|
|
| |
Current
Anthropology
1992
Adams, Robert McC. Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthropology 1992 – Supplement: 141-160. Originally published: Current Anthropology September, 1974 Vol.15(3): 239-258. Robert Adams, a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago, believes the traditional methods of studying ancient trade have been too narrow and have isolated the topic from a wider cultural system. He believes that a much more complete understanding of trade can be acquired by incorporating ethnographic and ethno-historic sources into traditional archaeological methods. First, Adams critiques the current methods employed by archaeologists defining trade and he points to shortcomings. Next, he discusses the benefits of including ethnographic data in the reconstruction of past societies and suggests that modern cultures are not close enough in time to represent past societies. He also points out the entrepreneurial nature of trade and how trade should not be assumed to be a reflection of the society as a whole, through the examples of Plains Indian and African cultures. Finally, Adams applies his conclusion to a study of Near Eastern cuneiform sources from merchants. He concludes his application of his theory by suggesting that if the concrete evidence is vague, which is often the case, the research should be willing to follow other leads, which may end in a completely new interpretation of the data. This article addresses an interesting and complex topic: ancient trade. The article attempts to suggest a new method of analyzing archaeological remains. Adams seems to be very influential among his colleagues and they seem excited and intrigued by his ideas. However, the article is very difficult to follow and requires re-reading several times in order to grasp what is being conveyed. Also, the article is written with a confusing sentence structure that makes what is being advocating for and what is being discredited difficult to determine. COMMENTS: The majority of the comments made about Adam’s article agreed with his claims, and several colleagues were even completely supportive. Others thought that Adam’s examples were too vague. They explained how they had a more broad view of archaeological questions, but refrained from asserting answers to broad view questions. Still others added their own expertise in the areas Adams highlights in his article. REPLY: Adams replies to his colleagues with a general overview of his statements from the article. He states that aspects of the paper that his colleagues had trouble with were the same topics Adams struggled with, but stresses that he is only trying to broaden current research patterns. He replies to several of his colleagues comments directly and he gives a general conclusion as he restates his purpose. CLARITY: 3 BRIAN BLUHM University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones) .gif){kind=small} Bar-Yosef, O., B. Vandermeersch,
B. Arensburg, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, L. Meignen,
Y. Rak, J. D. Speth, E. Tchernov, A-M. Tillier, and S. Weiner. The Excavations in Bar-Yosef, Vandermeersch, and their colleagues summarize the results
of their 1982-1990 excavations at the site of The first portion of the article primarily concerns a history of previous
excavations at The geological deposits at The article concludes by stating that any implications from their data
for understanding the transition from the Middle- to the Upper Paleolithic
would be beyond its purpose. COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 2 JACQUELINE F. PETKEWICZ
Bird-David,
Nurit. Beyond "The Original Affluent Society". Current Anthropology,1992 Vol.33(1):25-45. Bird-David’s article examines
Marshall Sahlins’ conclusions about the nature of hunter-gatherers
as discussed in his work “The Original Affluent Society.” Sahlins’ research consisted of studying
the work ethic and ecological relationships of three hunter- gatherer
groups: the Nayaka of South India, the Batek of Malaysia, and the Mbuti
of Zaire. Sahlins’ conclusions have been criticized for not applying
universally to all hunter-gatherer societies and for not taking into
account other time consuming factors concerning the societies he studied.
Bird-David reformulates and attempts to reconfirm Sahlins’ argument
using an updated cultural method of economic analysis In
studying hunter-gatherers' economic behavior, Sahlins observed that
most individuals have few
possessions, and those goods can be constructed easily out of locally
abundant materials. He also found that hunter-gatherers have a tendency
to be careless, and lack interest in developing technological equipment
Sahlins’ work was premised on two cultural propositions. One premise
argues that affluence is a culture-specific relation between material
wants and means, namely that hunter-gatherers achieve affluence by
reducing their material wants. The other premise proposes that the
economic behavior of hunter-gatherers makes sense in relation to their
strong confidence in their environment.He
concluded that hunter-gatherers were content with the few possessions
they had, and did not consider the need to work for more. Bird-David
relates to Sahlins’ theory
and how it emphasizes of the power of the hunter-gatherers’ trust in
their environment, as it is akin to her culturalist approach to economic
analysis. Bird-David refers to the South Indian Nayaka, the Mbuti of
Zaire, and the Batek of Malaysia in reference to the cosmic economy
of sharing model that she uses to examine their immediate return systems.She
finds that each group has notions which attribute life and consciousness
to natural phenomena. These notions
are comprised of their belief that the natural agencies socialize with
them, give food and gifts to everyone regardless of social status,and
that they are children of the forest.The hunter-gather groups Bird-Davis
mentions consider their environment
part of their community and treat it with the same level of respect
as they would other human beings. Bird-Davis
concludes that the fundamental flaw in"The Affluent Society" is
Sahlin's conflation of cultural and ecological perspectives. She
explains that in terms
of the cosmic economy of sharing, the economic behavior of hunter-
gatherers with immediate returns makes sense, but his assumption that
their confidence in the environment is explained by abundance does
not.This is becuase we cannot understand their
experience with the natural world through our terms, we can only undstand
it if we change our world view and regard it by their terms. COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 3 .gif){kind=small} Bird-David, Nurit. Beyond “The Original Affluent Society”: A Culturalist Reformulation. Current Anthropology February, 1992 Vol.33(1):25-47. This is a critique of the first chapter of Stone Age Economics, a book written in 1972 by Marshall Sahlins on the idea of “The Original Affluent Society”, which was a proposal that hunting and gathering was an economically and socially abundant lifestyle. Bird-David attempts to make clear Sahlins’ ideas and intentions, as well as offering new facts that were either incorrect or left out. She used three case studies from: the Nayaka of South India, the Batek of Malaysia, and the Mhuri of Zaire, to show the reality of a hunting-gathering economic system. Bird-David recognized that Sahlins made accurate and inaccurate statements in his essay. Sahlins was thought to be accurate when mentioning their “peculiar” economic behavior: they had few possessions though many available materials in which they could develop technological equipment. They did not store food, but only satisfy their