Biological anthropology

About: Biological anthropology is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1126 publications have been published within this topic receiving 12757 citations. The topic is also known as: biological anthropology & somatology.

History and Science in Anthropology

Abstract: The basic issues which this paper will be concerned wvith are: how has history been defined, what has been asked about lhistory, aind wvhat sort of answers have been found. These questions may also be stated as: what is the nature of historical theory (since \"theory\" here will inean any set of definitions, assumptions, and operating hypotheses) and how do different theories affect what m-ay \"be done\" with history. In order to gain perspective on these questions, we wil first examine the positions of a number of different anthropologists vis-a-vis these issues. The theorists included here have been chosen because their positions represent the basic stands that have been taken in anthropology on these problems. Frank Boas has long been cited as the prime example of the \"antitheoretical\" view in alnthropology. This tag has been so much used that it has led some to accept the naive position Boas himself held, namely that an \"anti\" or \"non\" theoretical position is in fact possible, even that \"pure fact\" can be collected without the least interference from theory. That Boas held this position is understandable since he viewed theory as being made up of deduction which was a matter of \"unbridled imaglnation and wild conjecture.\" He was reacting to the unilinear evolutionists and the extreme diffusionists. When he said that deduction (as applied to social evolutionists) was for \"armchair philosophers\" he was striking a blow for a more empirical anthropology. Unhappily, all the consequences of his position were not so salubrious, for he anathemized all explicit theory for many of his followers and theory still holds a somewhat dubious aura for some in the field. This is despite the fact that Boas himself was the fountainhead of an elaborate, albeit implicit, theory. Since this theory is greatly concerned with history, we will examine it. Any theory of history must include a definition of the concept \"history.\" Since Boas nevel made his theory explicit, his definition has to be gleaned from a num:ber of his writings, but I think the following makes his position rather clear. \"In order to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things are, buit how they came to be.\"12 \"If we try to understand what the people are at the present time, we have to inquire into their descent. We must consider the climactic and geogaphic changes that have occurred. All these have no relation to the laws that may govern the inner life of society. They are accidents. Culture can be understood only as an historical growvth. It is determined to a

The fitness of human sociobiology: the future utility of four concepts in four subdisciplines.

Abstract: Reported here are the results of a survey inquiring into the rate of acceptance of four sociobiological concepts in regard to their usefulness for future research. Included in the survey were members of four subdisciplines: animal behavior (biology), biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, and developmental psychology. Three types of institutions were included: universities, four‐ and five‐year colleges, and community colleges. A total of 1,631 responses are reported with the degree of acceptance varying from highest to lowest as follows: biology, biological anthropology, developmental psychology, and cultural anthropology. These variations are related to the central concepts of each subdiscipline.

Physical anthropology and bioarchaeology at the Institute of History in the last 20 years

Abstract: Human populations and their history have been studied at the Institute of History since 1952 when the young researcher Karin Mark started her career here. Later, Karin Mark became a leading researcher in palaeoanthro pology and somatology of Finno-Ugric peoples, and her working group grew. At the end of the 1980s, Leiu Heapost took over the position as group leader in anthropological research. In 1988 Raili Allmäe and in 2004 Jana Limbo-Simovart joined the group. Since 1998, Estonian research has been project-based; in the present paper we give a brief overview of our anthropological research at the Institute of History (and its descendants) in the last twenty years.

The Subdivisions of Physical Anthropology

Abstract: Almost 50 years ago Ales Hrdlicka stated that \"the future activities of Physical Anthropology must be directed to the improvement of its own organization and means, as well as in the direction of further research. The more thoroughly and efficiently the former is effected, the more important and prompt will be the scientific results\" (1919:16). Looking back over the progress that the field has made since that time, one is struck particularly by the extraordinary advances in the techniques (the means) employed by physical anthropologists and the new information these have produced. Indeed, the application of a multiplicity of techniques in recent years is the very basis for distinguishing between the new and old physical anthropologies (Washburn 1951). The importance of these new technical approaches has been emphasized by several authors in recent years (see particularly Laughlin 1960) and has impressed one physical anthropologist sufficiently to claim that \"physical anthropology has now come of age\" (Lasker 1964: iii). No one denies, then, that the means of physical anthropology have developed rapidly in recent years and, as Hrdlicka predicted, the scientific results have been substantial. However, Hrdlic'ka emphasized the need to improve the internal organization of physical anthropology as well as the means, and on this issue the field appears to have made little or no progress. Here there is a sharp contrast between cultural and physical anthropology, as may be seen in the way that these two areas are presented in the usual introductory course. Cultural anthropology is neatly subdivided into archaeology, ethnography, ethnology, and linguistics. Physical anthropology, however, is undifferentiated (or, in some cases, the teacher will resort to classifying physical anthropologists by their areas of research interest). The student cannot help but get the impression that the field is either hopelessly complex or badly disorganized as he is exposed to mammalian-primate-human morphology, fossil ancestors of man and the primates, evolutionary mechanisms, genetics (Mendelian and population), contemporary human biological variation, the classifications of human variation, the measurement of man, growth, physiological adaptation, constitution, and applied physical anthropology. This confusion carries over to the literature. Weiner (1957:79) subdivides physical anthropology into 2 areas, Montagu (1960:xi) into 3, -and Comas (1960: 40-41) into 9, which he points out is a simplification of Krogman's 16. Hulse (1963a:10) claims that it cannot be subdivided. Titiev (1963:5) classifies physical anthropologists. Sturtevant, in an influential paper often distributed to prospective majors in anthropology, divides the field into what appear to be 21/2 areas as follows: \"human paleontology,... and human population biology and human genetics\" (1958:1). Lasker (1961) and Kraus (1964) organize physical anthropology in terms of important problems that confront it. The purpose of this paper is to propose the following subdivisions for physical anthropology: (1) human paleontology, (2) human heterography, and (3) cultural biology. It is hoped that this will help to clarify and organize the interrelationships among the diverse areas of interest and importance to physical anthropology.