Search

The reconstruction and prioritization of masculinity in human evolution (and thus human nature) is often rooted in reference to other primates and the hominin fossil and archaeological record. And ...

An anthropological approach is needed to counter a rising chorus of biobabble about masculinities, maleness, and violence. Anthropological lenses enable us to examine what we know and what we do no...

Background: Leaving “home” to pursue fieldwork is a necessity but also a rite of passage for many biological anthropology/human biology scholars. Field-based scientists prepare for the potential changes to activity patterns, sleep schedules, social interactions, and more that come with going to the field. However, returning from extended fieldwork and the reverse-culture shock, discomforts, and mental shifts that are part of the return process can be jarring, sometimes traumatic experiences. A failure to acknowledge and address such experiences can compromise the health and wellbeing of those returning. Aims: We argue for an engaged awareness of the difficult nature of returning from the field and offer suggestions for individuals and programs to better train and prepare PhD students pursuing fieldwork. Materials & Methods: Here, we offer personal stories of "coming back" and give professional insights on how to best ready students and scholars for returning from fieldwork. Discussion/Conclusion: By bringing forward and normalizing the difficulty of the fieldwork-return process, we hope that this reflection acts as a tool for future scholars to prepare to come home as successfully and consciously as possible.

Medical anthropology, given its diversity of practical and historical entanglements with (and outside of) numerous threads of anthropology, is a key site for productive theoretical and methodological confluences in the Anthropocene. Multispecies approaches, ethnographically, theoretically and methodologically, are developing as central locations for the hybridization and mingling of diverse and innovative research questions, particularly those engaging the processes, patterns, and constructs of health.

Biological anthropology can, and should, matter in the Anthropocene. Biological anthropologists are interested in human biology and the human experience in a broader ecological, evolutionary, and phylogenetic context. We are interested in the material of the body, the history of the body, and interactions of diverse bodies, communities, ecologies, and evolutionary processes. However, the cultural realities of bodies, histories, communities, livelihoods, perceptions, and experiences are as central to the endeavor and inquiry of biological anthropology as are their material aspects. Biological anthropology is a constant dialectic between the cultural and the biological. In this essay, I argue that Biological Anthropology has much to offer, a history to contend with, and a future that matters. To illustrate this, I highlight theoretical and methodological issues in genomics, evolutionary theory and connect them to the study of Race and Racism to emphasize specific arenas where Biological Anthropology has a great capacity, and a strong obligation, to play a central role. However, Biological Anthropology also has substantive internal issues that hinder our ability to do the best possible science. If we are to live up to our potential and make a difference in the 21st century we need to ameliorate our structural shortcomings and expand our voice, and impact, in academic and public discourse. The goal of this perspective is to offer suggestions for moving us toward this goal.

Contemporary understandings of paleoanthropological data illustrate that the search for a line defining, or a specific point designating, "modern human" is problematic. Here we lend support to the argument for the need to look for patterns in the paleoanthropological record that indicate how multiple evolutionary processes intersected to form the human niche, a concept critical to assessing the development and processes involved in the emergence of a contemporary human phenotype. We suggest that incorporating key elements of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) into our endeavors offers a better and more integrative toolkit for modeling and assessing the evolution of the genus Homo. To illustrate our points, we highlight how aspects of the genetic exchanges, morphology, and material culture of the later Pleistocene complicate the concept of "modern" human behavior and suggest that multiple evolutionary patterns, processes, and pathways intersected to form the human niche.

Humans are animals, mammals, primates, and hominoids, and thus we share extensive similarities with each of these groups, especially our closest cousins, the apes. But we are also hominins, specifi...

The search for ‘firsts’ is a common trope in the study of human evolution. Both popular books and scientific articles attempt to discern the key moments in evolutionary history that indicate the tr...