immediate needs. This is called “the immediate-return system.” Sahlins was, however, accused of assuming meanings for their attitudes and actions based on rationality, which were instead cultural, such as describing hunter-gatherers’ work as practical reason based on ecological restrictions. He dispelled the myth of a hunter-gatherer’s “unrelenting quest for food,” but was inaccurate about their work-load, saying they worked a three to five hours a day. His very proposition was culturally inappropriate- a “time-illiterate” people have not constructed such a western notion. Bird-David notes that the Nayaka, Batek, and Mbuti do not think of the environment as a separate entity, an “ecological other”, but instead personify it and form personal relationships with the land. They believe they are affluent even when there is not an abundance of material goods and are confident that the environment will share its resources. They have a “cosmic economy of sharing” which embraces human-to-human and nature-to-human sharing. Nature as a “bank” is the best way to compare both societies. They are affluent because all do not withdraw resources at the same time, leaving enough for sharing in the future. COMMENTS: Ichikawa felt that Bird-David left out the “negative” side of hunter-gatherers’ relationship with the environment, presenting a problem for his argument about the sharing relationship between nature and humans. Because of the use of metaphorical language, Ingold and Abramson accuse Bird-David of implying that hunter-gatherers are “wrong” when they “imagine” nature to be a sharing partner. REPLY: The “negative” impact of hunter-gatherers in the environment does not ruin the sharing relationship, but makes it more realistic. Human to human relationships have negative aspects, just as do human to nature relationships. She also explains that metaphorical models are commonly used to explain reality, and since they are grounded in real experiences and not just stories, they are not imaginary or invalid. CLARITY:3 STACY METTNER University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Burchard, Roderick E.Coca Chewing and Diet.Current Anthropology, Feb., 1992. Vol 33(1)
1-24. In Coca Chewing and Diet, Roderick E. Burchard investigated the common assumption that the Andean tradition of chewing coca leaves (of which cocaine is naturally derived) eliminated the desire for food, and therefore decreased an individual’s nutritional intake.The Andean tradition of chewing coca consists of forming a quid with the leaves of the plant and then placing it in the mouth to digest the juices.On the average 4-5grams of coca leaves is chewed by regular intervals throughout the day.The reason for the ongoing controversy over the eradication of the traditional practice is because many prohibitionist movements are demanding for the Andean people to remove it from their daily life. One anthropological study that looked at the affects of coca on the Andean people was termed the Loss of Appetite-Reduced Food Consumption Hypothesis by its creator Carlos Gutierrez Noriega.Widely used as support for those against the practice, this hypothesis suggested what its name described, that chewing coca leaves had a negative affect on a person’s diet. Carlos Gutierrez Noriega studied the people of the Huancayo Burchard looked towards other ethnographic studies in order to dispel
the Loss of Appetite- Reduced Food Consumption Theory.He delineated two other matched-pair studies,
one in Later in 1980, William Carter conducted the Bolivian study, by surveying
3513 randomly selected households about their food intake and coca chewing.Carter
found that differences arose in the results for a variety of reason,
such as age, sex, and ecological zone.He
also conducted a yearlong ethnographic research project consisting of
twenty-four matched pairs of which 14 were male and 10 were female.They observed the eating habits and the coca
use of the people along with collecting 24-hour dietary recall reports
for each matched pair.The results
showed that non-chewers ate less, had a smaller protein and caloric intake,
and smaller body index size that coca chewers.Fine also noticed that certain eating behaviors
such as coca chewers rarely if ever turn down food even to the extent
that they remove a quid from their mouths in order to eat.He concluded that coca chewing is a part
of the Andean social life, such as in the activities of building a house
or cultivating the crops. Burchard concludes that food intake and coca chewing should be complementary.He
took issue with the idea that an increased in food production and wealth
would decrease in the need to chew coca.He
argues against this by pointing out that presently coca is one of the
biggest cash crops for COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 4 Burchard, Roderick E. Coca Chewing and Diet. Current Anthropology February, 1992 Vol.33(1):1-24. In Coca Chewing and Diet, Roderick E. Burchard attempt to disprove an earlier theory by Gutierrez Noriega about the extreme health defects that coca chewing has on Andean cultures, specifically those of Bolivia and Peru. Burchard supports his belief that it has no significant health problems by showing results from a matched-pair study of food consumption by coca chewers and non-chewers in high and low altitude zones. He comes to the conclusion that “coca chewing and food consumption are complimentary rather than antagonistic activities.” The fact that coca leaves are the natural source of cocaine has stimulated prohibitionists to believe that coca chewing claims harmful effects on the health and well being of the Andean people. A champion of this belief, Gutierrez Noriega, went even as far as to say that coca chewing has direct effects on the diet or lack thereof of the Andean people. He outlines a coca chewer's diet as being quite low in protein rich foods, fruits, and sugars; their diet mainly consists of carbohydrates. He also claims that coca chewing reduces the diet almost entirely when the Andean people substitute coca leaves for food. He does however admit that these observations could not be applied to Peru as a whole due to variations regionally, economically, and temporally. He also stated how there are different degrees of wealth among the peasants of Peru. This perceived problem was brought to the United Nations which subsequently led a United Nations Commission of Inquiry to travel to Peru and Bolivia. There was no formal study done; most of the time was spent in conferences involving medical professionals, the military, police authorities and many others. Poorness of diet was a central theme in these conferences and coca chewing was correlated with shortages of food and the Andean people feeling a need for coca. The main conclusion of their findings was that of a “vicious cycle”: malnutrition causes coca-leaf chewing, but coca leaf chewing also produces malnutrition. So the betterment of nutrition was perceived as the solution to the whole problem. Neither the United Nations nor Noriega had established either qualitative or observational evidence to back up this claim, so Burchard concludes that “If the coca leaf does result in the loss of appetite and reduced food consumption, then there should be significant differences in the amounts of food consumed by closely matched pairs of coca chewers and non-chewers living under similar conditions in Andean communities.” Thus was the basis for a matched pair study in Bolivia on coca chewing and diet. This survey was undertaken by William Carter and a team of Bolivian researchers, and since Burchard was interested in the relationship of coca chewing and diet, Carter invited him to