
in the way that people process oxygen if they
grow up at different elevations?
To genetic, is there a higher rate of genetic
resistance to a particular pathogen in one
population over another? To ecological, what
are the biological needs of the human animal,
and how do different populations meet them?
This area of interest is most directly related
to the original conception of physical anthropology
as in, as we will discuss it in part two.
The study of human evolution, or paleoanthropology,
sometimes referred to as just paleo, examines
the fossil record for evidence of our hominid
ancestors and cousins. So Pathological evidence
for fossil apes as well. Based on teeth, skull
morphology, which means the shape, and body
proportions. They try to reconstruct when
important milestones were reached in human
evolution.
Such as, bipedality, which is walking on two
legs. Encephalization, which is increase in
brain size and shifts in major dietary input.
So was meat eating important and when did
it become important? Sometimes they also attempt
to look at behavioral developments through
physical correlations. Such as monogamous
pairing and the introduction of cooking through
analogy to modern primates.
This part of Bioant developed largely independently
of what was initially called physical anthropology.
And was later integrated because in order
to define what a thing is, it's helpful to
know where it came from. Primatology is the
study of non human primates. Primates are
our closest living animal relatives.
Like cousins on the giant evolutionary family
tree. Many primatologists look at primate
behavior and the correlation between behavior
and different physical attributes. Like body
size, mode of locomotion, or sources of food.
Many of the conclusions drawn in primatology
depend on analogy to living primates such
as chimpanzees. Either through application
of certain generalizable rules.
Such as sexual dimorphism in body size is
related to the social organization of the
species. When males have to fight for mating
rights. They also tend to be much larger than
females, and they tend to form single male
multi-female groups. Or under the argument
that if modern human and non-human primates
behave similarly and have similar physical
traits.
Their common ancestor likely would have as
well. Primatology developed as a distinct
discipline around the 1930s, but didn't really
take off in anthropology until the 1960s.
One biological anthropology as a whole with
expanding his interest. The study of human
genetics and the application of these studies
to anthropology is multidisciplinary.
At many schools human genetics is considered
a part of biology or medical departments or
as its own field, not part of anthropology.
There are however growing numbers of genetic
anthropologists who look at issues of human
variation, human evolution. And the differences
between humans and non-human primates through
genetic differences.
There are also genetic techniques used to
identify unknown individuals in forensic cases.
Genetic studies have been around since the
early 20th Century. When they depended on
examining different protein formations as
a proxy for the actual genetic information.
The development of DNA studies began in the
1980s. But new methods developed in the 1990s
and early 2000s have allowed wider and more
accurate application of genetics to anthropological
research questions.
When genetics are discussed in anthropology,
it is usually by biological anthropologists
since it has to do with the physical body.
We will not focus on genetics as an individual
area of interest this semester. But we will
discuss genetic information in the context
of evolutionary mechanisms, paleoanthropology,
primatology and forensics.
Bioarchaeology is a specialization that crosses
sub-field lines in anthropology. Being the
study of human remains in archaeological contexts.
By and large, this means looking at bones.
Bio archaeologists determine the number of
individuals in context, their age and sex.
Any antimortem or perimortem trauma, which
might be associated with interpersonal violence.
Any evidence of disease which might be seen
in the skeleton. They also look at stress
markers from work, and chemical evidence of
diet an the lo, and the location in which
people were born and grew up. In short, they
figure out everything they can about ancient
individuals based on their bones.
Most questions by archaeologists ask are related
to a population rather. To individuals, such
as, how did nutrition and workload vary for
these people, before and after the introduction
of maize agriculture? This area of interest,
along with modern studies of osteological
development came out of early osteological
and anthropometric studies.
Osteology, by the way, is the study of bones
and anthropometric just means measuring people.
Science is not very clever with its naming
schemes, it, these things just sound cooler
in ancient languages. There are two applied
fields related to biological anthropology,
forensics and medical anthropology. Forensics
uses primarily bioarcheological and genetic
techniques to identify unknown individuals,
causes of death.
And long term patterns of trauma for legal
purposes. It's for legal purposes part that
makes it forensic. This can include individual
suspicious deaths or mass deaths like would
be found at the World Trade Center or in situations
like genocide. I'll be talking more about
forensic anthropology at the very end of our
lecture series.
