Controversial topics in anthropology in 2008

by Steve Lussing

March 21, 2008

Useful Mating Habits over Time

According to a report published in the March 19, 2008 edition of New Scientist online
statistics show that monogamous males have the most children if they marry women
younger than themselves. Optimal age differences were found to be about five years. Let
it not go unsaid however that the age of the mother was actually more important than the
age difference since older women tended to have fewer babies.

That study represents conditions in contemporary Finnish society. Martin Fieder at the
University of Vienna and Susanne Huber of the University of Veterinary Medicine, also
in Vienna, went further back in time and reviewed demographic records from the 17th to
19th centuries. They discovered that for one group of people called the Hami in Northern
Finland the optimal age difference approached fifteen years.

These days it is not uncommon for suitably rich elderly gentlemen to marry much
younger women, even girls. In most situations both parties in such a relationship are
probably inclined to think that theirs is a win-win situation. Who am I to argue?

The Case for a Nomadic (sort of) Neanderthal

Anthropology dot net published an article on February 10, 2008 about the roaming habits
of the Neanderthal. The writer links to a paper titled "Strontium isotope evidence of
Neanderthal mobility at the site of Lakonis, Greece using laser-ablation PIMMS." In
short, different regions have specific strontium isotopes in trapped sediment. It follows
that the isotope is taken up into the food chain and absorbed into the body. Studies of a
40 thousand year old tooth belonging to a Neanderthal indicated that the early human
(Neanderthals are now extinct) remained pretty much in whatever region he was
indigenous to throughout his life. That is, if you consider remaining within a 20 kilometer
radius for one's entire life to be a static existence.

Arguments were made for some partial mobility based on the fact that an exact match of
the isotope to the specific area where the tooth was found could not be made, but matches
were found some tens of kilometers away. However, at the risk of inciting even more
controversy (as if), I would think that it should be considered normal that in the quest for
food, wanderings were bound to cover some territory - for example, in the search for
berries or specific leafy greens which would predominate in certain areas some distance
from where the subject lived. In my opinion, what the study encourages is a generalized

1
perception that Neanderthal culture was based on a basically static community-based
existence and an adventurous spirit leading to the search for novel and rarer foods not
available in their immediate environment but with the people never venturing too far
from home.

Anthropologists considered the results to be controversial probably for no other reason

than that no evidence exists for the Neanderthal's migratory habits, if he had any. The
general consensus is that humanity did not engage in agriculture that long ago and that he
must have been a hunter gatherer. The earliest evidence that we have of early cultivation
is about 11,500 years old. But the very evidence that Neanderthals existed at all is on its
own controversial as their demise is considered puzzling given that all the evidence that
we do have indicates that they had a high potential for survival. We'll probably never
know the truth.

Homo floresiensis - Hobbit or Pygmy?

Perhaps the biggest controversy in modern anthropology is that concerning the discovery
in 2003 of some very peculiar fossils on the Indonesian island of Flores. Anthropologists
studying the remains of a number of tiny bipedal creatures declared them to belong to a
whole new previously unknown species of human.

In March, 2008, a discovery was made in some burial caves on the Pacific island of
Palau. These were definitely fossilized Homo sapien remains but they shared some
physical characteristics with H. floresiensis, not the least of which was their diminutive
size.

The brain of H. floresiensis was about one-third the size of the human brain, more along
the lines of that of a chimpanzee's. One group of forensic anthropologists decided that the
small brain and size of this little creature must be the result of a pathology leading to a
physical deformity but then again maybe not. Others said that the small size of this early
human was perfectly normal in keeping with the process of evolution on a small island.
This is a very attractive conclusion to staunch evolutionists.

The discovery on Palau might confirm the evolutionary hypothesis, but adherents to the
"Hobbit" theory, i.e. that H. floresiensis is a unique species, stubbornly refuse to accept it.
They will point to the obvious similarities to "Lucy", the tiny Australopithecus found in
Africa and who is 3 million years older, thereby justifying a whole new classification for
the find. Well, that figures. No one wants to be told they're wrong and we can never be
really sure anyway. One can easily get hung up on an idea.