coordinate the collection and analysis of the dietary data. The researchers had a statistically representative sample of 3,513 individuals from randomly selected households. There were however complications with the subjects selected for the study such as lack of participation, preganancy, or subjects simply withdrew from the study. The team ended up with a sample of 24 matched pairs of coca chewers and non-chewers: 10 pairs of women and 14 pairs of men. They found that intensity of coca chewing varied according to ecological zone, language spoken, religion, age set, education, and occupation. This completely contrasts with the notion that coca chewing can only explained in correlation with diet as was concluded by Noriega and the UN. In fact, the researchers data in food consumption showed that in ever case coca chewers ate more than non-chewers. They didn't eat all the same kinds of food but had more caloric intake. Burchard states that, “[these] facts certainly pose a serious challenge to the prohibitionist's central hypothesis” and that “Therefore any suggestion that cocoa chewing is simply either a cause or a consequence of caloric insufficiency is apparently without basis in fact.” An ethnographic account was given in this article explaining one event of coca use and the roofing of a man's house. All the workers gathered at the work site and coca was supplied by the owner of the house. Coca chewing commenced until everyone was given their assignments. The workers then worked until about 10:30 am in which they mentioned it was time for the pijecheo (coca break). Everyone rested, socialized, told jokes, and laughed. After a half an hour, they resumed work and at 11:30 three women brought large amounts of food for work. This most recent study on coca chewing and diet was beneficial to the health and well being of the Andean people, but was backed up with a rather small sample size. However it is a much more applied study than that of Gutierrez Noriega and the UN, who basically heard testimony and gave generalizations and tried to put a band-aid on the perceived health problem of the Andean people. This coca chewing is no doubt correlated with coffee breaks or drinking coffee, or even smoking cigarettes for that matter. They are all considered stimulant drugs and no doubt suppress hunger to some degree. Cultural relativism certainly plays a part in this argument: as Burchard has shown in this article, it is quite incorrect to go to a different culture and find things wrong with their norms. CLARITY: 5 JUSTIN WRIGHT University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Kirch, Patrick V. and Roger C. Green. History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in Polynesia. Current Anthropology, Supplement. Feb., 1992 Vol. 33 (1): 161-186. Kirch and Green present a case for using evolutionary theory to understand cultural change and diversity. Pivotal to the utilization of evolutionary theory is archaeology, which fulfills the role in cultural evolution that paleontology does in biological evolution—unveiling those processes and forces that create variation. Drawing upon their own and others’ extensive research in the Polynesian Islands, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of the theoretical framework by using it to illuminate this case of “cultural radiation” and selective pressures. The crux of their framework is based on the concept of the phylogenetic unit, in which the evolutionary history of a grouping of cultures can be traced in a branching lineage back to a common ancestor. For Polynesia, the related societies can be traced back to an ancestral culture complete with a parent population and protolanguage by using historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and linguistic data. The Polynesian islands, with a distinct variety of related cultures, visibly demonstrate evolutionary processes, including convergence and divergence. By emphasizing the use of historical knowledge, their methodology also facilitates the discernment of homologous and analogous characteristics in cases of “cultural radiation” and divergence. COMMENTS: Responses were divided between those who accepted this framework either wholeheartedly or cautiously, and those for whom it was riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Contention arose over diverse aspects, and included the assertion that Kirch and Green’s evolution was of a Lamarckian rather than Darwinian nature. Others questioned why an evolutionary framework was necessary at all and its applicability to other cultures. Most found that despite the impression the authors give of a well-defined model that creates an excellent context for understanding the wealth of data from Polynesia, they relied too heavily on known comparative linguistic data and failed to recognize its limitations. REPLY: Dismissing some critiques as being argumentative and counter-productive to discussion, the authors focus instead on enlarging on how cultural evolution differs from genetic evolution, resolving the Lamarckian issue. They stand solidly by their framework and address at length their critics’ concerns regarding linguistics and other fine details. CLARITY: 3 ALYSSA CAYWOOD University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Leacock, Eleanor. Women’s Status in Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution. Current Anthropology Feb., 1992 Vol.33(1): 225-259. In this article Leacock argued that the framework of egalitarian society had been misinterpreted because there was a misunderstanding of women’s involvement in this type of society as not being independent. She attempted to show historical and unbiased reinterpretations of these societies to reveal that egalitarianism was relevant to women as well as to men and that this was of the utmost importance to comprehend social evolution. According to Leacock, egalitarian society was misunderstood as a weak version of modern society, when in reality the band consisted of a basic economic unit where individuals marketed their own products, property did not exist and decisions were made by those that would be carrying out the decisions. She looked at four different egalitarian societies: the Montagnais-Naskapi, the Australian Aboriginal and Ojibwa, and to some extent the Iroquois. In each of these societies she demonstrated that women held different forms of independence and sovereignty from men. The women of the Montagnais-Naskapi band had no social or economic responsibilities that bound them to their men, but had great power since they held the status of shamans similar as the men. Among the Ojibwa, girls and women were taught all that boys and men learned, i.e. warfare, hunting and shamanistic ways up through to adulthood. The women in Australian Aboriginal societies had the power to show their husbands they were economically indispensable by withholding contributions from their husbands after domestic altercations or by moving out of the home until he made peace with his wife. Finally, among different bands of the Iroquois, women held two acceptable powers, the right to deal with captives of war and the right to make decisions about marriage. Leacock stated that the roles of women changed as a result of social evolution which occurred during the transition of manufacturing goods for joint household use to manufacturing goods to sell for profit and this is when women began to lose command over their manufacturing status. Sexual division of labor in relation to bearing children became the foundation of their oppression as individual producers of services in individual households. She also stated that this was not an easy or rapid process that occurred but that women did retain some of their economic independence as traders and a comparatively elevated status. COMMENTS: The author was given much praise about her findings and contributions to the role of women in egalitarian societies. Although there were a few that disagreed on her interpretation of egalitarian societies and some found there was a lack of examples of women’s roles. REPLY: The author concedes that she should have lengthened her paper to include more details and examples of women’s roles in egalitarian societies and that there were four areas in which her paper needed work. CLARITY: 4 IZTLATZIGUATH R. CASTANO University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