Medical anthropology is a field largely motivated
by social justice and sociological issues.
There are many quality of life improvement
projects, which include medical anthropology
elements. Like bio-archiology, medical anthropology
crosses sub field boundaries. Its interests
include biological verification of social
differences. Different treatments of physical
and mental ailments and different approaches
to public health in different cultures.
So it tends to fall more closely to the culture,
to cultural anthropology with some physical
elements. Medical anthropology projects can
range from facilitating conversations about
immigrants, cultural concerns about Western
medical practices, in U.S hospitals. To installing
sanitary waste disposal units in Bangladesh
and explaining their importance to local users
of the system.
To working with local shamans or midwives
to improve prenatal care in regions which
do not accept western medical practice. We
will not focus on medical anthropology in
this class. But if you think it sounds interesting
I recommend reading Spirit Catches You and
You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman.
Which discusses many of the problems which
arise at the junction between western and
non-western healthcare. All Biological Anthropologists
today subscribe to an evolutionary perspective.
This means that we believe that evolution
is a thing. And that its principles can be
used to explain how and why all live, including
people, has developed in such a way as to
thrive in almost every environment on earth.
More specifically, we believe in natural selection
as the ultimate explanation for why things
are the way they are. Out of all the possible
variations of things competing for the same
resources. The ones that survived were more
suited to the to their environments than all
other competitors. The principles of evolution
and natural selection will be discussed more
thoroughly in the next few lectures.
But it is important to know right from the
beginning that this class will be taught on
under the assumption. That natural forces
are the only forces directing the development
of life as we know it. I think this issue
may bear a little bit more explanation. Because
this is an assumption which many students
seem to take exception to.
And I find it's best to address the issue
head on. Intelligent design, and other creationist
views of the development of life, as we know
it. Depend on the idea that a supernatural
force has had a hand in shaping or guiding
the development of life on Earth. Scientists
start by assuming that only natural forces
which we can observe today and know must have
been involved are involved.
This is what is called in statistical arguments
a null hypothesis. It is the simplest explanation
which we must reject in order to consider
more complex explanations. Such as the involvement
of both supernatural and natural forces. The
only way to prove that a supernatural entity
must have had a hand in shaping the development
of life.
Would be to prove that there is no way that
natural forces alone could have done it. There
is insufficient evidence. There is insufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis, that
only natural forces were involved in shaping
life as we know it. Therefore, we must proceed
in all scientific disciplines, including biological
anthropology, as though natural forces are
the only forces are involved.
Even if you personally do not believe this
to be the case, I must ask you to accept it
as a working model, for the purposes of this
class. If you are interested in some outside
reading, on how evolution works. And what
exactly an evolutionary perspective is, I
recommend you find a copy of Evolution for
Everyone, by David Sloan Wilson.
Do it now, before you, and I'd do it now before
you have a lot of stuff to do this semester.
Both this book and the one I just mentioned,
The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down,
are written for popular audience, so they're
very easy reads. And you should have more
than enough background information, to understand
the concepts and problems they're discussing.
If you want examples of the natural forces
of evolution network, in the world today,
I direct you to all the YouTube videos associated
with the evolution lecture in the week one
folder, in the course materials tab in e-campus,
which also should be whether you found this
lecture. And of course the Evolution, the
Evolution Lecture which is the next one in
our lecture series, on to part two.
How did we get where we are today? The historical
development of biological anthropology. Beginning
with the 18th century, pre-anthropology in
the age of enlightenment. It was in Europe
in the 18th century, which would be the 1700's.
That the underlying concepts which would become
central to physical anthropology, were developed.
Systematic classification of humans into subgroups,
was instigated by Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish
naturalist, in Systema Naturae, first published
in 1735. This was also the first published
classification of humans with other, which
is to say non-human primates, in one category.
Race was formulized as the major typological
division of the human species.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German phy,
physician and anatomist, was one of the first
scholars to combine an interest in racial
typology, with cranial morphology studies.
Which are two of the major elements, of early
physical anthropology. And for this reason,
he is sometimes considered one of the founders
of physical anthropology.