Biological Anthropology studies the variation and evolution of living humans, non-human primates, and extinct ancestors and for this reason the field should be in an ideal position to attract scientists from a variety of backgrounds who have different views and experiences. However, the origin and history of the discipline, anecdotal observations, self-reports, and recent surveys suggest the field has significant barriers to attracting scholars of color. For a variety of reasons, including quantitative research that demonstrates that diverse groups do better science, the discipline should strive to achieve a more diverse composition. Here we discuss the background and underpinnings of the current and historical dearth of diversity in Biological Anthropology in the U.S. specifically as it relates to representation of minority and underrepresented minority (URM) (or racialized minority) scholars. We trace this lack of diversity to underlying issues of recruitment and retention in the STEM sciences generally, to the history of Anthropology particularly around questions of race-science, and to the absence of Anthropology at many minority-serving institutions, especially HBCUs, a situation that forestalls pathways to the discipline for many minority students. The AAPA Committee on Diversity (COD) was conceived as a means of assessing and improving diversity within the discipline, and we detail the history of the COD since its inception in 2006. Prior to the COD there were no systematic AAPA efforts to consider ethnoracial diversity in our ranks and no programming around questions of diversity and inclusion. Departmental survey data collected by the COD indicate that undergraduate majors in Biological Anthropology are remarkably diverse, but that the discipline loses these scholars between undergraduate and graduate school and systematically up rank. Our analysis of recent membership demographic survey data (2014 and 2017) shows Biological Anthropology to have less ethnoracial diversity than even the affiliated STEM disciplines of Biology and Anatomy; nearly 87% of AAPA members in the United States identify as white and just 7% as URM scholars. These data also suggest that the intersection of race and gender significantly influence scholarly representation. In response to these data, we describe a substantial body of programs that have been developed by the COD to improve diversity in our ranks. Through these programs we identify principal concerns that contribute to the loss of scholars of color from the discipline at different stages in their careers, propose other directions that programming for recruitment should take, and discuss the beginnings of how to develop a more inclusive discipline at all career stages.

OBJECTIVES Cyclical submergence and re-emergence of the Sunda Shelf throughout the Pleistocene served as a dynamic biogeographic landscape, across which long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) have migrated and evolved. Here, we tested the integrity of the previously reported continental-insular haplotype divide reported among Y and mitochondrial DNA lineages across multiple studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS The continental-insular haplotype divide was tested by heavily sampling wild macaques from two important biogeographic regions within Sundaland: (1) Singapore, the southernmost tip of continental Asia and (2) Bali, Indonesia, the southeastern edge of the Indonesian archipelago, immediately west of Wallace's line. Y DNA was haplotyped for samples from Bali, deep within the Indonesian archipelago. Mitochondrial D-loop from both islands was analyzed against existing data using Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian approaches. RESULTS We uncovered both "continental" and "insular" Y DNA haplotypes in Bali. Between Singapore and Bali we found 52 unique mitochondrial haplotypes, none of which had been previously described. Phylogenetic analyses confirmed a major haplogroup division within Singapore and identified five new Singapore subclades and two primary subclades in Bali. DISCUSSION While we confirmed the continental-insular divide among mtDNA haplotypes, maintenance of both Y DNA haplotypes on Bali, deep within the Indonesian archipelago calls into question the mechanism by which Y DNA diversity has been maintained. It also suggests the continental-insular designation is less appropriate for Y DNA, leading us to propose geographically neutral Y haplotype designations.

Seeing bodies and evolutionary histories as quantifiable features that can be measured separately from the human cultural experience is an erroneous approach. Seeing cultural perceptions and the human experience as disentangled from biological form and function and evolutionary history is equally misguided. An integrative anthropology moves past dichotomous perspectives and seeks to entangle the “inside” and “outside,” methodologically and theoretically, to move beyond isolationist trends in understanding the human. In this paper I illustrate the underlying rationale for some anthropological lack of engagement with neo-Darwinian approaches and review contemporary evolutionary theory discussing how, in combination with a dynamic approach to human culture, it can facilitate integration in anthropology. Finally, I offer an overview of the human niche concept and propose a heuristic framework as a set of shared assumptions about human systems to help frame a sincerely anthropological and emphatically evolutio...