MacLaury, Robert E. From Brightness to MacLaury discusses the MacLaury states that a theoretical design is necessary to interpret COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 2 MacLaury, Robert E. From Brightness to Hue: An Explanatory Model of Color-Category Evolution. Current Anthropology April, 1992 Vol.33(2): 137-186. This article addresses the idea that societies throughout the world interpret colors differently and how recognition and classification of color has changed over time. While some cultures and languages have words to describe red, yellow, green, and blue, other languages have hundreds of words to describe different shades of color and the hues of each of those shades. This study was based on an initial color category evolution study by Berlin and Kay. Their study was a World Color Survey, with color chips, to see how people from around the world identified colors. Without further background on that study, it was difficult to follow Berlin and Kay’s study and some of their findings and ideas at times. MacLaury described a number of experiments and tests to see how people identified colors. Many tests concluded that people are able to differentiate between colors better if the colors are displayed in a real experience or situation, like a painting along with other colors, rather than just a color swatch. He also stated that naming and recognition of colors is often based on personal experiences and the amount of contact that you have with a variety of colors, so as expected an artist would have a wider color vocabulary than perhaps an accountant. While some cultures are surrounded by a forest and numerous shades of green, another culture residing near the ocean may be able to distinguish shades of blue. This article was extremely difficult to follow because of the many scientific terms for categorizing colors. Without the knowledge of color organization and naming, one may find themselves overwhelmed by this article. COMMENTS: Roger Wescott believed that MacLaury made good points when discussing the fact that many Salishan languages do not have terms for yellow and the lack of terms for colors in Australian languages. He felt that MacLaury should have discussed more about the differences in these languages. J, Van Brakel, a philosophy professor, touched on the idea that some cultures are lacking descriptive words for color because they have no need for them. While a number of the comments praised MacLaury's studies, some of them criticized his study and felt that it lacked substance. CLARITY:1 CORTNEY HAHN University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Roebroeks, Wil, Nicholas J. Conrad,
and Thijs van Kolfschoten. Dense
Forests, Cold Steepes, and the Palaeolithic Settlement of This article focuses on whether or not pre-modern humans could have
survived the extreme climates present during the Upper Palaeolithic in
northern The authors provide some context behind the argument, including information
about the harsh environment during the Upper Palaeolithic in northern According to Roebroeks et al. the data they provide clearly shows that
pre-modern humans occupied northern Roebroeks et al. believe that environmental data from the region can
not be used to stipulate the difference of major differences between
pre-modern and modern humans.However,
they do not intend to imply that no differences exist.They only wish to explain that there should
be no link between behavioral characteristics and anatomical differences.Roebroeks et al. believe that the data they
present shows that because pre-modern and modern humans occupied the
same environments one can conclude behavioral similarities as well. COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 1 AMANDA SUCHARDA Marquette University (Jane Peterson) Roebroeks, Wil; Nicholas J. Conrad; Thijs van Kolfschoten. Dense Forests, Cold Steppes, and the Paleolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Current Anthropology Dec, 1992 Vol.33(5): 551-586. The authors aim
to stimulate academic discussion about then contemporary ecological
models of Eemian (pre-hominid) and Mesolithic (hominid) habitation
and exploitation of Northern Europe. These models proposed that modern
humans possessed an "Upper Paleolithic package" which gave
them the material and cultural tools to exploit environments uninhabited
by pre-modern man. The authors refute this claim and state that the geographic
range of pre-modern humans is much wider than proposed, including the
near glacial environments. COMMENTS: R.W. Dennell begins the Comments section the paper by agreeing with the thesis of Roebroeks et al.; that pre-modern and modern hominids inhabited wide ranges in Northern Europe, but he disagrees that this indicates similar behavior. Clive Gable, the archaeologist with whom the authors spend a good deal of their paper disagreeing with, claims "they have missed the wood by concentration on the trees- their own climatic bias (569)." Gamble feels that Roebroeks et al. did not take into account the vastly different environments available to hominids. REPLY: In their reply Roebroeks et al. indicated that they were pleased that most of the comments they received were positive. They felt that the negative remarks were a result of the commentator writing "their own concerns and preconceptions into our text (579)." CLARITY: 3 LOWELL EVANS University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Sept, Jeanne M.Was There No Place Like Home?:A New Perspective on Early Hominid Archaeological
Sites From the Mapping of Chimpanzee Nests.Current Anthropology, Apr., 1992.Vol.33(2):187-207. Sept’s research supports arguments that early hominid settlement archaeological sites could have formed as by-products of a system of subsistence very different from a home-based or central-foraging system.She aims to discern whether the cumulative pattern of debris discarded by wild chimpanzees is distinguishable from the pattern of remains left behind by early hominids.This is a topic of interest because human social and economic activities are unique among primates.The earliest humans have left behind cultural debris, the accumulation of which has led these sites to be called ‘home bases’.The home base model was shaped by Glen Isaac and proposes that after foraging, hominids returned to a central place for refuge from predators or to share food.The home base model has three features: one, the artifacts/debris are transported there artificially; two, the bones are from different species showing that the meat was transported to the site for separate feeding episodes; and three, the concentration of debris shows debris producing activities such as food sharing occurring within the same spatial focus.Ethnoarchaeologists witness home bases among modern hunter and gatherer groups who return to central places in camps where they share food and activities and that are littered with refuse, artifacts, and food remains. Sept does acknowledge that the problem with applying