Darwin was Wrong About the Chicken

On the origins of the domesticated chicken Charles Darwin proposed that they are all
descended from a common bird, the red jungle fowl. The Natural Association for the
Practice of Anthropology reports in a March 7, 2008 news item that genetic research

2
from Uppsala University in Sweden now proves that the common hen has less subtle
beginnings.

There are two basic kinds of chickens. One type has yellow skin and the other type has
white skin. Researchers looking for the yellow-skin gene in the red jungle fowl found
only the gene for white skin. Their continued research led them to a completely different
species of bird, the Grey jungle fowl whose genes do code for yellow skin. It turns out
that while most of the genes in chickens do indeed come from the red jungle fowl they
must at some point have interbred with the Grey jungle fowl because billions of chickens
across the globe have yellow skin.

Darwin would be turning over in his grave if he knew what we know now. He thought
that the dog had origins in many different species of wild canine and that all domestic
chickens had evolved from a single common ancestor, whereas in both cases the exact
opposite is true. Still, you have to admire the man for his ingenuity and his fastidious
nature. They didn't have DNA testing in those days.

by Christine G.

March 22, 2008

All academic disciplines have their controversies. Often, they act as stimuli to additional
exploration and research. Anthropology, which studies humankind in all its diverse
manifestations over many millennia, has its share of partially-answered questions and
unsolved mysteries.

One of these is the perennial question: What is human life, and how and where did it
begin? Evolutionary theories speculate that humans and apes share a common ancestor. If
that is so, when did the lineages first diverge?

DNA evidence suggests that the hominid-gorilla split occurred about eight million years
ago. Fossil evidence discovered in Ethiopia in 2006 of the hitherto unknown species
Chororapithecus has led its discoverers to date the hominid-gorilla split at over 10 million
years ago, and the hominid-orangutan split to twenty million years ago, not fourteen
million as previously thought. Chororapithecus is a serious threat to the theory that the
common ancestor originated in Asia and later spread to Africa. Some claim that this
species is not the common ancestor at all, but an unrelated ancient ape, which would
make the find irrelevant to previous time-lines.

Sexual habits are a popular topic in any field. Increasingly, the concept of human
monogamy is being challenged. Is it all a matter of hormones and neurotransmitters?
What are the genetic factors? Is the fight to impregnate the female supposed to be a man
vs. man conflict, or a head-to-head battle between competing sperm racing for gold

3
within the same female? Is monogamy (or polymating) an evolving biological imperative,
or a social construct imposed on human nature?

The answer may be elusive, but it determines the lens through which observers view
family and marital structures. The growing popularity of the belief that human
monogamy is an unnatural state has huge implications for the security of pair bonds, the
familial affiliations of children, and the spread of sexually-transmitted disease.
Humankind continues to be at least partially self-engineered by human beliefs.

Ethical controversies flourish in any scientific study. How far should anthropologists go
in their efforts to study other cultures? The presence and influence of observers is
inevitably disruptive to a population. When these observers decide to intervene directly
(for instance, trying to change local customs, digging up graves, getting involved with
local disputes, importing foreign micro-organisms, attempting to cure disease, or
interbreeding) the effects can be devastating.

A National Geographic special aired on March 17 is already under fire for violating the
rights of indigenous people of Palau. Another recent controversy concerns blood samples
which were taken from members of the Yanomami tribe in Brazil without informing the
donors that their contributions would be kept indefinitely for experimentation. Yanomami
religious tradition prohibits the keeping of bodily matter after the donor's death. Because
of their isolation, the Yanomami people have become one of the most-studied group in
the world, and those studies have had their impact on the traditional culture.

