What do you think?
Rate this book
Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind
For undergraduate introductory physical anthropology, biological anthropology or human origins courses. Biological Anthropology, 2/e continues to build upon the strength and success of the first edition by integrating the foundations and the most current innovations in the field from the ground up. Over the past twenty years, this field has rapidly evolved from the study of physical anthropology into biological anthropology, incorporating the evolutionary biology of humankind based on information from the fossil record and the human skeleton, genetics of individuals and of populations, our primate relatives, human adaptation, and human behavior. The second edition of Biological Anthropology combines the most up-to-date, comprehensive coverage of the foundations of the field with modern innovations a
624 pages, Paperback
First published March 4, 2004
5 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
About the author
Craig Stanford
30 books11 followersA.k.a. Craig B. Stanford: www.goodreads.com/author/show/2248957...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 2, 2018
The authors* clarify at the outset that biological anthropology, “sometimes called physical anthropology,” studies humans as biological organisms “considered in an evolutionary framework.”** I presume the switch to biological anthropology from physical anthropology reflects a movement away from evolution of physical structure to a more inclusive view that incorporates evolutionary theory as it pertains to behavior.
Though somewhat challenging, the authors provide a lay-friendly description on those genetic factors that create individual variation (“biochemical individuality”). They clarify that crossing-over provides new allele combinations in contrast to mutation, which provides new alleles; that mutations can be good, neutral or bad vis-à-vis reproductive success; and that regulatory genes “guide the expression of structural genes.” They also clarify the distinction between gametes and somatic cells; types of mutations (point mutation, insertion mutation and deletion mutation); qualitative and quantitate variants (discrete traits in contrast to traits that vary along a continuum) at the phenotypic level; and polygenetic traits (phenotypic traits resulting from combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (“single genes having multiple phenotypic effects”).
The authors summarize the evolution of the hominid line, from ape to ape person and from ape person to human. “Initially,” they say, “the most noticeable anatomical development in the hominids is in locomotion; bipedality was among the earliest adaptations, along with slightly smaller canine teeth. The dramatic expansion of the brain that characterizes living humans came millions of years later.” They add that “The earliest bipeds arose between 5 and 6 million years ago, but the first stone tools did not appear in the fossil record until 2.5 million years ago. Tool use therefore is unlikely to have played a major role in the origins of bipedal locomotion. And brain size did not expand dramatically until about 300,000 years ago, with the rise of modern people.”
“As Darwin saw it,” the authors write, “natural selection is all about reproductive success. Therefore, the time-honoured definition of natural selection as ‘survival of the fittest’ is misleading.” Right off I don’t see how “struggle” does not apply to reproductive success. The authors do not mention that Darwin himself used the struggle terminology, and that Darwin (and Spencer) saw struggle in terms of competition with groups, not with the environment in general (perhaps because the “struggle” terminology acquired a negative association with Social Darwinism), even though that line of thought led Darwin and Spencer to argue for the superiority of Western white people.
Here and there, the authors weave in without question various research findings and arguments about our biological nature. For example, the authors discuss the ratio between brain size and body size (the ratio), without indicating why such a correlation is significant and specifically, why size per se is an indicator for intelligence without noting, say, other factors that might be far more relevant such as the role of regulatory genes in overseeing genetic expression. The authors’ point is that whereas large animals (e.g., whales) have bigger brains than humans, this does not make them smarter because humans have a larger brain relative to body size. They make the same argument regarding Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, with the latter having a larger brain size generally but are thought to be necessarily not as smart as they lost the evolutionary competition with Homo sapiens. The authors also cite bird studies as evidence to suggest the point they wish to make about the male-female division of labor among humans. Given species “uniqueness” (however species might be defined, a somewhat contentious issue), it’s not clear how this approach is productive. It’s as if they are conflating general evolutionary principles at the universal genetic level with individual species traits that are unique by definition. The authors also cite the kin selection argument as an explanation for altruistic behavior in our species as well as others. They do this without explaining the role that groups might play in individual survival (i.e., individuals evolved to act for the benefit of the group, not for the group’s welfare, but because this is the way the individual survived), thereby promoting group-oriented (i.e., altruistic) behavior; and they do not mention the probability that in earliest human evolution, kin were largely the individual’s group. Regarding kin selection, the authors give more than a few examples (e.g., “The constraints of bipedalism may have served as an evolutionary incentive for the development of socially assisted birthing, in which females aid one another in achieving successful births”) that illustrate non-kin altruistic relationships, without noting that such inherently counters kin selection theory.
There’s acknowledgement – there has to be – of Darwin’s sexual selection, but there’s surprisingly little discussion about the role this, in combination with sub-population in isolated groups, plays in creating different physical traits (and standards of physical beauty). The authors discuss variation at the population, sub-population (i.e., race), and individual levels, yet only superficially discuss the implications of variation for human behavior. Genetic variation is the essence of the evolutionary process and good mutations (that survive natural selection) result in species-by-species traits, but the authors do not apply genetic variation at the individual level, among humans as applied to their behavior. For example, could it be that some individuals are moved to promote their self-interest regardless of the other’s interest (hence, the role of deceit, manipulation, and overpowering), whereas others are more group-oriented and that both constitute “fitness” strategies? Is it possible, in other words, that there’s not one single human nature but two extreme poles that provide pathways to reproductive success (hence, their widespread presence), with most humans falling in between?