modern hunter and gatherer behavior to hominid debris sites is that applications would be ethnocentric.Alternatives to the home base model in explaining artifact concentrations are:one, the ‘stone cache’ hypothesis; and two, ‘natural processes’ hypothesis.The stone cache hypothesis says that the concentrations of artifacts could have formed if early hominids were stockpiling stones in their foraging areas in order to serve as centralized tool sources for future food processing needs, such as butchery.The natural processes hypothesis explains debris accumulation due to the transportation of prey by predators to a home base where byproducts accumulate, or as locations that attract faunal and floral accumulation. Sept compares chimpanzees to early hominids because of their close evolutionary history, intelligence, technical skills, omnivorous diet, and savannah habitat.West African chimpanzees have been observed returning to favorite nesting and feeding sites, leaving behind debris (such as broken twigs, seeds, nut shells, hair and bones from small prey), and they are also known to use stones to crack nuts or hard fruit.Therefore, by studying spatial patterns of chimpanzee activities that produce debris, archaeologist can explore alternatives to existing behavioral models of site formation.Sept studied ten to fifteen wild chimpanzees that inhabited the banks of the Ishasha River in Eastern Zaire.In this particular habitat it is dryer than most other chimpanzee habitats but it is similar to the semiarid riparian habitats in East Africa where archaeological sites were formed two million years ago.Sept’s crew surveyed thirty-five belt transects that ran perpendicular to the river for two seasons.They mapped and described chimpanzee nests and other physical traces (residues and feces) they found.Sept’s results show that the Ishasha chimps are spatially redundant, often returning to the same locations.Sept also contends that if the chimpanzees had left debris or residues where they constructed their nest it would not support the home base model.Concentrations would have formed because the local forest structure and composition favored frequent use such as ample food sources or canopy density. COMMENTS: REPLY: CLARITY:4 ELIZABETH
LANGENFELD Marquette University(Dr. Jane Peterson) Sept, Jeanne M. Was There No Place Like Home?: A New Perspective on Early Hominid Archaeological Sites From the Mapping of Chimpanzee Nests. Current Anthropology Vol. 33 No. 2 April 1992 p. 187-207. Sept has a hypothesis that one way we can learn how early hominids lived is by studying the nesting patterns of chimpanzees to see if there are any patterns that could be compared to debris patterns left in sites known to be inhabited by hominids. The article begins by explaining what criteria mark a site dubbed to be an early hominid campsite, such as transported rocks and evidence these rocks have been shaped by forces other than those found in nature. The flaws of these arguments are then pointed out, then why a new model of trying to determine how early hominids lived is needed. Some of these sites were used for butchering animals, but not necessarily for living. Another reason why most of these haven't survived is because the materials left there have rotted away. She decides to study a band of chimpanzees in the Ishasha river valley in eastern Congo, because it closely resembles the habitat that hominids inhabited. She points out that chimps have some similar behaviors to hominids, and that theoretically the debris patterns should be similar as well. Six surveys take place in 1989 and 1990 during the dry season, which is in June, July and August. During these, she checks debris patterns left by chimps around their nests and compares them to sites that have been proposed to be used by early hominids. Although she makes some good points, she doesn't really draw any conclusions to her work and states that this is a preliminary study. There are several charts and graphs showing her numbers of nesting sites, of transect sites and how frequently nesting sites were used. COMMENTS: The comments section has a variety of comments, questions and criticisms. A few of them cite the lack of conclusion in her work; one person compared it to a research proposal rather than a paper. One complains that she acts like chimpanzees and humanoids were the only ones to leave unique debris patterns around their nests. Another criticism is she reads too much into the chimpanzee sites and that they are merely gathering places because they have abundant fruit or offer a safe place to sleep and are not what could be called a "home." Some do praise her for mentioning this as an area of research. A few commentators have problems with the names of trees she cites as ones the chimpanzees use. REPLY: She breaks down her reply into the categories the criticisms were based, (modeling, home bases and central foraging and the data considered) and states that she wanted to start the discussion on how chimpanzee nesting sites, modern human foraging patterns and hominid archaeological sites can be used to create a better picture of what life was like for the hominids. CLARITY: 3 SARAH NISKANEN University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Shore, Cris.Virgin Births and Sterile Debates:Anthropology and the New Reproductive Technologies.Current Anthropology, Jun.,1992.Vol.33 (3): 295-314. Cris Shore argues that the lesson from anthropology is that every society has a vested interest in controlling reproduction.As evidence he states that within society it is possible to find dominant institutions, such as the Catholic Church or the medical field, that compete to control the way in which the society accepts concepts of birth and reproduction. Shore explores the political, social, and anthropological issues raised by new reproduction technologies.New reproductive technologies are controversial because of their social and legal implications.They challenge traditional ideas about motherhood, biological inheritance, the integrity of family, and the “naturalness” of birth itself.Shore begins his paper by stating that questions about reproductive technologies fall into one of three categories:(1) those that emphasize the ethical and practical problems resulting from experimentation on human embryos, (2) those that redefine the structure of parenthood, and (3) those raised by feminist writers.Shore contends that a fourth category should be added that would raise anthropological concerns; what new technological advances reveal about attitudes towards social institutions such as marriage, parenthood, and childbirth.Ethical problems include such questions as: does experimentation on human embryos violate the sanctity of human life, and will it result with genetic engineering? Who is the legal parent of a child born to a woman who is neither its genetic nor its social mother, explores the structure of parenthood.Feminists writers raise such questions a: in societies where women are largely defined in terms of their reproductive capacities, what effect will these technologies have on women’s lives? These issues are explored within the framework of advanced capitalist societies of North America and northwestern Europe. The 1984 Warnock Report and the Embryology Bill of 1990, that were issued by the English government, are used to illustrate the conflicts and debates surrounding the issue of family, parenting, and kinship.Various opinions from different professional fields and organizations illustrate different responses among groups regarding new reproductive technologies.For example, Shore states that science and medicine view the new reproductive technologies