History Of Physical Anthropology Research Articles

Decolonising the Present by Colonising the Past? A Case From the History of Physical Anthropology

Decolonising the Present by Colonising the Past? A Case From the History of Physical Anthropology

Commentary: Nationalism and Transnationalism in Anthropological Research

Commentary: Nationalism and Transnationalism in Anthropological Research

Book Review: Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia, written by Marina Mogilner

Book Review: Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia, written by Marina Mogilner

A McMaster retrospective: how publishing in a student journal shaped my career

Alan G. Morris is Professor in the Department of Human Biology at the University of Cape Town. A Canadian by birth and upbringing, Professor Morris is also a naturalised South African. He has an undergraduate degree in Biology from Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo Ontario, and a PhD in Anatomy from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Professor Morris has published extensively on the origin of anatomically modern humans, and the Later Stone Age, Iron Age and Historic populations of Kenya, Malawi, Namibia and South Africa. In more recent years he has extended his skeletal biology knowledge to the field of forensic anthropology. Professor Morris’ book ‘Missing and Murdered’ was the winner of the WW Howells Prize for 2013 from the American Anthropological Association. He has an additional interest in South African history and has published on the history of race classification, the history of physical anthropology in South Africa and on the Canadian involvement in the Anglo-Boer War. Professor Morris was selected as a visiting Fulbright Scholar in 2012-2013 and spent 9 months at The Ohio State University where he worked with American scholars on the ‘Global History of Health’ project. He is a council member of the Van Riebeeck Society for the Publication of Southern African Historical Documents, an associate editor of the South African Journal of Science and an elected member of the Academy of Science of South Africa.

BOOK REVIEWS

Literature and Fine ArtsJackson, Robert Louis. Close Encounters: Essays On Russian Literature.Salden, Peter. Russische Literatur in Polen (1864–1904).Rosenshield, Gary. Challenging the Bard: Dostoevsky and Pushkin, a Study of Literary Relationship.Connolly, Julian W. Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. Academic's Reader's Guide Series.Avramenko, Richard, and Lee Trepanier, eds. Dostoevsky's Political Thought.Carnicke, Sharon Marie. Checking out Chekhov: A Guide to the Plays for Actors, Directors, and Readers.Bellow, Juliet. Modernism on Stage: The Ballets Russes and the Parisian Avant‐Garde.Oppo, Andrea, ed. Shapes of Apocalypse: Arts and Philosophy in Slavic Thought.Anemone, Anthony, and Peter Scotto, trans. and eds. “I am a Phenomenon Quite out of the Ordinary”: The Notebooks, Diaries, and Letters of Daniil Kharms.Fedorova, Milla. Yankees in Petrograd, Bolsheviks in New York: America and Americans in Russian Literary Perception.Laursen, Eric. Toxic Voices: The Villain from Early Soviet Literature to Socialist Realism.Loseff, Lev. Joseph Brodsky: A Literary Life. Translated by Jane Anne Miller.HistoryJosephson, Paul, et al. An Environmental History of Russia.Mogilner, Marina. Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia.Malinova‐Tziafeta, Ol'ga. Iz goroda na dachu: Sotsiokul'turnye faktory osvoeniia dachnogo prostranstva vokrug Peterburga (1860–1914).Miller, David B. Saint Sergius of Radonezh, His Trinity Monastery, and the Formation of the Russian Identity.Jones, Robert E. Bread upon the Waters: The St. Petersburg Grain Trade and the Russian Economy, 1703–1811.Barry, Quintin. War in the East: A Military History of the Russo‐Turkish War 1877–78.Zhuravleva, V. I. Ponimanie Rossii v SShA: Obrazy i mify, 1881–1914.Dunaeva, A. Iu. Reformy politsii v Rossii nachala XX veka i Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovskii.Kovalev, M. B. Russkie istoriki‐emigranty v Prage (1920–1940 gg.).Eremeeva, A. N. Kul'turnaia zhizn’Kubani v XX veke.Lyandres, Semion. Fall of Tsarism: Untold Stories of February 1917 Revolution.Boer, Roland. Lenin, Religion, and Theology: New Approaches to Religion and Power.Koenker, Diane P. Club Red: Vacation Travel and the Soviet Dream.DeHaan, Heather D. Stalinist City Planning: Professionals, Performance, and Power.Klid, Bohdan, and Alexander J. Motyl, comps. and eds. The Holodomor Reader: A Sourcebook on the Famine of 1932–33 in Ukraine.Storella, C. J., and A. K. Sokolov. The Voice of the People: Letters from the Soviet Village, 1918–1932.Goldman, Stuart D. Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory that Shaped World War II.Hrynevych, Vladyslav. Nepryborkane riznogolossia: Druga svitova viina i suspil'no‐politychni nastroi v Ukraini, 1939–cherven’1941 r.Shrayer, Maxim D. I Saw It: Ilya Selvinsky and the Legacy of Bearing Witness to the Shoah, with Translations of Major Works.Kozlov, Denis. The Readers of Novyi mir: Coming to Terms with the Stalinist Past.Kotliarchuk, Andrei. “V kuznitse Stalina”: Shvedskie kolonisty Ukrainy v totalitarnykh eksperimentakh XX veka.Bullough, Oliver. The Last Man in Russia: The Struggle to Save a Dying Nation.Hewitt, George. Discordant Neighbours: A Reassessment of the Georgian‐Abkhaz and Georgian‐South Ossetian Conflicts.Hill, William H. Russia, the Near Abroad, and the West: Lessons from the Moldova‐Transdniestria Conflict.Social Sciences, Contemporary Russia, and OtherYaroshinskaya, Alla A. Chernobyl: Crime without Punishment.Ledeneva, Alena V. Can Russia Modernise? Sistema, Power Networks and Informal Government.Hedlund, Stefan. Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding Systemic Failure.Tsygankov, Andrei P. Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations.Pilkington, Hilary, Elena Omel'chenko, and Al'bina Garifzianova. Russia's Skinheads: Exploring and Rethinking Subcultural Lives.Pringle, Tim, and Simon Clarke. The Challenge of Transitions: Trade Unions in Russia, China and Vietnam.Gill, Graeme. Symbolism and Regime Change in Russia.Herrera, Yoshiko M. Mirrors of the Economy: National Accounts and International Norms in Russia and Beyond.Luerhmann, Sonja. Secularism Soviet Style: Teaching Atheism and Religion in a Volga Republic.Black, J. L., and Michael Johns, eds. Russia after 2012: From Putin to Medvedev to Putin – Continuity, Change, or Revolution? Assisted by Alanda Theriault.Menzel, Birgit, et al., eds. The New Age of Russia: Occult and Esoteric Dimensions.