This issue keeps coming up in the Star Trek series of TV episodes and films. The Prime
Directive for the space explorers is one of zero tolerance for interference in the affairs of
the inhabitants of other planets. However, crew members keep transgressing that
boundary, for reasons of justice, compassion, personal preferences, blind chance, or
ignorance. Once the extra-planetary visitors have landed, life is never the same.

Anthropology is a dynamic field of study that keeps re-inventing itself as new data comes
in. The philosophical question, "What is the nature of man?" is far from being answered.
Controversies are an inevitable part of the journey towards greater understanding.

by Nathan Wada

March 21, 2008

While not traditionally considered lucrative or "prestige" work, the knowledge, talents,
and services of anthropologists have recently been assigned unprecedented fiscal value
by the CIA and the Pentagon. Social scientists embedded in war zones can earn up to
$400,000 annually in federal compensation, according to TIME.

4
In comparison, The New York Times reported that law associates at major New York
firms pull in about $150,000 to $180,000 annually, while physicians make between
$150,000 to $300,000. A separate Times article placed the annual salary for the "average
[Wall Street] bank employee at" $250,000, while researchers and analysts at hedge funds
that manage $1 billion to $3 billion will average around $337,000 in 2007.

The average anthropologist makes $25,000 annually as a starting rate and will average
$60,000 after 10 to 15 years, according to the Princeton Review.

This counter intuition begs analysis.

Monetary remuneration has traditionally and syllogistically been linked to return over
investment. Accordingly, the inherent logic on the part of the Defense Department and
the CIA concerning their participation in the meteoric ascent of the field of anthropology
into the pantheon of coveted jobs must result from their acceptance that they - just as in
all other fields where results matter - will need to pay for talent.

TIME revealed that the Pentagon has financed a $40 million dollar project dubbed
"Human Terrain Teams" where four to five-person teams of cultural anthropologists,
social psychologists and sociologists will be deployed to all 26 U.S. combat brigades in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

The essential premise behind the project's genesis seems to differ little from the impetus
behind the hedge funds' willingness to pay top dollar for the best analysts and
researchers. To wit, accurate, relevant, and timely data preexists adroit, effective
performance.

In 2005, then-assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy Karen Hughes visited Iraq
on a "listening tour" as part of an initiative that stemmed from the express intent and
peremptory need to mitigate some of the damage caused by the U.S. invasion two years
earlier. CNN reported that "she had a tough sell, and many Arabs criticized Hughes for
what they called her lack of understanding of the region." That perception persists to the
current day, as misguided, incomplete, somnambulant, and just plain wrong information
and policies continue to result in misunderstandings and increased enmity toward U.S.
troops and toward the White House and American people in general.

But the federal sponsors to these programs expect more than just field research from their
Human Terrain Teams, they want them to actually be part of the offensive. That is to say,
they want and expect them to be part - an integral part - of the diplomatic and defensive
offensive.

When James Glassman was named as Hughes' replacement as head of the State
Department's public diplomacy office, Senator Joe Lieberman introduced him to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and proffered that the public diplomacy position is
"the closest thing to a supreme allied commander in the war of ideas and one of the most
important posts in Washington," according to CNN.

5
Glassman's immediate boss, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a less ebullient
stance in a November 2007 speech and opined that "Public relations was invented in the
United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are
about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and
our goals."

$400,000 anthropologists apparently exist to attenuate the defense secretary's lament that
our ineptitude in disseminating culturally relevant communications is "just plain
embarrassing."

But is more rhetoric the answer; even if it's better-informed and well-intentioned?

To the "liberated" yet concomitantly occupied peoples to whom such projects as the
Pentagon's Human Terrain Teams exist to pacify, even conciliatory demagoguery must
come across as self-serving, demeaning, and semi-aggressive. After all, appellations like
"the handmaiden of colonialism," - a fairly long-held pejorative description of the field of
anthropology - do not arise independent of just cause. Couldn't smiling spin potentially
exacerbate antipathy?

Then there's the money. The corporatization of the scientific disciplines is already a
current hot-button issue and paying such comparatively exorbitant salaries to impel the
enthusiasm and best efforts of academics has a number of glaring logical flaws.

