Susan Lindee and Ricardo Santos’ goal was to understand the contexts of genesis and development of biological anthropology around the world from an international standpoint, focusing on engagement with living human populations. Their contributors, scholars in history of science, science studies, and anthropology, were guided by key questions about national histories, collections, and scientific field practice.
In some countries, this “new physical anthropology” were still practiced in anthropology departments, while in other countries, it moved into biology departments and museums. Lindee and Santos’ suggestion is that a deeper understanding of the development of biological anthropology across a larger range can be educational and productive. Recent discussions within anthropological circles in the United States often fail to consider that in other countries, biological anthropology has been practiced for many decades separate from other areas of anthropology. G´ısli Pa´lsson proposed that anthropology is currently organized around two radically separated domains: biological and social. Humans are both social and biological, not either or, and studying human beings should be both as well. Biological anthropology, with its emphasis on understanding human biology in social terms, seems to fill the privileged epistemic position in relation to social anthropology.
In 1972, Jack Kelso complained that physical anthropologists were not reaping the boon of the postwar funding explosion in the United States because they looked too much like biologists to the social scientists and too much like social scientists to the biologists (Kelso 1972). Echoing his concerns, a 2003 special issue of American Anthropologist featured stories by bio...
... middle of paper ...
...ole in biological anthropology. Collecting DNA is in some ways easier than collecting whole blood, only needing a cheek swab. Biological anthropologists contributed to natural history museums for most of the history of the field, but today their collections go to molecular laboratories at universities and other institutions. Managing collected materials may be the next great challenge for biological anthropology.
I have to admit, it was difficult to understand what was written, but I understood the issues between biological anthropologists and the rest of the anthropological community, mostly in other countries. I also understood the current key themes in anthropological study, how important it is to give back the materials taken from their native location, and the newest procedures in collecting DNA for study and how hard it is to manage those collected materials.
Desjarlais, R., & Throop, C. J. (2011). Phenomenological approaches in anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 87-102. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092010-153345.
Anthropological researchers have considerable moral and ethical standards by which their work must be conducted in order to preserve the accuracy and the posterity of the information gathered during the study and also to the persons or cultures of which they study. These two important parts of anthropology – the research and those being researched – can be conflicting. The Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association presents itself as a body of guidelines for discussing these ethical and moral conflicts. This allows for researchers in the field of anthropology to have a foundation for understanding what decisions must be made regarding these ethical and moral conflicts and to whom the disclosures of those decisions should be made.
The lecture provided by Professor Elias Kary on the nineteenth of November merely was a recapitulation and overview of the previous lecture, plus a summarization of the past few weeks of class lecture/material. There was an overview of Applied Anthropology and how “anthropologists have a practical place in solving problems.” (Kary 2015) There was an overview of colonialism; the Maori and Moriori of New Zealand; and the history of anthropology itself. There was a foray into the work of Charles Mann and revisionist history, particularly from the point of view of his book 1491. World systems were discussed at some length and a short overview of the film from previous class session. Then the professor went into the structure and what the class needed to provide for the final paper the next week; class then concluded early on account of the large paper due.
William Haviland, Harald Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride, Anthropology: The Human Challenge (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011), 58.
Name: Patrick Wrenn Take home Exam Anthropology 104: Biological Anthropology. Answer all of the questions to the fullest. 1. What is the difference between a. and What are the three types of speciation?
Since its inception, the academic discipline of anthropology has gone through constant paradigm shifts. In the nineteenth century, anthropology began as a nomothetic study based upon the development of cultures and societies through the process of evolution. Later on, several anthropologists, particularly Franz Boas, shifted the nomothetic approach of American anthropology into an idiographic approach, which focuses on assessing the development of cultures individually as their own separate entity. (Moore 2012:161) In the twentieth century, however, anthropology ushered in another paradigm shift.
Modern-day genetic technology has granted mankind with the opportunity to bring back extinct species from the dead. If humans have come to possess the DNA from an extinct animal population, it is possible to create an identical clone of the animal in question, effectively “bringing it back from the dead”. Many ethical dilemmas surround the practice of de-extinction, and rightfully so. Recreating an extinct species could produce groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, generating exciting opportunities for future genetics-based research. However, there could also be monumental consequences: the newly revived, once-extinct species might destroy the ecological equilibrium of modern Earth
Sauer, Norman J. "Applied Anthropology and the Concept of Race: A Legacy of Linnaeus" Race, Ethnicity, and Applied Bioanthropology. Ed. Claire C. Gordon. Arlington, VA: National Association for the Practice of Anthropology 1993.
In her book Around the World in 30 Years Barbara Gallatin Anderson presents a convincing and precise representation to the many aspects that go into the being a cultural anthropologist. Her visually impacting story follows her around the world throughout her personal career. The attention to detail and thorough explanations make the reader feel as though they too are an anthropologist.
Physical anthropology “is in large part, human biology seen from an evolutionary perspective” (Jurmaln, Kilgore & Trevathan, 2011). By this statement, I believe the authors mean that physical anthropology studies human biology from an evolutionary viewpoint rather than a scientific or medical viewpoint. Anthropology, as a broader science, is concerned with and studies human culture and the evolutionary aspects of human biology. Since culture affects human beings and human beings affect culture, the two are intertwined, and it therefore, makes sense to study them together.
Ember, Carol R., Melvin Ember, and Peter N. Peregrine. Anthropology. Thirteenth ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.
“The anthropologist is a human instrument studying other human beings”. This quote can only be described as extremely relevant when reading McHugh’s ethnography, a detailed analysis on the Gurung people of Nepal. She involved herself emotionally, physically, and mentally during her stay, portraying what it’s like and what it takes to study other people from an outsider’s point of view. The relationships McHugh created throughout her stay deepened her understanding and paved the way for her fieldwork as she dived into the unknown.
It analyzes similarities and differences in various cultures and societies. Culture is learned and affects our perception of the world throughout our life. Overtime, a sense of cultural superiority is formed amongst individuals who are constantly exposed to their own culture. Anthropology can help eliminate culturally based biases, also known as ethnocentrism. It is a common practice we all in engage in when evaluating other cultures, however, by practicing anthropology this allows us to learn about other cultures by placing themselves into the cultural environment allows us to learn the traditions and customs by experience. Marjorie Shostak`s study of the !Kung people revealed that they organized themselves differently than Western cultures, which included solving conflicts with discussion, communal behavior, and basic living traditions. Moreover, by interviewing and living in this cultural environment, Shostak was able to empathize with the !Kung people and she also considered that all humans share an emotional life, which is important when studying the history of our human
The Victorian era was a period of prosperity and knowledge, especially in the social sciences. It was the start of both biological and social scientific exploration in places such as Britain, France, and the United Sates. After the introduction of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution it marked beginning of scientific application in the anthropological study. Due to this increase on popularity, the study of anthropology started to interest the minds of the common man, instead of just missionaries, and to show that, Britain started The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1871. However, this era also created the idea of western superiority between the races. Although the Victorian era helped shape anthropology today, its principles
Boas, F. (1930). Anthropology. In, Seligman, E. R. A. ed., Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. Macmillan: New York.