Both evolutionary/scientific and constructivist or humanistic approaches have brought valuable understandings to anthropology and continue to do so today. Discussions of the split(s) and possibilities of reintegration across anthropology have been valuable; however, practical reintegration will only come from a serious and open intellectual engagement with a diverse range of theoretical contexts and a direct connection to data. This volume is an attempt to provide innovative contexts for, and examples of, anthropologists reporting on their data and/or conceptualizing approaches to the data in ways that cross or straddle boundaries. While we offer niche construction theory and the extended evolutionary synthesis as common framework, the articles are not all in agreement on explanatory means and priorities. And this is a good thing. To develop an effective reintegration requires anthropologists to move away from artificial dichotomies and standing grudges and toward collaborations and a respect for theoreti...

Significance Recent views on violence emphasize the decline in proportions of war groups and casualties to populations over time and conclude that past small-scale societies were more violent than contemporary states. In this paper, we argue that these trends are better explained through scaling relationships between population and war group size and between war group size and conflict casualties. We test these relationships and develop measures of conflict investment and lethality that are applicable to societies across space and time. When scaling is accounted for, we find no difference in conflict investment or lethality between small-scale and state societies. Given the lack of population data for past societies, we caution against using archaeological cases of episodic conflicts to measure past violence., The proportions of individuals involved in intergroup coalitional conflict, measured by war group size (W), conflict casualties (C), and overall group conflict deaths (G), have declined with respect to growing populations, implying that states are less violent than small-scale societies. We argue that these trends are better explained by scaling laws shared by both past and contemporary societies regardless of social organization, where group population (P) directly determines W and indirectly determines C and G. W is shown to be a power law function of P with scaling exponent X [demographic conflict investment (DCI)]. C is shown to be a power law function of W with scaling exponent Y [conflict lethality (CL)]. G is shown to be a power law function of P with scaling exponent Z [group conflict mortality (GCM)]. Results show that, while W/P and G/P decrease as expected with increasing P, C/W increases with growing W. Small-scale societies show higher but more variance in DCI and CL than contemporary states. We find no significant differences in DCI or CL between small-scale societies and contemporary states undergoing drafts or conflict, after accounting for variance and scale. We calculate relative measures of DCI and CL applicable to all societies that can be tracked over time for one or multiple actors. In light of the recent global emergence of populist, nationalist, and sectarian violence, our comparison-focused approach to DCI and CL will enable better models and analysis of the landscapes of violence in the 21st century.

It is highly likely that there is a naturalness to a human imagination that facilitates engagement with, and being in, the world in ways that are distinct from those in other animals, even closely related hominins. A distinctively human imagination is part of the explanation for human evolutionary success. The combination of a niche-construction perspective with fossil and archeological evidence, highlighting the role of complexity in human evolution, adds to our understanding of a wholly human way of being. For humans, experiences in and perceptions of the world exist in a particular context wherein social relationships, landscapes, and biotic and abiotic elements are embedded in an experiential reality that is infused with a potential for symbolic meaning. Taking this approach provides a small, and hopefully fruitful, addition to the toolkit of inquiry for anthropologists, theologians, and others interested in reconstructing the path to humanity and the possible roles that imagination, belief, and religion have played and continue to play.

A niche is the structural, temporal, and social context in which a species exists. Over the last two million years, the human lineage underwent clear morphological changes alongside less easily measurable, but significant, behavioral and cognitive shifts as it forged, and was shaped by, new niches. During this time period, core human patterns emerged, including the following: hypercooperation; lengthy childhood and complex parenting; intricate and diverse foraging and hunting patterns; novel and dynamic material and symbolic cultures; and complex communication and information sharing, eventually resulting in language. Approaches to human evolution grounded in paleoanthropology and archaeology offer fundamental insights into our past, and traditional evolutionary theory offers a strong grounding for explaining them. However, given the centrality of distinctive physiological, social, semiotic, and cognitive processes in human evolutionary histories, a broader anthropological approach can facilitate additional understanding of the human story. An integrative anthropology, reaching across subfields and foci, combined with contemporary evolutionary theory is an approach that can enhance our abilities to model and understand human evolution. [integrative anthropology, niche construction, evolution, extended evolutionary synthesis, Homo, semiosis, Pleistocene]