First, the inherent conflict of interest is staggering. Prior to two years ago, there can be
little argument against the premise that an anthropologist - even a brilliant and potential-
laden one - understood and accepted that he was gunning for $60,000 two decades into
his career. Motivation to excel within his discipline sprang from academic interest,
personal fascination with the subject material, and yes, even philanthropic concern.

But even a summary analysis of human nature will yield that such a precipitous change in
the going rate may inspire the best and brightest of their field to jettison academic
integrity for American foreign policy-coefficient rhetoric in order to secure the salary.
The sophisticated and the sophists will undoubtedly be shrewd and ambitious enough to
embellish and expand on the preexisting partisan and non-negotiable American take on
diplomacy, whether or not it happens to be THEIR scholarly and culturally-informed
personal take on diplomacy.

Second, what happens if the pay rate becomes transparent? How does that particular
understanding pursuant to the socio-economic status of one's "cultural liaison" inspire
trust and goodwill in a citizen of an invaded, war-torn, and severely impoverished nation?
The powers that be doubtless see the wisdom in doing all that they can to keep the
compensation packages of their goodwill ambassadors clandestine, but chaos theory
dictates that these things have a way of making it into the wrong hands. The creative and
unorthodox ways in which its citizens are compensated is all the U.S. needs for its
occupied would be-allies to be ruminating on while they remain ill able to shop in
markets they're afraid to visit.

6
Finally, the U.S. doesn't need more spin from the formerly spin-abhorrent once they're
occupying foreign territory. Relevant cultural information - whether or not its paid for to
the tune of $400,000 - is best disseminated and elucidated, with all the vigor and
rhetorical prowess a top gun social scientist can muster, as a deterrent to the U.S.
blundering and bludgeoning its way into another nation where explanations will be
demanded and actions necessarily accounted for.

After all, a $400,000 apology seems rather pricey.

by Mona Gallagher

March 25, 2008

James Watson and Francis Crick did amazing and groundbreaking work in the
anthropological field as co discoverers of the detailed structure of the DNA molecule in
1953. This work earned Watson a Nobel Prize and has further enabled the field of science
to grow leaps and bounds in our understanding of genetics.

Watson's claim to fame since last year, however, is overshadowed with his controversial
remarks about the intelligence of African Americans and his hasty retirement from the
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

The original quote from his book "Avoid Boring People" says this: " there is no firm
reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in
their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal
powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it
so."

Without specifics, that general statement by Watson does not invite a hailstorm of
controversy but Watson elaborated on it to the London Times.

Quite unsuspecting of the resulting controversy, Watson explained his statement in detail
while he was on tour and promoting his book. He told the London Times that he was
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa since our social policies are based on the
fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all testing says not really."

The prelude to his controversial statement in his book states: "The relative extents to
which genetic factors determine human intellectual abilities will also soon become much
better known..." We can deduce from his prior statement that the genetic gene that
differentiates intelligence in different populations is not yet known and therefore no valid
conclusions are available.

The statement about the African community started a controversy that was followed with
Watson's suspension from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and soon after, his

7
announced retirement. It is important to note that Watson back tracked from his
inflammatory statement and said, "I'm mortified at what has happened-there is no basis
for such a belief."

Debate continues across publications on the Internet concerning this controversial topic.

James Watson is 79 years old and retirement may be the appropriate response to the
controversy. Did his age or his personal philosophy play a bigger role in his remarks than
his scientific knowledge? His publication and personal life gives some clues.

This incident was not the first time Watson has made racial, sexist, and anti-gay remarks
in his previous publications, and that leads me to another question. If a scientist has a
racial or sexist slant, how much of that is balanced in his philosophy versus his scientific
work?

From my perspective, it appears that James Watson and his remarks offer anthropologists
a fertile ground to study this aspect of humans in their field of anthropology.