Em busca do Brasil: Edgard Roquette-Pinto e o retrato antropológico brasileiro (1905-1935)

This dissertation deals with the history of physical anthropology and discussions about race and nation at the beginning of the twentieth century, focusing on the anthropological studies carried out by the doctor and anthropologist Edgard Roquette-Pinto. As a scientist linked to the National Museum between 1905 and 1935, he dedicated his trajectory to researching the anthropology and ethnography of Brazil, through which he sought not only to describe the formative racial characteristics of the country, but also to valuate the biological feasibility, psychological character and social conditions of the population. By linking Roquette-Pinto’s nationalist activism, his public actions and his dialogue with the anthropological thought of the time, the aim of the dissertation is to analyze the relations between anthropology, nation and politics, emphasizing the national and international frontiers involved in the debate. As it will be demonstrated, Roquette-Pinto’s anthropology was based both on a national context and Brazilian intellectual and scientific concerns, and the international debate on race and populations. On the one hand, the dissertation analyzes the interlocution and the controversies between the anthropologist and Brazilian writers, such as Euclides da Cunha, Manoel Bomfim, Oliveira Vianna, Renato Kehl and Gilberto Freyre, seeking to understand how controversies about racial miscegenation, immigration and the settlement of Brazil were central to the construction of interpretations, diagnostics and projects of national reform. On the other, it is also shown how his anthropological writing was constructed in dialogue with physical anthropologists, historians and foreign eugenists, mostly German and American, including Charles Davenport, Madison Grant, Eugen Fischer, Rudiger Bilden and Franz Boas. One of the arguments defended in this dissertation is that the anthropology of Roquette-Pinto becomes more intelligible when analyzing the international debate involving anthropological studies and intellectual networks. The dissertation is a contribution both for the history of anthropology in Brazil and for the history of the circulation of ideas about race, national identity and population in an international context.