The quest for understanding the human propensity for religious imagination can be aided by investigating more fully the core role of the evolutionary transition between becoming and being human. A distinctively human imagination is part of the explanation for human evolutionary success. Significant factors can be found in the evolutionary patterns and processes in the genus Homo during the Pleistocene, especially the later part of that epoch approximately 400–100,000 years ago. The combination of a niche construction perspective with fossil and archeological evidence, highlighting the role of cooperation in human evolution, adds to our understanding of a wholly human way of being, our socio-cognitive niche. This is a niche wherein experiences in, and perceptions of, of the world exist in a particular semiotic context: social relationships, landscapes, and biotic and abiotic elements are embedded in an experiential reality that is infused with a potential for symbolic meaning derived from more than the mat...

Humans are literal and figurative kin to other primates, with whom many of us coexist in diverse social, ecological, symbolic, conflictual, and even hopeful contexts. Anthropogenic action is changing global and local ecologies as fast as, or faster than, we can study them. Ethnoprimatology, the combining of primatological and anthropological practice and the viewing of humans and other primates as living in integrated and shared ecological and social spaces, is becoming an increasingly popular approach to primate studies in the twenty-first century. This approach plays a core linking role between anthropology and primate studies and may enable us to more effectively assess, and better understand, the complex ecologies and potential for sustainability in human–other primate communities. Here I review the basic theoretical underpinnings, historical contexts, and a selection of current research outcomes for the ethnoprimatological endeavor and indicate what this approach can tell us about human–other primate relations in the Anthropocene.

Recent and long-term sympatries between humans and nonhuman primates (hereafter primates) are central to the behavioral ecology, conservation, and evolutionary trajectories of numerous primate species. Ethnoprimatology emphasizes that interconnections between humans and primates should be viewed as more than just disruptions of a "natural" state, and instead anthropogenic contexts must be considered as potential drivers for specific primate behavioral patterns. Rather than focusing solely on the behavior and ecology of the primate species at hand, as in traditional primatology, or on the symbolic meanings and uses of primates, as in socio-cultural anthropology, ethnoprimatology attempts to merge these perspectives into a more integrative approach. As human pressures on environments continue to increase and primate habitats become smaller and more fragmented, the need for a primatology that considers the impact of human attitudes and behavior on all aspects of primate lives and survival is imperative. In this special issue, we present both data-driven examples and more general discussions that describe how ethnoprimatological approaches can be both a contribution to the core theory and practice of primatology and a powerful tool in our goal of conservation action.

The transition from early members of the genus Homo to Homo erectus/ergaster is marked by subtle morphological shifts but resulted in substantial changes in evolutionary trajectory. Predation pressures on the hominins may have been significant in influencing this transition. These contexts might have stimulated a shift in behavior and modes of engagement with the environment that initiated a complex suite of changes facilitating the emergence of current features of humanity. In this report we outline a potential model for these shifts based on nonlinear dynamical interactions involving niche construction and increased reliance on complex cooperation as an antipredator strategy. Modeling proposed selective predation pressures on early humans, leading to the idea that increasingly complex sociality, patterns of cooperation, and niche construction laid the foundation for the successful emergence and spread of the genus Homo and potentially a concomitant decline for the genus Paranthropus.