as having potential medical benefits.However, groups like the Roman Catholic Church believe that life begins at conception, and the human being must be respected from that very moment.A position that puts the church at odds with scientists, who favors embryo research because of its potential medical benefits.Responses from feminist writers show the disparity within groups.Although some feminists see artifical insemination as a way to free women from depending on men in order to have a child, some see embryo research as potentially harmful to the woman and a way for men to control the process of reproduction. In the remainder of the article, the relationship between artificial insemination and kinship is explored.The Warnock Committee established by the English government, assembled evidence from more than 350 different organizations, ranging from the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the British Housewives’ League to the Law Society, and a variety of health authorities. The purpose of the committee was to confront the relationship between social parenthood and biological procreation.The different responses from the various groups are used to demonstrate that in Britain an ideology of kinship and affinity still exists, which supports the notion that the family must be preserved with its biological and sexual integrity. COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY RATING: 4 LESLEY ELLEFSON Marquette University(Dr. Jane Peterson) Shore, Cris. Virgin Births and Sterile Debates: Anthropology and the New Reproductive Technologies. Current Anthropology 1992. Vol. 33, No.3 (Jun., 1992), pp. 295-314. In this article, Shore discussed the debate over whether to continue embryo research and what part anthropology plays in these new technologies. After the world’s first in vitro baby was born in 1978, the public was proud and uneasy. This lead to the establishment of the Warnock Committee by the British government to ensure the public has nothing to worry about. Since the publication of the Warnock report in 1984 on human fertilization and embryology, debates about farther research occurred all over Britain. The supporting groups included the Warnock Committee, the syod of the Church of England, and some scientists. Those defending embryo research argued it might lead to more effective treatments of infertility and genetic disease, such as finding the cause of infertility or why women have miscarriages. The opposing parties included feminist writers, the Roman Catholic Church, and many doctors and scientists. Their arguments were that in vitro fertilization was an attempt to undermine women and exploit their procreativity, that embryos were “true human”, and that the scientific grounds for experimenting on fetuses were poor. According to Shore, basic assumptions about the parenthood, procreation, conception, and the family are undergoing radical transformation. With new reproductive technologies, the anthropological constructions of the kinship and family will no longer apply, since anthropologists look at kinship and family structure when parents, children and kinship relations are biological or genetic. The article was a little hard to follow. The debates about embryo research are clear as well as where each party stands and their reasons. But the anthropological view on this issue was very unclear and without the comments, the anthropological view would be very hard to understand. COMMENTS: Comments on this article range from agreeing with Shore to disagreeing with the changing of family and kinship system. Almost all commenters touched on the issue of the power in the “gift of life”. One commenter, Verene Stolke asks for more information on the issue. REPLY: In responding, Shore agreed with Stolke about further investigation and disagreed with David M. Schneider that these new reproductive technologies do not change the basic assumption about parenthood, procreation, conception and the family. CLARITY: 3 MAI XIONG University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Tishkov, Valery A.The Crisis in Soviet Ethnography.Current Anthropology, Aug. 1992.Vol.33(4): 371-394. Tishkov addresses the problems of Soviet ethnographers and Soviet social scientists in general: the problems in their methods, the problems in their philosophies and theories and the question of what role social scientists would play in the post-Soviet world.He criticizes the Russian Academy of Sciences for being overly conservative and complacent, too “stuck in its ways” to be effective.However, he makes it clear that the true flaws in Soviet ethnography do not lie in the conditions at the Academy of Sciences, but in the philosophies that create the core of the discipline itself.He feels that the discipline is tied to an outdated and incorrect positivism wrapped in doctrine, that it is still rooted in the Marxist notions of class struggle and “scientific management of society,” at a time when it should move past this, and into more modern relativism. Meanwhile, the discipline has grown stagnant, with researchers stuck in a “Sovacademic” state, waiting for years for new books about groups in foreign lands, but never thinking to study those in their own backyard: A lack of researchers working in the field and collecting first-hand information is one of the key problems that Tishkov sees affecting his field.He proposes that Soviet ethnographers go into the field more frequently, and stay in the field for longer stretches.This way, they can penetrate and understand the culture being studied better, and also be more like ethnographers in other parts of the world. Aside
from the methods of Soviet ethnography, a serious flaw lies in its
philosophy.For decades, it
was linked to the Marxist-Leninist theory of nations.Tishkov
claims that Soviet ethnography sees ethnicity as “absolutely ‘natural’,” and
that this is a symptom of the emphasis ethnicity was given in the Soviet
Union. He feels that this view of ethnicity is partly to blame for the
Soviet Union breaking apart into a collection of “ethnonations”.Furthermore, he feels that the course taken
by these nations- forming nations based on ethnic loyalty without regard
for the possibility of its “absence, mutability or plurality”- is a mistaken
path.Beyond this, he thinks that
the “scientific management of society” is outdated and misguided.He thinks that in the creation and governing
of nations the intellectual should no longer say, “here is what you must
do”, but instead serve as an analyst, one who provides a detailed survey,
and nothing else. COMMENTS REPLY CLARITY: 4 JAMES BURCH Marquette University (Jane Peterson) Tishkov, Valery A., The Crises in Soviet Ethnography. Current Anthropology, Vol. 33, No.4 (Aug.-Oct., 1992), 371-394. Valery A. Tishkov,
the Director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the
Russian Academy of Sciences and Minister for Nationalities, explained
how “The Crises in the Soviet Ethnography” became a problem
in Russia. Before his present position in the Institute, in 1989, he
was the Head of American Ethnic Studies and Deputy Director. He was an
expert on North America history and cultures, indigenous people, contemporary
ethnics, nationalism and ethnic conflicts. He also published books and
articles on Canadian history and contemporary politics and United States
ethnology. COMMENTS: Tishkov was criticized by his colleagues in Russia because of his liberal views for “openness” to the discipline. However, some comments agreed with Tishkov’s views especially from the American intellectual community. For those of Russian intellectuals saw Tishkov as a threat to their society. CLARITY: 5 YIEN KONGDUONGDIIT University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Tobias, Phillip V.Piltdown: An Appraisal of the Case against