One 18th century American scholar pursued
work which foreshadowed that of biological
anthropology, Samuel Stanhope Smith at Princeton
University. Unfortunately his theoretical,
unfortunately his theoretical perspective
was not effectively integrated into physical
anthropology. This is a shame because, Smith
had a much more progressive view of human
variation than many of his contemporaries,
which is more in line with what we know today.
He thought that all humans were members of
the same species, with continuous variation,
subject to environmental modification. In
contrast, the view of race held by most of
the 18th century scholars who would become
the forefathers of physical anthropology in
Europe, was that different races were distinct
and immutable.
Or even different species, which became an
important theoretical point as the discipline
developed. A division arose in 19th century
Europe between social anthropologists and
Darwinian evolutionists, who believed that
races can change over time and physical anthropologists,
who believed that races were immutable or
unchanging. This, this point that races were
potentially different species, was actually
proposed from both evolutionary and creationist
perspectives, with the evolutionist proposing
that perhaps they had evolved from different
species, or that they had evolved from the
same species at different times.
And with creationists actually expressing
a multi genesis, a polygenesis model, so,
God had created them,one after the other.
Work which could have developed into physical
anthropology in the U.S., was delayed by the
American Revolution. The war proper only lasted
from 1775 to 1783, but the political upheaval
which led to the war begin as early as 1765.
Much of the scholarly class, which was in
Europe concerned with pursuits such as human
variation and anatomy, was in the colonies,
instead more concerned with political science,
and the formation of government. Moving on
to the 19th century, and the official beginnings
of physical anthropology. In the US, there
were still a few scholars who could be considered
predecessors to physical anthropologists.
In the US, there were still few scholars who
can be considered predecessors to physical
anthropologists, but in 1839, Samuel G.Morton,
a physician and scientist who made contributions
to paleontology, geology, and anatomy, published
a massive cranial study on Native Americans.
Similar to those produced by European anatomists,
throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Also, like European scholars, Morton conceptualized
races as distinct and immutable. He had a
greater influence on American physical anthropology
than his predecessor Smith, through, through
Ales Hrdlicka Its Czech. It's absolutely the
worst name to say in physical anthropology.
Charles Darwin, published On the Origin of
Species in 1859, and ideas related to evolutions
spread rapidly.
Darwinian evolutionary ideas were widely rejected
by physical anthropologists, because they
were not compatible with contemporary ideas
about, race and the nature of the human species
in general. A division developed in English
anthropology left ethnologists, the social
or cultural anthropologists, and Darwinian
evolutionists on one side, and the majority
of physical anthropologists, along with physicians
and anatomists on the other.
At this point, linguistics had yet to be differentiated
from cultural anthropology. Except when it
was used in the study of ancient text, which
is called epigraphy. And archaeology was largely
concerned with the classical world, and antiquarian
culture, historical pursuits. Rather than
anthropological questions. So, anthropology
itself really only consisted of physical,
which is what was refered to as anthropology
at the time.
And cultural, which was then referred to as
ethnography. The groups formed different professional
societies, which were reconciled in 1871,
but the ten year period firmly established
physical anthropologists as having a theoretical
basis, distinct from cultural anthropologists.
In the latter half of the 1800's, physical
anthropology became institutionally recognized
in European academia.
At this point, it was not required to have
a degree in anthropology to do physical anthropology,
any degree, and making contributions to the
field would do. Many of the early physical
anthropologists were anatomists, physicians,
philosophers or otherwise just interested
in people. In Germany and France, physical
anthropology was taught through medical institutions,
and through medical studies.
It very much focused on racial variation and
human osteological development. In England,
physical anthropological interests were most,
were more closely aligned with paleontology,
evolution, and archaeology, rather than strictly
medical training, and therefore, lean more
towards what today we consider paleoanthropology.
Paul Broca who we, we, Paul Broca who we will
discuss later in the semester related to the
region of the brain associated with language,
founded four anthropological societies in
France between 1859 and 1872.
He incorporated many of Morton's ideas into
his own. As you may recall, and we will discuss
later, Morton and Hrdlicka were American,
this suggests that there was quite a lot of
communication between anthropologists, such
as there were, on both sides of the pond.
In England, Thomas Huxley, who was a Darwinian
evolutionist, published the first text on
physical anthropology in 1863.