Vocabularies of Difference: Ethnicity and Race in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia

Juliette Cadiot, Le Laboratoire imperial: Russie-URSS, 1870-1940 (The Imperial Laboratory: Russia and the USSR, 1870-1940). 267 pp. Paris: Editions CNRS, 2007. ISBN 2271064821 (paper). Marina Mogil'ner, Homo imperii: Istoriia fizicheskoi antropologii v Rossii (konets XIX-nachalo XX v.) (Imperial Man: The History of Physical Anthropology in Russia in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries). 512 pp., illus. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008. ISBN-13 978-5867935672. Human beings are diverse. This is a fact of nature, as inevitable and universal as the primordial distinction between self and other. But the terms we use to describe, define, and classify human diversity are manmade, rooted in particular cultural, social, and intellectual contexts; in short, they have a history. Since the 1990s, this constructivist truism has formed the basis for a growing body of literature on the conceptualization of human diversity to which scholars of the Russian Empire have made substantial contributions. (1) But while the theme of human diversity has echoed broadly throughout the recent literature of Russia and the Soviet Union, the works under review are among the first to address head on two of the most powerful and pervasive measures of difference: ethnicity in Juliette Cadiot's Le Labaratoire imperial, and race in Marina Mogil'ner's Homo imperii. Cadiot and Mogil'ner place their discussions within roughly congruous chronological boundaries. They begin their narratives in the aftermath of the Great Reforms, focus particular attention on the first decade of the 20th century, and follow their subjects well into the Soviet period. Thus both works join a growing body of recent literature spanning the boundary of 1917 in search of common trajectories and patterns that transcend the dramatic shift in ideology and practices brought by the revolution. (2) Authors of such works tend to view the period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an incubator of ideas and practices that would find broader application by the modern state both in the Soviet Union and abroad. Markers of group identity in particular--such as class, gender, nationality, and race--served as instruments through which the state organized its population into manageable units readily arrangeable into hierarchies of utility and trust. Yet the recognition of these tools of identity opens new agendas for research: why were some modes of classification preferred over others? How were markers denoting innate features reconciled with belief in the malleability of the individual? And who controlled the ways in which markers of difference were articulated and deployed? Such questions, of course, were not unique to Russia and the Soviet Union. The fact that Russian statisticians, ethnographers, anthropologists, psychiatrists, and government officials participated in international discussions on the human sciences and their practical applications underlines the importance of the comparative context. Cadiot and Mogil'ner, like many recent scholars, firmly resist the notion of a Russian Sonderweg, showing in considerable detail the international ties of Russian scholars and the circulation of West European concepts within Russia. Nonetheless, the evidence they present suggests a number of ways in which the Russian experience was distinct: the tsarist state's tardiness in embracing the category of ethnicity, for example, or the downplaying of race by key elements within the scholar community, to note two of the most obvious instances. But how much analytical weight do these particularistic elements merit? Were Russia's distinct features merely variations on a larger European imperialist theme, or do they bear witness to fundamental differences? In one way or another, both authors face the challenge of placing Russia's experience in an international context and accounting for its distinctiveness. Both works focus on the processes through which concepts of difference were established and deployed to classify, quantify, and administer the population of the empire; and both writers look to academic disciplines as workshops within which a modern vocabulary of ethnicity and race was formulated and disseminated. …

Introduction

Although research on the history of physical anthropology in Central and Southeastern Europe has increased significantly since the 1990s the impact race had on the discipline's conceptual maturity has yet to be fully addressed. Once physical anthropology is recognized as having preserved inter-war racial tropes within scientific discourses about national communities, new insights on how nationalism developed during the 1970s and 1980s will emerge, both in countries belonging to the communist East—Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, and in those belonging to the West—Austria and Greece. By looking at the relationship between race and physical anthropology in these countries after 1945 it becomes clear what enabled the recurrent themes of ethnic primordiality, racial continuity, and de-nationalizing of ethnic minorities not only to flourish during the 1980s but also to re-emerge overtly during political changes characterizing the last two decades.

One Long ArgumentPrimate and Human Evolution. By Susan Cachel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