Most anthropologists would agree that humans are simultaneously historical, biological, behavioral, and social. However, many researchers retain a relatively dualistic paradigm dividing anthropological questions into biological and/or social aspects. Many practitioners of Neo-Darwinian perspectives prioritize natural selection in all explanations of human evolution. Many other anthropologists refuse to acknowledge a significant role for biological features and biological histories in human action, sensation, and engagement. Both perspectives are misplaced. Incorporating emerging perspectives in evolutionary theory into the broader anthropological discourse may help discard simplistic dualisms and resituate our assessments of the evolution of human behavior. In this essay I review three major emergent themes in evolutionary theory; Multi-Inheritance Systems Theory, Developmental Systems Theory, and Niche Construction. I suggest, with one brief example, that placing these elements in transaction with other perspectives in anthropology might enhance the possibilities of assessing human evolution and behavior.

In an evolutionary context neither religion nor religiosity can appear full-blown, and thus it is valuable to search for the kinds of structures, behaviors, and cognitive processes that might facilitate the appearance of such patterns in human beings. The quest for understanding the human propensity for religious behavior is aided by investigating the core role of the evolutionary processes related to the emergence of humanity. However, the majority of approaches in the field of the evolution of religious behavior, and religions themselves, rely heavily on overly reductionistic neo-Darwinian models. They seek to explain faith, religious institutions, and ritual practice primarily in terms of their relation to natural selection and their potential roles as adaptations. The niche construction approach to religious evolution provides an alternative to the primarily functionalist and reductive approach. This way of approaching the human niche, and human evolution, lays a groundwork for modeling the development of the structures (cognitive and behavioral) that can facilitate a more comprehensive, and less reductive, understanding of the human propensity for imagination, faith, and ritual. This approach suggests that a distinctively human imagination, and a uniquely human metaphysics, is a core part of being human and thus part of the explanation for human evolutionary success.

Social scientists, especially anthropologists, have long endeavored to understand the evolution of “human nature.” This investigation frequently focuses on the relative importance of competition versus cooperation in human evolutionary trajectories and usually results in a primary emphasis on competition, aggression, and even war in attempting to understand humanity. This perspective conflicts with long-standing perspectives in anthropology and some emerging trends and theory in evolutionary biology and ecology. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive in an evolutionary context. As anthropologists, we have demonstrated that humans can–and usually do–get along. Evolution is complex with multiple processes and patterns, not all of which involve competition and conflict. In this article, I summarize elements of modern ecological and evolutionary theory in the context of human cooperative patterns in an attempt to illustrate the valuable role of evolutionary theory and cooperative patterns in integrative anthropological approaches to the human condition.

Social organization involving pair bonding and two-adult groups is rare in mammals. Current sociobiological theory suggests that this grouping and behavior pattern is somewhat anomalous. The gibbons (genus Hylobates) are the only hominoids to exhibit pair bonds and two-adult groups. In this article I present an overview of the current issues in monogamy and pair-bond theory, and review traditional conceptualizations and the accumulated data relevant to gibbon social organization. The significance of hominoid behavioral phylogeny and population-wide studies is also considered. Recent findings indicate that pair-bonding and two-adult groups are not ubiquitous among the hylobatids. Many aspects of gibbon behavior and ecology do not conform to expectations of the conditions under which two-adult groups and/or pair-bonding patterns should evolve. A review of the information available from long-term and short-term studies of gibbons suggests an alternative way of viewing their socioecology. I propose that gibbons currently exist in variable communities that have arisen via ecological pressures and specific behavioral patterns from an ancestral multimale/multi-female grouping pattern. This social organization is not best characterized as "monogamous." This review also suggests that hominoid grouping patterns can be viewed as occurring along a continuum rather than as being discretely different units.

Researchers propose hypotheses for the occurrence of monogamy as a social system in primates based on the assumption that there are a group of primates, including humans, which live exclusively in “nuclear families” and share a similar set of social behaviors. Examining the primates purported to be “monogamous” reveals that they cover a wide range of grouping types, mating patterns, taxonomic groups, and evolutionary grades. While there are a few primate species that do live in small, two-adult groups and share a similar set of social behaviors, the vast majority of the supposed “monogamous” primates, including humans, do not. [monogamy, social systems, evolution, variability in social organization]

In this guest editorial the authors look at the association of four blood types with four Hippocratic personality types in Japan and in matching lovers through dating services in the West.