It was called Evidence as to Man's Place in
Nature, and included information on comparative
primate anatomy, fossil evidence for human
evolution, and information on the natural
history of non-human primates. Huxley later
went on to study modern human variation. Francis
Galton, an English biometrician, so somebody
who measures living things, began looking
at human development in 1873.
Germany had largest numbers, and the strongest
scientific establishment of physical anthropologists,
both before and after World War I. But much
of the history associated with the field has
been tarnished by antisemitism, and extremely
racist approaches to the study of humans,
even compared to contemporaries in other countries.
To the extent that there's not a lot of widely
available, information on this period, all
of which started around 1880's.
Which is, also when the discipline became
firmly established in German academia. Then
following on that, in 1890, Arthur Keith who
was British, published his observation on
gibbons in Thailand. Which was one of the
very first studies on primate behavior in
the wild. So that's more or less where we
are at the beginning of the 20th century,
where the discipline becomes more professionalized,
and we have the new physical anthropology.
The 20th century up into several shorter time
periods as recognizable academic generations
started to be produced in American physical
anthropology. One of the major themes throughout
the 20th century, in contrast to the 19th.
Is that there was more emphasis in training
students, and influencing future academic
directions, rather than on individual works
boost, especially because there was somewhat
of a bottleneck in American physical anthropology,
with only one person, Earnest Hooton.
Training students throughout the first half
of the century. The focus of physical anthropology,
to a certain extent, shifted after World War
II, as the United States began to train more
students on physical anthropology, than Germany.
At the turn of the century, through 
at the turn of the century in France, Leonce-Pierre
Manouvier, which I'm sure I just butchered.
Who was one of Broca's students, helped train
Hrdlicka, who would later be very influential
in the US. And worked on human cranial sexual
dimorphism, as well as other osteological
issues. Rudolf Martin, a Swiss anthropologist
at Zürich, wrote the handbook of physical
anthropology, the original title is in German,
something.
Which was the main reference book throughout
the early 20th century, for physical anthropologists.
It was published in 1940. So, right at the
beginning of World War 1. English scientists
Arthur Keith and Grafton Elliot Smith, made
significant contributions to comparative primate
anatomy, as well as tra, as well as training
T Wingate Todd and Earnest A Hooton, who also
later became very influential in U.S Physical
anthropology.
Franz Boas, Boas, Franz Boas, who you may
remember from 201 as the father of American
anthropology, and a major contributor to.
Franz Boas who you may remember from 201 as
the father of American anthropology and a
major contributor to cultural anthropology
conducted experiments in 1912 which show,
which showed that races weren't that mutable,
with changes in immigrants symbolic index
averages, from one generation to the next.
This was significant because that was actually
one of the measures that had been used, to
classify races before this time. In the inter
warriors 1918 through 1939, Rudolph Martin,
the Swish, the Swiss National we talked about
a minute ago, moved to Germany in 1918 where
he worked on human growth and development.
Field primatology began to develop as a distinct
area of interest with multidisciplinary, with
a multidisciplinary study of gibbons in Thailand,
in 1937, led by psychologist Raymond Carpenter,
which included two anthropologists, Adolph
Schultz and Sherwood L Washburn, who will
become a major player later on. The major
themes in physical anthropology in the pre-World
War II period, were race, eugenics, human
origins, comparative primate anatomy and human
skeletal biology or osteology.
Other areas of research included human growth
and development, anthropometrics, demograph,
demography, genetics, epidemiology and statistics.
There were only a handful of physical anthropologists
in the United States, in this period. The
most influential, being Boas, who trained
very few students but had a very forward thinking
approach to research design.
Hrdlicka, who trained no students, but founded
the American Journal of Physical Anthropology
in 1918, and then the American Association
for Physical Anthropology in 1930. And Hooton,
who trained so many students that over 50%
of Physical Anthropologists today can trace
their academic lineage, student to PhD advisor,
back to him.
Between 1926 and 1939, in 1939 Hooton trained
about 20 PHDs in Physical Anthropology. In
comparison, only five Physical Anthropology
PHDs had been awarded in the United States
as whole, from 1880 to 1925. World War II
to 1950, so that would include the period
of World War II, which was 1939 through 1945
and in its immediate after effects through
1950.