The first sentence of the preface to this volume states, “This book is not intended to be an introductory textbook in physical anthropology.” Based on the title, this will come as a surprise to most readers. It also begs the question of why the first 50 pages include a potted history of physical anthropology. What is attempted here is to create a long argument for a particular (idiosyncratic, even) scenario for the emergence of hominins, one that explicitly ignores the bulk of scientific primatology. Cachel recognizes that this goes against the grain (“I am an apostate from primatology”; p. xv) but pursues the idea with a vigor that is commendable. The argument is summarized in chapter 16 (of 18), “Archeological Evidence and Models of Human Evolution.” It posits that a change in ancestral hominin sociality was the main trigger for differentiation from other apes; a reduction of intragroup competition encouraged food sharing, terrestriality, and natural history intelligence, which in turn created a cascade of anatomical and behavioral transformations of “hominization.” Indeed, Cachel tries to have it both ways in that she hypothesizes a reduction of competition in hominins but also argues that the high levels of competition seen in extant cercopithecoids are derived (p. 313). Nevertheless, the scenario represents a novel approach to the question of human adaptation and attempts to explain the unique features and adaptations of humans without resorting to environmental determinism. The remaining chapters range from “Primate Speciation and Extinction” (chap. 4) to “The Implications of Body Size for Evolutionary Ecology” (chap. 11), stopping along the way to criticize cladistics (Cachel uses an “anthropoid/prosimian” primate classification) and introduce robotic toy dogs. In retrospect, the object appears to have been to explain the author’s approach to the evidence in an attempt to build a long argument, but much of what is discussed is tangential, and the links between the material presented before chapter 16 and the model that forms the basis of the original contribution of the book are sketchy at best. For example, in chapter 3, a discussion of Teilhardina (an Eocene fossil primate) is justified in this way: “Because omomyids are tarsiiform primates, the fossil record of tarsiers is of interest to the study of early catarrhines” (p. 62). The impact of this statement, however, is lessened by the fact that she has already stated (p. 1) that, “I believe that tarsiers . . . have no special relation with higher primates”; to add to the sense of disconnectedness, this section is illustrated with a computer image of the cranium of Roonyia, an omomyid not mentioned in the text. Similarly, on page 11, Philip Herskovitz is criticized for creating subspecies on the basis of individual variations only to have those same distinctions cited as evidence for allopatric speciation in platyrrhines on page 87. There seems to be no attempt at all to integrate chapters 5 (“Anatomical Primatology”) and 6 (“Captive Studies of Nonhuman Primates”). The sense of disjointedness is spread throughout the work. A particular problem is with the illustrations. The cover image (of a pet spider monkey walking bipedally) is an example, as it is virtually a nonsequitur; it is taken from a short, marginally relevant chapter on captive primate studies, from a section called “Truly Aberrant Behaviors.” Many of the illustrations have been taken from other sources but have been digitally altered rather poorly. In addition, they seem to have been chosen haphazardly. The chapter titled “The Catarrhine Fossil Record” contains illustrations of (a) a specimen of a fossil cercopithecoid shown in situ (without accession number), (b) a photo of two living colobus monkeys, (c) a virtual 3-D reconstruction of a fossil omomyid, and (d) some giraffes. The real difficulty is working out who would benefit from such a work, as it seems to fall between several stools. Anyone expecting an introduction to primate (including human) evolution would have to look elsewhere, as the bulk of the fossil material is merely alluded to rather than being described in any detail. Much of the supporting material is only vaguely related to the main argument, but it is presented without sufficient detail and citation to justify its use as a review. There are undoubtedly some insights offered, but the revival of W. E. Le Gros Clark’s broad primate “trends,” the rejection of modern phylogenetic methods, and the dismissal of almost the whole of scientific primatology makes the book anachronistic at best. As a result, although the model of hominin origins advocated may prove to be fruitful, the long argument leading to it does not make a convincing case.

History of physical anthropology

History of physical anthropology

A history of physical anthropology and the development of evolutionary thought in Canada

Canada is a large country geographically, but relatively small in terms of population. As a result, our major problem has always been communication. It is expensive and time consuming to get together to discuss problems. For example, a scholar in Newfoundland would find Prague to be as far away as a visit to a university in her own country (British Columbia). Then too, communication is often confounded by language because we are a bilingual country, but relatively few people speak both languages. Understandably, then, it is very difficult to speak of a national identity on such a topic as human evolution. Rather, we find that individuals have influenced the field either through their research or through their teaching. Academic development has been strongly influenced in the past by developments in the United States and Europe, particularly the United Kingdom.Nevertheless, we will attempt to trace the development of evolutionary thought, but not without a preliminary apology for oversights to our colleagu...

A history of physical anthropology and the development of evolutionary thought in Canada

Canada is a large country geographically, but relatively small in terms of population. As a result, our major problem has always been communication. It is expensive and time consuming to get together to discuss problems. For example, a scholar in Newfoundland would find Prague to be as far away as a visit to a university in her own country (British Columbia). Then too, communication is often confounded by language because we are a bilingual country, but relatively few people speak both languages. Understandably, then, it is very difficult to speak of a national identity on such a topic as human evolution. Rather, we find that individuals have influenced the field either through their research or through their teaching. Academic development has been strongly influenced in the past by developments in the United States and Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we will attempt to trace the development of evolutionary throught, but not without a preliminary apology for oversights to our colleagues. The task is difficult, and we will surely overlook some names. We hope that our attempt will still be accurate in the wholistic sense. Regardless of the foregoing problems, we do see a broad historical development and the beginning of a Canadian perspective. This is more clearly seen if we trace the development of evolutionary thought within the context of the history of physical anthropology in Canada.