Sir Arthur Keith.Current
Anthropology, June, 1992.Vol
33 (3): 243-293. This
lengthy article is a discussion of the Piltdown forgery with an emphasis
on the author’s contention that
Sir Arthur Keith was the main perpetrator.Tobias opens with
an argument as to why, after eighty years, the case is still worth investigating. Exoneration
of those not guilty and insight into the ways
that scientific data are viewed were among the reasons cited.He also
gives reasons for his personal interest in the forgery; the main reason
is his view that discovery of Piltdown
delayed acceptance of Raymond Dart’s “Taung child” for over 25 years.Tobias
sums up the sequence of the Piltdown “discoveries” and the later analysis
that proved them to be fakes.He
devises a list of all the men suspected of involvement in the forgery,
including Charles Dawson, the primary investigator at the Piltdown site;
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; and Sir Arthur Keith.The
rest of the article is devoted to the evidence against Keith.Tobias’ main concern is reviewing the evidence
already assembled by Ian Langham and Frank Spencer, but he adds a few
of his own suspicions as well.He
lists nine reasons for Keith’s guilt, among them, data Keith included
in an article published a few days before the public unveiling of Piltdown;
an untrue statement made by Keith to another anthropologist regarding
Keith’s own access to the Piltdown material; Keith’s destruction of all
his correspondence with Charles Dawson; and misrepresentation of another
scientist’s analysis of the Piltdown material.Tobias also points out the fact that many
of Keith’s contemporaries disliked and distrusted him.As for motives, according to Spencer (supported
by Tobias), Keith desired prestige and further advancement of his scientific
career.He also wanted evidence
to support his theory that early hominid brain size was roughly equal
to that of modern humans.Finally,
Tobias points to Keith’s vehement rejection of African hominid fossils,
including Australopithecus and
the Taung skull, as a signal that Keith was defending the verity of Piltdown.Tobias’ final
comment is on the “high degree of probability” that the culprit has been
uncovered. COMMENTS: The nineteen authors who responded to Tobias’ article display quite a range of opinions over the validity of his case, but they tend to fall on two sides of a distinct line.Peter Bowler, Andrew Chamberlain, and Caroline Grigson are among those who not only refute Tobias’ evidence as weak and circumstantial, but also question the worthwhile-ness of the investigation in the first place.Robin Dennell’s feminist perspective challenges Tobias’ examination of only the male members of the group involved with the hoax.F. G. Fedele supports both the case against Keith and the relevance of the investigation, but points out the weakness of some of the evidence. RESPONSE: Tobias’ reply
to his commentators is curiously more akin to a summary of their viewpoints
than a response to them.He
categorizes the type of response made by each author.He adds, however, at Fedele’s behest, a timetable
of events involving Piltdown.He
also refutes Bowler’s skepticism concerning the link between Keith’s
hostility towards African fossils and his involvement with Piltdown.He
agrees with those authors claiming that the evidence is ultimately not
proof.As
for the critics proposing other suspects, Tobias suggests that they themselves
investigate the claims. CLARITY: 4 ADRIANNE DAGGETT Marquette University (Jane Peterson) Tobias, Phillip V. Piltdown: An Appraisal of the Case against Sir Arthur Keith. Current Anthropology June, 1992 Vol. 33(3)249-293. Piltdown: anthropology’s greatest joke or greatest foe? According to Phillip Tobias the planting of the forged bones in Piltdown was nothing short of a mortal wound to the paleo-anthropological field. After discovering Piltdown as a fraud some forty years after its ‘discovery’, the great ‘who done it’ case began. Fingers pointed to more than twenty possible suspects ranging from the discoverer of the site to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In the article eleven of these possible suspects were listed, along with a brief explanation as to why the cases against them were discredited. At the end of the original investigation it was decided that the discoverer Charles Dawson had played a key role in the farce, however, due to the intensive details of the case a second “scientist” sidekick was implicated. Tobias writes that along with anthropologist Langham there was enough evidence to indicate anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith as the scientific culprit. Listed are nine ‘pointers to Keith’s guilt”, ranging from inconsistent dates and corresponding data, denial of his and Dawson’s previous encounters, destruction of his correspondence with Dawson, and misrepresentation of data. He then relates some convincing motives for Keith’s participation in the farce: proving his ideas on human evolution and the connection to England, and career advancement. At the time England’s anthropologists were in a state of self-pity, having claim to no early hominid bones of their own. Piltdown gave England bones earlier and unlike any previously discovered, proving some of Keith’s earlier assertions. No one individual prospered more from Piltdown than Keith. While Keith prospered, the world of science suffered. Tobias insists that Piltdown not only created a breakdown of trust in the scientific community it also impeded the acceptance of important discoveries; namely the Taung baby. When the Taung skull was introduced about ten years after Piltdown it materially challenged the acceptance of the Dawson’s data. Because of the unwillingness of English scholars to accept Piltdown as a farce a twenty-eight year hiatus began before they fully acknowledge Taung’s authenticity. It is because of this detriment to the field of anthropology that Tobias believes the perpetrators should be brought to light, despite the amount of time that has passed. COMMENTS: There were a great number of responses to this article, approximately thirty pages. For the most part people were confused as to why Tobias would press the issue after eighty years. Other commentators felt the case built against Sir Arthur Keith was insufficient and needlessly defaming to his reputation. However, there were some reviewers who felt as the author did, that the Piltdown scandal had been detrimental and needed to be addressed. On the whole, most people agreed that not only is Piltdown a relevant issue, but that Keith appears to be a more than reasonable suspect. REPLY: Tobias replies with a lengthy reaction to the many commentators and continues to back up and elaborate further on some of his previous observations. CLARITY:3 KRISTEN VENZKE University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Wood, James W. et al.The Osteological Paradox: Problems of Inferring
Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples.Current Anthropology, Aug-Oct, 1992.Vol. 33 (4): 343-370. The authors’ purpose for this article is to show the problems of using skeletal remains from prehistoric sites to create general conclusions about the health of populations.The three main problems they focus on in this article are demographic non-stationarity, selective mortality, and heterogeneity in the risks of disease and death.The authors define demographic non-stationarity as the occurrence of large changes in age at death rates compared to relatively small changes in the fertility rates in non-stationary populations, or populations that are in not in equilibrium.Because of this, the use of mean age of death is not always as useful a way of calculating mortality as it is of calculating fertility of the population.This makes it unfair to state that a population had poor health and high mortality rates based upon a relatively young mean age of death. Selective mortality is described as the biased representation of a population by the skeletal record.Only a portion of a population that suffered from a disease is shown, the portion that died as a result of that disease.Also, only a portion of a specific age bracket is shown in the skeletal samples, that being the portion of the population that died at specified age.For example, one does not have the whole populations of twenty-year olds living at a specific time shown in the skeletal record, only those that died at the specific layer of excavation.Because of this, it is difficult to determine the number of persons exposed to a specific disease, as well as the duration for which they were exposed.Not all individuals exposed to a specific disease are shown in the skeletal record, as some may have recovered. Finally, in describing the hidden heterogeneity in risks of disease and death, the authors refer to variation in the rate of susceptibility; that is that certain individuals are more frail and predisposed to disease than others.The skeletal samples represented at prehistoric sites would tend to include the frail portion of the population.This makes it difficult to make general conclusions of poor health in the population, based off of weaker members of the society. The authors continue to elaborate on the problems of inferring health
situations based on the factors that they described earlier in the article.In
a population where the risk of death is constant and homogenous, the
graph of morbidity created is a simple decline.In
a population where there is a heterogeneous rate of frailty, several
different morbidity graphs can be created from the findings.Another
problem is that the cause of frailty is unknown or may be the result
of several factors.One solution
to this is to only report the disease statistics found directly from
skeletal evidence.The problem
with this is that it may place too much focus on only a few diseases,
instead of several which may have affected the population.The distinction between active and inactive
diseases also must be made known.The
article uses the example of skull lesions to point that inactive lesions
could result in three possible hypothesis: (1) the person had survived
the illness, (2) the individual was less frail than the others of the
population, or (3) the individual was less susceptible to other causes
of death than other members of the population. To provide examples for the problems they have noted with evaluating health of populations with skeletal remains of populations, they authors provide two cases.One is the evidence of enamel hypoplasia at the Dickson Mounds in Illinois.As a result of the applications of their previous findings, the authors state that the better the health in the society, the larger the number of skeletons they find, the lower the average age of death will be.The second example applies to populations during the transition from hunting and gathering to agricultural ways of life in the American Midwest.By examining the increase of cranial lesions and the decrease in age at death, it is as likely that there was in increase in fertility rather than an increase in morbidity of the populations.The authors sum up their article by stating that with consideration of the issues they raised; demographic non-stationairty, selective mortality, and heterogeneity in disease risk and death, the study of paleopathology and osteology should be greatly improved. COMMENTS: The majority of the comments on the article are positive and thank the authors for not only their word of caution about accepting conclusions applied from skeletal samples to the broad field of health situations of past populations, but also for still retaining an optimistic view towards the fields of paleopathology and paleodemography.Many of the commentators also share the authors’ views that an important shift in the field of physical anthropology is to look at the wider population rather than the selective individual in order to avoid sampling errors.Several of the commentators also include the problems of using skeletal remains in concluding health of populations considering that several skeletal remains have poor preservation.Negative comments of the article focus on the pro-civilization bias in which the authors tend to argue that an agricultural way of life constitutes an intrinsically better and healthier lifestyle. Also, the negative commentators remind the authors of the argument that they made themselves, that one should consider various conclusions as having merit and consider multiple competing hypotheses. REPLY:
The authors thank the commentators for their generally positive comments
on their article and offer a few points as clarification.They also address
the additional problems that many of the commentators had brought up
such as preservation of
skeletal remains as well as issues of sampling populations.In response
to the negative comments they received regarding their stance in the
hunter-gatherer versus agriculturalist
debate, the authors maintain their desire to stay removed from the debate
and only provide another hypothesis as to what may have been the results
of agricultural development. CLARITY: 4 SUSAN SCHEEF Marquette University(Jane Peterson) Wood, James et. al. The Osteological Paradox: Problems
of Inferring Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples. Current Anthropology
1992: 343-370. Demographic nonstationary is a society where population changes are based on the fertility rate. Selective mortality is a problem because the skeletons show that the person died of a disease at the age they are found. There is no way to know if others were at risk of a disease at the same age, but then died later on in life. This means that skeletons are not reliable as a representation of a population. The problem of hidden heterogeneity is that factors such as social, environmental, and genetics are unknown. Life-table estimates showing the mortality rates based on age are misleading. When adding subpopulations there are endless combinations that can be made in a aggregate mortality pattern if one is looking at the possibility of hidden heterogeneity. The authors propose a model in which the conditions that one would become a risk for disease and death is compared to the individuals age. There are four things the authors feel will help data to become more reliable: the frailness to heterogeneity, the relationship between frailty distribution and distribution of risks among individuals, pathological processes, and a better understandings of cultural context. COMMENTS: Some commentators caution the authors to not discard all theories on information skeletons may provide because there are new findings, but that their findings can improve on the already developed theories. There is agreement that data is often found through inadequate techniques. The concept of heterogeneity risks are considered a good addition to determine the health of populations but it is probably impossible to create an index of frailty. REPLY: The authors agree that the problems they have suggested are not easily solved, but hope that the readers will help contribute to creating solutions. Since the replies to the article were positive, the authors address other issues to clarify their standings on multiple hypotheses. |
.jpg){kind=small}