During World War II, in the United States,
many people who could be considered Physical
Anthropologists took a break from academic
pursuits in order to do their parts for the
war effort. So there was comparatively little
development in the field, but there was apparently
little interruption. Work picked more or less
where it had left off, but with an increase
in the number of students seeking degrees.
In higher education with the institution of
the G I Bill and of course eugenics was no
longer a major research area. In other news
Sherwood Washburn completed his Ph.D in 1940
under Hooton and became very involved with
professional organizations throughout the
following decade. Which put him in a position
where in 1951 he could publish a seminar paper
on what he called the New Physical Anthropology.
The New physical anthropology as in vision
by Washburn was a lot more like what we know
is biological anthropology today. It was supposed
to focus on primate and human evolution and
human variation, with Darwinian Evolution
as the theoretical foundation of the discipline,
and genetics as a major unifying perspective.
Typological race was supposed to be disposed
of as an analytical concept. People could
be studied as population. People should be
studies as populations rather than types.
Finally, there was to be an emphasis on analytical
hypothesis driven study over the until then
ubiquitous descriptive study. This is not
to say that none of this had ever been done
before.
Boas and a man named Raymond Pearl had done
a lot with analytical studies in the previous
generation. And there had been Darwinian evolutionists
like Huxley since the publish, since the publication
of origin almost 100 years before. But these
elements had not been systematically included
into the discipline of physical anthropology
as a whole.
By in large, the foresight outlined by Washburn
did become widely adopted research goals.
But one exception was his perspective on race,
which took a while to be adopted. Throughout
the 1950s and 1960s race-focused researchers
first tried to apply scientific principles
to the study of race. And then began to abandon
it as they found more and more evidence that
race was not a valid system of distinct biological
categories.
There were however, some major exceptions
to this general trend. For example, in 1962,
Carleton Coon published On the Origin of Races,
which maintained that each race had developed
from homo erectus into different, into distinct
species at different times. There was, however,
more significant backlash against this publication
than there had been against previous, similarly
racist arguments in the past.
A prelude to the kind of reaction which modern
physical anthropologists have two suggestions
of biological human races. Moving on, from
1960 to 1999, the last section of the 20th
century. Throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s,
there was a dramatic increase in the number
of physical anthropologists trained in the
US.
Largely due to the foundation of the to the
foundation of the National Science Foundation,
which became a major funding agency for anthropology.
There was somewhat of a movement toward multiple
field approaches in the 1960s, as researchers
from different subfields found themselves
with common interests in environmental adaptation.
In this period, it was expected to a certain
extent that physical anthropologists would
be generalists, looking at all modern and
prehistoric human variation and different
aspects of human evolution.
But not necessarily primatology. The 1970s
saw improvements to the methods of primatological
observation bringing field primatology firmly
into line with the more systematic research
paradigm of the new physical anthropology.
The 1990s saw an increase in the tendency
toward specialization in the different subareas.
Genetics, primatology, modern human variation,
paleoanthropology, and the applications of
skeletal biology in archeology and forensics.
Several major shifts took place in these subareas
from the period, in the period, from 1960
to the turn of the century. Don't worry if
this, little section here references things
that you are unfamiliar with. You will be
covering most of them again as you go through
the different sub-areas later in the semester
like, paleoanthropology.
So for genetics. Before the 1990s, genetic
studies depended on examining different protein
production. Essentially working out the DNA
genotype from the visible phenotype. In the
1980s and 1990s, technological advances allowed
people, for the first time, to look direct
at the DNA genotype itself, rather than working
backwards. This was huge, and will make a
lot more sense after the Hardy-Weinberg lecture.
But it allowed researchers to look at a whole
suite of traits directly, to develop different
methods to trace lineages, and to determine
the dates of separation between lineages,
otherwise known as the genetic clock. Which
essentially allowed us to attach a solid timeline
to the family tree of the animal kingdom.
Paleoanthropology. I feel like I have somewhat
neglected paleo in this lecture. But it will
make more sense when you're talking about
the individual specimens later in the semester.
Basically, early paleoanthropologists expected
for entirely racist reasons, that humans ought
to have developed in Europe. And that they
should have had big brains but otherwise look
ape like.