The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 456 pp. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. 332 pp.

Although there is a vast literature on laterality of hand-use in nonhuman primates, the Colobinae have been notably overlooked. Ten manual activities of differing complexity were studied in five male and five female adult Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) from a well habituated, wild population at Ramnagar, in southern Nepal. The activities recorded were carry, eat, hit, hold, idle, manipulate, reach, retrieve, self-groom and social groom. This study aimed to examine handedness across tasks and across subjects in a natural population. The overall result was a lack of preference for subjects and patterns. Only in the eating activity did four individuals show significant hand preference, though they were not unidirectional. Eat seemed to be loosely associated with hold due to the requirements of the strata which the monkeys utilize. These results suggest that hand use is unlateralized in P. entellus. Those individuals exhibiting some hand preferences can be viewed as statistical exceptions or perhaps subject to experiential differences. The results are discussed in terms of their evolutionary significance and methodological implications. Am J Phys Anthropol 103:455–461, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Today, scholars from numerous and highly diverse fields are not only addressing the question of what makes us human, but also seeking input from other disciplines to inform their answers to this fundamental issue. However, for the most part, evolutionary anthropologists are not particularly prominent in this discussion, or at least not acknowledged to be. Why is this the case? One reason may be that although evolutionary anthropologists are uniquely positioned to provide valuable insight on this subject, the responses from any one of us are likely to be as different as the research specializations and intellectual experiences that we bring to the table. Indeed, one would anticipate that a paleoanthropologist would not only have different views than a primatologist, geneticist, or behavioral ecologist, but from other paleoanthropologists as well. Yet if asked by a theologian, psychologist, or political scientist, and perhaps most importantly, by any curious person outside the walls of academia, do we have a response that most evolutionary anthropologists could agree on as reflecting our contributions to the understanding of being and becoming human? Our introductory textbooks usually begin with this fundamental question, yet seldom produce a concise answer. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The emerging manifesto, center of the essay collection this commentary is part of, points out that primatology is a primate's science and field of endeavor. It is about primates, and constructed and carried out by primates. But the relationships between different primates involved in primatology cannot be described merely as scientific, zoological, or conservatory. A main point emerging from this perspective is that the relationships amongst primates (as scientists and as subjects) are affected by primatologists' experiences outside of academic science and within the cultural schema that we acquire as members of human societies. My contribution focuses on the primatologists and their sometimes discussed, but too often ignored, cultural and ethnic contexts as influences on how they study, think about, and interact with other primates. In our views and bonds with other primates, do national, class, and ethnic factors count?

Nearly 60 years ago, Sherwood Washburn issued a call for a "New Physical Anthropology," a transition from measurement and classification toward a focus on the processes and mechanisms of evolutionary change. He advocated multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to the understanding of human behavior, biology, and history. Many interpret this as a call for a practice that is both biological and anthropological. Is this what we do? Are we biological anthropologists yet? In this essay, I explore what we, Physical Anthropologists, as a discipline are doing in the context of a New Physical Anthropology, where we might be headed, and why this discussion is crucial to our relevance.

An in-depth understanding of the contexts and patterns of human-macaque interactions can play an important role in assessing and managing the potential for pathogen transmission. The Padangtegal Monkey Forest in Bali, Indonesia, and the Upper Rock Nature Reserve in Gibraltar are two sites that have been relatively well studied in regard to human-macaque interactions. This article presents an overview of interaction patterns between humans and macaques at these sites along with a description of the cultural, demographic, and contextual differences between local and nonlocal humans at the sites. Differences in these two sites' interaction patterns included bite rates, the role of food in aggressive interactions, and the context in which the interactions took place. Similarities included overrepresentation by adult male macaques in interactions and a substantial impact by local cultural and demographic factors. These similarities and differences are interpreted as resulting from differences in macaque species and behaviors, and human demography, culture, and behavioral patterns.