Watson believes that within ten years scientists will be able to diagnose mental disorders
like autism and schizophrenia supported by studies in DNA. He has mentioned cures for
"stupidity" and a gene to make all "pretty girls." While his genius cannot be denied, his
commitment to scientific judgment appears to be impaired.

It's unfortunate that James Watson cornered himself with remarks that led to his
unplanned retirement and whose remarks will cast a shadow over his personal life. No
one can deny the important co discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 and the
important progress that's come about with the Human Genome Project.

What shall we say of James Watson? His human tendencies appear to overcome his
resolve to stick with scientific facts and not allow personal conjecture to rule. He appears
to be a model subject in the study in anthropology.

by Jane Allyson

March 26, 2008

Controversy within anthropology brings debate, which serves as a useful tool to

encourage a re-examination of past findings and to introduce new ideas or views and to
hone current theory.

Controversy invites excitement. It breathes life into an often dry and academic subject
and serves to remind us that this fascinating subject can still offer valid and pertinent
knowledge that can teach us much about the physiological, social and physiological roots
of our past ancestors...

8
So the skulls of modern humans and ancient Neanderthals evolved due to chance, and not
natural selection? a dramatic statement from scientists led by anthropologist, Tim
Weaver, which has put "natural selection" under the microscope again and may change
the views on how mankind evolved. ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2008)

By using cranial measurements of 2,524 modern human skulls and 20 Neanderthal

specimens, two separate studies were made - one based on studying bones, the other
studied genes, and showed that the fossil record and the DNA records both substantiate
the others findings in giving a really good picture of evolution during this particular time.

"A take-home message may be that we should reconsider the idea that all morphological
(physical) changes are due to natural selection, and instead consider that some of them
may be due to genetic drift," Weaver said. "This may have interesting implications for
our understanding of human evolution."

Another big topic of interest so far this year has been the attention given to the South
Pacific "dwarf" bones with claims that they indicate a new type of small bodied human.
These bones were discovered in caves on an island in Koror, Palau and are thought to be
between 1 to 3 thousand years old. Although there is some contention that these bones
merely represent the remains of children, the anthropologist Lee Berger of the University
of Witwatersrand in South Africa, asserts that they give further proof of how people can
become dwarfs from living in an island environment.

Further study is needed to open up this line of research but even the pursuit of knowledge
can be a controversial thing and this is highlighted by the invasive and high handed
approach of fact gathering made by Lee Berger and his fellow workers.

Their methods have been questioned by some officials and traditional leaders who are
concerned that their sacred burial sites were being exploited to use for entertainment
purposes only, rather than for scientific study. The complaint was made by Adalbert
Eledui, the state resource manager who said that notice should have been given to the
people of Palau before a National Geographic Society movie was broadcast in Asia on
March 1st, as time was needed to properly prepare for the "influx" of visitors to the area.

Palau's paramount chief Yutaka Gibbons says "This shows disrespect to our people,
country and laws," he says. "Before they did anything, they should have sat with us."

A less intrusive story, but none the less, still inviting great argument, is about a 40,000
year old tooth recovered from a cave in Lakonis, in Southern Greece. It may help to
strengthen the debate that Neanderthals moved around within different areas in their
lifetime. (ScienceDaily Feb. 15, 2008)

There has always been great controversy as to the mobility of the Neanderthal tribes.
Some researchers have argued that Neanderthals never moved far from home and stayed
as a group in one fixed area throughout their life, whilst others have argued that the

9
pursuit of food meant that they were compelled to range certain areas in search of food
sources.

The latest claims would uphold the view that their movements were more wide ranging
than previously thought, and often moving over vast distances. By analyzing strontium
isotope ratios in the enamel, scientists have been able to decipher geological information
which shows where the owner of the tooth had been geographically living at the time and
where the owner of the tooth originated from. All clever stuff, but the argument is not
over. Some people are just not convinced and have said that the tooth is very tiny and
probably from a seven year old child and so could have been transported from one area
from another by a wild animal or it could have fallen into a stream or river.