When no such ancestor was forthcoming one
was manufactured. It was called Piltdown Man
and consisted of a human skull with a modern
orangutan jaw. It was so widely accepted that
the few legitimate paleoanthropological discoveries
that were made, were ignored. In the late
1950s, it was established that Piltdown man,
the presumed human ancestor found in England,
was a hoax, clearing the way for the development
of a more reasonable view of human evolution.
Australopithecines became recognized as the
most likely human ancestors. Followed by homo
habilis and erectus as more discoveries were
made. Basically everything you will learn
in this course about paleo, even if it was
discovered before the 1960s, was only integrated
into our modern understanding beginning in
this period. Before the 1960s, people had
been interested in human evolution and they
have been collecting fossil evidence.
But the vast majority of their interpretations
had headed off in entirely unproductive directions.
Forensic anthropology had been around since
1939 when Wilton Krogman wrote a handbook
for the FBI on the subject. The techniques
were subsequently used to identify World War
II dead. The subarea was not widely recognized
by anthropologists however, until 1962 with
Krogman's second, well, with Krogman's book,
the Human Skeleton in Forensic Scientists,
in Forensic Sciences.
At that point, forensic anthropologists, at
that point forensic anthropology became more
widely recognized as a viable applied subarea
by anthropologists. In 1972, forensic anthropology
was more formally recog, in 1972, forensic
anthropology was more formally recognized
by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
By the 21st century, physical anthropology
had more or less taken on the form it has
today, as I described earlier in part one
of this lecture.
Over the past 14 years, there have been advances
in all areas of physical anthropology, largely
related to constantly improving methodology
and technological advancements. And new finds
in the case of paleoanthropology. But, for
the most part, there have been no major overhauls
of the field. Using Coon's Model, we are in
a period of normal science.
Part three, what has politics got to do with
it? My undergrad was a smallish liberal arts
school with a teaching focus. Every single
class I took in Anthropology had a history
theory ethics component, which I thought was
awful at the time. But which I now better
understand. But of which, I now better understand
the importance.
One of the most important reasons for discussing
the political and social environment in which
a discipline develops, is that it can explain
why certain subjects are dropped from programs
of study, and others are championed. This
has happened several times in biological anthropology.
The two most clearly recognized examples are
the issues of race and genics.
The original purpose of anthropology in England,
and the reason that there was a split in the
English to anthropological academy. With social
anthropology and Darwinian evolutionists on
one side and physical anthropologists on the
other, wasn't it physical anthropology was
heavily oriented toward establishing the reality
of race, and a hierarchy of races for the
purpose of supporting colonial expansionism.
Basically, it was propaganda. Social anthropology
was also involved in this to a certain extent,
but moved on much sooner. In order to maintain
their belief in the fixity of races, which
was their main area of study. Early physical
anthropologists had to deny Darwinian evolution,
and so isolated themselves from much of the
scientific community.
A series of revolutions an, a series of revolutions
and world wars put a firm stop to the colonial
area, the colonial era, militant nationalism
and expansionism, after which time, there
was no longer the same political pressure
to recognize certain populations as inherently
and irrevocably inferior to others. In fact,
following World War II, there was a strong
civil rights movement in the United States
pushing for recognition of all races as equal.
This influenced physical anthropology in the
1950s and 1960s to adopt a much more scientific
approach to the study of humanity. First attempting
to study the concept of race more systematically,
and then abandoning the area of research as
it became clear that there was no such thing
as biological race, despite the volume of
work produced on the subject before 1950.
It is important to note here, that the hardcore
racists we're willing to do bad science and
ignore widely accepted scientific theories,
in order to maintain their viewpoints. It
was only under political pressure that institutionalized
racism finally declined. There are in fact
still recurrences of scientific justification
of biological race from time to time.
Notably the bell curve in the 1990s, and a
troublesome inheritance which received publicity
in the Times earlier this year. Which is 2014
if you're watching this from the future. These,
such recurrences are rejected by biological
anthropologists on the basis of their poor
science, but with a, but with a fervor that
stems largely from ethical, re, political,
concerns.
Eugenics was one of the early earliest foci
of biological anthropology. From a modern
perspective it was a rather confused focus
concerned with racial purity and also class
issues. Eugenics had a tendency to equate
race with socioeconomic status, to consider
race as the causal factor in socionomic, in
socioeconomic position.
And to consider poverty a biological failing
associated with race. Basically, the got the
wrong end of the stick all over the place.
