CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 28, Number 2., April 1987 CI 1987 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, all righlS reserved 0011-3204/8712802-0003$1.75 Ph.D., 19591 and, after teaching for two years at the University of New Mexico, returned to join its faculty in 1961. He was Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University in 1970-71. His research inter ests are historical demography, social Structure, cognitive an thropology, the ethnography of Europe (especially the Balkansl, and quantitative analysis. He has published Power in lea: The So· cial History of a Peruvian Valley (BostOn: Little, Brown, 1969); Ritual Relations and Allernalive Social Structures in the Balkans {Englewood CWfs: Prentice·Hall, 1968}; with K. Wachter and P. Laslett, Statistical Studies of Historical Social Structure (New York: Academic Press, 1978h with S. R. Johansson and C. Gins berg, 'r'fhe Value of Children during Industrialization 1I0UIna] of Family History 8:346-66); and Short·term Demographic Fluctua tions in the Croatian Military Border of Austria (European lour· nal of Demography 1:265-90). NANCY HOWELL is Post-doctoral Research Fellow in the Program in Organizations and Aging, Department of Sociology, Stanford University. She was born in 1938 and received her B.A from Bran deis University in 1963 and her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1968. She has taught at Princeton University (1969-72) and the University of Toronto 11972.-85). She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and did this work while a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif. Her research intereSts are demographic anthropology and occupational health and safety in anthropology. Her first book was Search for an Abortionist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), and she is the author of Village Compo sition of a Paleodemographic Life Table: The Libben Site (Ameri can lournal of Physical Anthropology 59:2.63-69), TowaId a Uniformitarian Theory of Human Paleodemography (Journal of Human Evolution S:25-4ol, and Demography of the Dobe !Kung lNew York: Academic Press, 1979). The present paper was submitted in final form 8 VII 86. Research in Population and Culture: An Evolutionary Framework 1 by E. A. Hammel and N aney Howell Theories on the relationship between population and social evolu· tion, such as those of Malthus, Marx, and Boserup, have disap pointed analysts who wish to use such theories as a basis for infer' ence in unrecorded history, largely because of the unrealistic specificity of the hypotheses and the lack of adequate data in cate· gories that help to clarify the application of theory to human pop ulation history. We propose that it is time to reformulate such a theory, drawing upon a new level of sophistication in an thropological demography that pennits more complexity in the theory itself about alternative outcomes of stressful points in pop ulation history and the testing of hypotheses in more realistic contexts of continentwide examinations of populations influenc ing each other by their expansions and contractions. We antici· pate finding that population fission is a particularly interesting alternative response to population pressure when we are dealing with relatively sparse populations and that the place of the given population, in the core or on the periphery of population growth centers, is crucial in influencing the alternatives used. E. A. HAMMEL is Professor of Anthropology and Demography at the University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif. 9472.0, U.S.A.}. Born in 1930, he was educated at Berkeley lA.B., 1951; 1. Portions of thiS paper were delivered as the keynote section of a symposium on anthropological demography at the annual meet· ings of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., December 6,1985. We acknowledge the contributions of the participants in that symposium, especially Jane Buikstra, Mark Co· hen, Henry Harpending, Penn Handwerker, Ann Millard, Robert Netting, Lucille Newman, Patricia Reining,. Susan Scrimshaw, and G_ William Skinner, both in the fonn of their own papers and discussions and in the comments they made, both prior to the meeting and at the meeting, on our remarks. Similarly, we thank George Collier, William Durham, James Spuhler, and Aram Yen goyan, with whom we consulted at an earlier stage in the arrange· ment of the symposium. A version of this paper was also presented at the Stanford·Berkeley Colloquium in Population, San Francisco, December 10, 1985, and to seminar participants at Berkeley in the spring. We appreciate the advice and comments of participants, especially of Paul David, Ronald D. Lee, Nicholas Townsend, and Kenneth Wachter. Our interest in this topic and especially in evo lutionary economics from a demographic perspective owes much to the inspiration, encouragement, and critical assessments of Lee and Wachter, with whom we continue to differ on some points. Four observations motivate us to make the following proposals on the place of population theories in an thropology. First, we see the fundamental demographic events of birth, marriage, migration, and death as im· bued by all human societies with intense emotional and moral significance. These events are central to the drama of human life, and all cultures treat them as im portant and interesting, worthy of elaboration and cere monial notice. Second, we are encouraged by the increases in techni cal quality of the demographic studies in anthropology that have been appearing in the past few years (Howell 1986aj. This higher-quality analysis and discussion, largely free from the ambiguities and errors that charac terized demographic anthropology in the past, give us optimism aboUl the expected yield from theoretical work in this area. Third, we see the subject matter of demography as cutting across and unifying the subdisciplines of an· thropology as few other topics do. A focus on demo graphic phenomena provides a common ground for ob servation, discussion, and intellectual integration across the subfields. The simplicity of demographic concepts, the possibility of unambiguous counting procedures, and the consequent ability to test hypotheses provide opportunities for new research and new collaboration between physical and biological anthropologists, archae ologists, and social and cultural anthropologists inter ested in a range of questions. r4 1