Another field of study which has invited a fresh seat of debate comes from the single
minded anthropologist, Lisa Lucero who has made a minute study of the Mayan people
and the way that temples were built and used. She challenges the belief that such
structures were reserved for royal use only, suggesting that any group at the time who had
the "wherewithal" would have had these buildings structured to their own personal
preference and needs. ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2008)

She argues that Mayan scholars have always assumed that the temples were built by
kings and had never questioned this assumption over the years. She urges archaeologists
to seize the opportunity to make further inroads into this research and that archaeologists
must seek answers from the buildings themselves and "construct more creative ways to
assess what temple attributes can reveal about their non-material qualities." Lucero's
latest findings can be found in the journal Latin American Antiquity, and entitled
"Classic Maya Temples, Politics, and the Voice of the People."

Her work serves as an additional reminder to us about how important it is not to accept
something which has arisen from reasonable assumption, and illustrates how debate can
open up a whole new field of study within a topic however controversial that topic may
be.

by Joan Schroeder

March 22, 2008

Anthropologists are not always popular people. Sometimes their findings and theories are
startling and controversial. Sometimes they reveal to us things that we may rather not
have heard or known about. Some findings, of course, are better left unsaid, we may
think. While some anthropological revelations may not be pleasing to the ear, we may
also regard some of the theories as the rantings of an over zealous scientist. And so it may
well be. It is a possibility, that many theories are clouded by personal judgments and
biases, while others have proved extremely useful in uncovering some of the mysteries of
humanity.

10
The study of Anthropology focuses on humanity and all the forces that come to bear on
our life, including the evolution of our species over time. Since Francois Preon first
coined the term "Anthropology" in the 1800s, to describe his findings on Tasmanian
Aborigines in Australia, anthropologists have been engaged in numerous studies and
theories about humanity in various fields of anthropology. Here are a few recent,
controversial topics for 2008.

You have probably heard in your history studies about the "Asian passage to North
America". It was believed that this exodus happened in one continuous passage. Not so,
the anthropologists say today. As reported by anthropologist Connie Mulligan of the
University of Florida, this migration happened in three stages with a 20,000 year sojourn
on what is now the Bering Strait. These were the ancestors of the current native
population that experienced many mutations to their genes during the layover. Their
journey was halted by two major glaciers which trapped them in Beringia now the Bering
Straits. They survived by fishing and hunting and were only able to continue their
journey 15,000 years ago after the melting of the glaciers.

Another controversial study contends that "Human Evolution Is Speeding Up". This
theory challenges the belief that human beings showed up about a half a century ago and
have remained essentially the same since then. But Henry C. Harpending, an
anthropologist at the University of Utah, sees a different trend. On reason given for this is
the increase in population over the last 10,000 years from millions to billions, which has
created new environments to which humans have to adapt as well as the increase in
mutations due to the larger population size.

Should prostitution be criminalized? In wake of the latest political /prostitution scandal,

there are renewed suggestions that perhaps many prostitutes make conscious choices
about the profession they are perusing and that perhaps it is time to "Decriminalize
Prostitution".
Patty Kelly, an anthropology professor at George Washington University, saw
prostitution in a different light when she visited Mexico. She worked at a legal state
regulated brothel in Mexico (as an anthropologist of course), and found that it was not all
bad. While there were abuses as in any occupation, generally the women who worked at
the brothel were free to set their own hours, their own rates and the type of activities they
would participate in. Her conclusion; not all sex workers are victims and not all clients
are monsters.

Anthropology has always been a fascinating subject to me. But any discovery or idea that
affects our comfort zones, or challenges what we think we already know, could be
viewed as controversial. It is interesting to note that what was controversial just twenty
years ago, is common place today. And as we continue to evolve, many of the new
discoveries will continue to be replaced by newer discoveries. Can we foresee the future
legalization of prostitution and marijuana in the US today? Will time reveal that we were
not really the descendants of chimps? Only time and more scientific inquiry will tell.

11