Frank Spencer. Ecce Homo: An annotated bibliographic history of physical anthropology. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986. xiii + 495 pp. $50.95 (cloth) (Reviewed by Paul A. Erickson)

Frank Spencer. Ecce Homo: An annotated bibliographic history of physical anthropology. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986. xiii + 495 pp. $50.95 (cloth) (Reviewed by Paul A. Erickson)

Armageddon in New Guinea

realize that nearly all of the history books in the various South African school systems ignore these same facts of resistance because they would give historical base to a just struggle against the ruling regime. By perpetuating concepts of biological determinism without examining whether their data in fact support such a conclusion, Nurse, Jenkins and Weiner open their writings to be used in support of legalized racial discrimination in South Africa. Perhaps the saddest comment that can be made about this book is that its faults detract from its real value as a description of the living genetic patterns of the people of southern Africa. The range of information is impressive and many of the descriptive passages in the book are beautifully written. Add to this the wealth of genotypic information in the long appendix and you have some idea of how valuable the book should be, but the unyielding sociobiological and deterministic interpretations bury this usefulness. My great fear is that students of archaeology, genetics and physical anthropology will simply assume that this is the academic 'bible' on the subject and will absorb many of the speculative passages without criticism. study in human ecology. In Ecological studies in Southern Africa (ed. D. H. S. Davis) pp 67-68. Junk: The Hague. Tobias, P V. 1985. History of Physical Anthropology in Southern Africa. Yearbook of Phys. Anth. 28: 1-52.

History of physical anthropology in Southern Africa

A brief history of physical anthropology in Southern Africa is presented. Beginning with early accounts of settlers and visitors, detailed consideration of early and subsequent fossil discoveries and the individuals involved is given. A discussion of studies on the living peoples of Southern Africa follows and includes a historical summary of research on the interrelationships among Khoisan and Negro peoples, race, growth, nutrition, and secular trends.

From the Caves of Tenerife to the Stores of the Peabody Museum

In the preface to Earnest A. Hooton's The Ancient Inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the book which established Hooton's career in the field of physical anthropology, Hooton explains how Alexander Baillon, a British resident of Tenerife, helped him to locate Guanche burial caves in the south of the island. Hooton also explains that the skeletal remains taken from the caves were prohibited from being sent from Tenerife to the United States by the Spanish government. Nonetheless, the Guanche relics did reach the Peabody Museum of Harvard University after Hooton returned to the United States from his expedition to Tenerife. The explanation of how the Guanche relics reached the Peabody Museum is revealed in an excerpt from the unpublished memoirs of the late Alexander Baillon (1880-1963). The memoirs, which were uncovered during a recent research expedition to Tenerife, indicate that Baillon was solely responsible for removing the Guanche relics from Tenerife and for sending them to the Peabody Museum. Earnest Albert Hooton (1887-1954) was the most important man in the history of physical anthropology in the United States. Although others may lay claim to more significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge in physical anthropology, and some may dispute the validity of some of the theoretical implications drawn by Hooton from his research, none will argue the fact that Hooton was the person most responsible for the growth of physical anthropology in the United States. His influence was felt through his teaching and his writing, especially his teaching. Almost every significant contributor to the field of physical anthropology in the United States today either studied with Hooton or studied with one of Hooton's students. Hooton, who received his Ph.D. in clas

George A. Dorsey's Role in the Luetgert Case: A Significant Episode in the History of Forensic Anthropology

Abstract At the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Washington I gave an invited evening lecture on the history of physical anthropology [1]. Actually, I spoke only about the history of physical anthropology as I saw it reflected in the history of forensic anthropology. Among the pioneers of forensic anthropology in the United States, I included George A. Dorsey (1868–1931), mentioning that while a student at Harvard in the early 1890s he might have known Thomas Dwight, the father of forensic anthropology in the United States, and that after joining the staff of the Field Columbian Museum in 1896 he served as an expert witness for the prosecution in the sensational Luetgert murder trials in Chicago. Unfortunately, on the basis of the limited information about these trials available to me in 1976, I misjudged the nature of Dorsey's testimony and made the mistake of saying that he “tripped up badly in the process.” Since this error did not get corrected before the paper appeared in print, I would like to set the record straight.