They were also concerned with intelligence
and criminality, and a host of other features
which are both culturally and biologically
influenced. The advocated the sterilization
of the poor, criminals and the mentally impaired
as a means by which to improve the human species
as a whole, as well as individual races.
Eugenics was actually touted at one point
as a potential applied field of biological
anthropology. Several physical anthropologists
were influential in the development of the
Nazi party's approach to race, as racial purity
was also one of their major themes. Such view
were widely and publicly supported through
World War II, but the population of the, but
the popularity of the field declined sharply
after the genocidal Nazi approach to eugenics
was widely recognized.
Certain scholars have attempted to revive
the field with a more modern focus on genetics.
But it has not taken off as Eugenics is still
associated in the popular mind with the Holocaust.
So is it a good thing that Biological Anthropologists
by and large now reject the ideas of race
and Eugenics.
Do you think that worthwhile studies could
still be done on these topics? This is a major
ethical issue in bioanth, because there is
a great deal of pressure in both in and outside
the field of Biological Anthropology to let
the dead lie, and just leave those issues
the heck alone.
But at the same time, there is a principle
in science that no subject should be exempt
from study. Race is still studied from time
to time, because race is still in every day
life a very real phenomenon, even if it is
social, not biological in origin. Most people
don't seem to care about the distinction even
though it's very important.
And as I mentioned there was a recent book
published on the topic which completely misinterprets
genetic data to come to the conclusion that
there are biological races. About the only
way that Biological Anthropologists will address
the subject is to refute such claims. Otherwise
we want nothing to do with race.
As far as I know, no one studies genetic,
no one studies Eugenics. If they do look at
any of the concepts associated with the field,
they avoid the word Eugenics itself, and absolutely
no one, would publish any sort of study, advocating
a practical application of Eugenic principles.
There are good reasons, to close the study
of both biological race and Eugenics aside
from political pressure.
Race has been shown repeatedly over the last
50 years not to exist as a biological reality
in humans. It cannot be scientifically studied,
because you cannot observe what does not exist.
It is however, possible to study the biological
effects of social stigma and marginalization
associated historically and today between
different socially recognized races.
And this is a direction in which research
has proceeded under medical anthropology and
sociology. Eugenics cannot be studied scientifically
either. In this case, because the goals of
Eugenics are by definition opposed to objective
scientific inquiry. There is no direction
in natural selection aside from environmental
shifts. There is no suite of traits which
is objectively better than any other over
the long term.
Take for example, intelligence. Neanderthals
had larger brains than we do, but we outcompeted
them. So clearly it's not an issue of sheer
quantity trumping all else. If you wanted
to select for superior intelligence, how would
you do it? Would you privilege logical reasoning
over social intelligence? Why? Advocating
Eugenics studies requires defining certain
traits as superior to others, which cannot
be done objectively.
To make an analogy of it, we are not refusing
to take on the case of biological race. We've
declared it closed. Social race and Eugenics
are simply not in our jurisdiction. So no,
I don't think that we should still be studying
biological race or Eugenics. But I do think
that it's important to recognize why Biological
Anthropologists have in the past, studied
both of these things along with other specializations
which are still acceptable today, like Paleo
Anthropology and primate comparative anatomy.
And it's equally important to think about
why we don't study them anymore, because people
didn't just up and realize that actually,
there was no good scientific justification
for their work. They stopped under social
pressure and then later realized that biological
race and Eugenics were bad science. The reason
I think, the lesson I think should be taken
from this and the one thing I would advise
you to do regardless of your specific interest
or field of study, is to constantly ask yourselves
why are we doing this.
And make sure that the answer is one you can
make an argument to support. That is all I
have for you today. That's all I have for
you today. You should now be able to explain
what bioanthropologists in different specializations
do, in the broadest sense. And how these goals
relate to the overall interests of Biological
Anthropology.
You should be able to explain why this class
is taught from an evolutionary perspective.
You should be familiar with the historical
development of Biological Anthropology as
an academic discipline. Again, broad strokes.
And you should be able to discuss the importance
of examining the motives of any scientific
study.
If you have any questions about this or any
other lecture you can contact your TAs at
ANTH225OnlineTAs@gmail.com or Tune in for
Office Hours as outlined in the syllabus.