The biggest issue I have with this textbook is with Chapter 17 dealing with the evolutionary basis for behavior. There are factual references about some facets of behavior (risk taking, inbreeding), and some speculative inferences (previously discussed) about the sexual division of labor, and the role of language (is that a behavior?). There’s some discussion of the main evolutionary approaches to the study of human behavior, but none deal with the underlying motive forces. It’s as if humans are skeletal beings, with brains that make decisions about which way they are going to go without any discussion about the biological basis for choosing one direction as opposed to another, even though humans, like all life, are essentially seeking and defending beings. There is nothing about the broad-level but fundamental motivations (seeking what is needed to survive and reproduce and avoiding threats; liking and not liking), as well as specific dispositions related to the basic needs for nurture, security, defense and sex, all of which pull in some fairly standard needs relating to our group nature (i.e., all of Darwin’s discussion of our tribal nature). Emotions are cast aside as just another feature of human behavior without any recognition of their role in providing the motive force that underlies why we do what we do, from immediate impulsive or reactive behavior to long-term planning and regulation of our behavior. In fact, the authors follow the lead of Gazzaniga who views behavior primarily in terms of cognition, void of emotive forces that in a contrary point of view are integrally tied to cognition. Hence the authors’ terminology of “cognitive behavior.” In looking at motivation, the authors would be able to shed, helpfully, further light on the nature-nurture distinction. Adaptation in evolutionary theory involves change, but the application of intelligence to life problems among humans also involve change. But the ends that intelligence serves – meeting needs and defending them along with the capacity to defend them (hence, anti-authoritarianism and the need for freedom) are fixed. It’s about meeting those evolutionarily-designed goals related to survival. Intelligence thus, it could be argued, serves the passions along the lines that Hume suggested, and probably accounts for all of the cultural variety that the cultural anthropologists have focused on. Clearly, none of this is settled theory, but there is an ample body of literature on this subject that should be acknowledged and discussed by the authors. In doing so, they would have added some soul to what in essence is for the authors still physical anthropology.
*I read the 2009 Pearson Education Canada edition with four authors: Craig Stanford, John S Allen, Susan C. Anton, and Nancy C. Lovell.
**While the authors acknowledge some cross-fertilization, the approach used by a biological anthropologist they say stands in contrast to cultural anthropologists who “have come to reject biological influences” on human behavior.
Though somewhat challenging, the authors provide a lay-friendly description on those genetic factors that create individual variation (“biochemical individuality”). They clarify that crossing-over provides new allele combinations in contrast to mutation, which provides new alleles; that mutations can be good, neutral or bad vis-à-vis reproductive success; and that regulatory genes “guide the expression of structural genes.” They also clarify the distinction between gametes and somatic cells; types of mutations (point mutation, insertion mutation and deletion mutation); qualitative and quantitate variants (discrete traits in contrast to traits that vary along a continuum) at the phenotypic level; and polygenetic traits (phenotypic traits resulting from combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (“single genes having multiple phenotypic effects”).
The authors summarize the evolution of the hominid line, from ape to ape person and from ape person to human. “Initially,” they say, “the most noticeable anatomical development in the hominids is in locomotion; bipedality was among the earliest adaptations, along with slightly smaller canine teeth. The dramatic expansion of the brain that characterizes living humans came millions of years later.” They add that “The earliest bipeds arose between 5 and 6 million years ago, but the first stone tools did not appear in the fossil record until 2.5 million years ago. Tool use therefore is unlikely to have played a major role in the origins of bipedal locomotion. And brain size did not expand dramatically until about 300,000 years ago, with the rise of modern people.”
“As Darwin saw it,” the authors write, “natural selection is all about reproductive success. Therefore, the time-honoured definition of natural selection as ‘survival of the fittest’ is misleading.” Right off I don’t see how “struggle” does not apply to reproductive success. The authors do not mention that Darwin himself used the struggle terminology, and that Darwin (and Spencer) saw struggle in terms of competition with groups, not with the environment in general (perhaps because the “struggle” terminology acquired a negative association with Social Darwinism), even though that line of thought led Darwin and Spencer to argue for the superiority of Western white people.
Here and there, the authors weave in without question various research findings and arguments about our biological nature. For example, the authors discuss the ratio between brain size and body size (the ratio), without indicating why such a correlation is significant and specifically, why size per se is an indicator for intelligence without noting, say, other factors that might be far more relevant such as the role of regulatory genes in overseeing genetic expression. The authors’ point is that whereas large animals (e.g., whales) have bigger brains than humans, this does not make them smarter because humans have a larger brain relative to body size. They make the same argument regarding Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, with the latter having a larger brain size generally but are thought to be necessarily not as smart as they lost the evolutionary competition with Homo sapiens. The authors also cite bird studies as evidence to suggest the point they wish to make about the male-female division of labor among humans. Given species “uniqueness” (however species might be defined, a somewhat contentious issue), it’s not clear how this approach is productive. It’s as if they are conflating general evolutionary principles at the universal genetic level with individual species traits that are unique by definition. The authors also cite the kin selection argument as an explanation for altruistic behavior in our species as well as others. They do this without explaining the role that groups might play in individual survival (i.e., individuals evolved to act for the benefit of the group, not for the group’s welfare, but because this is the way the individual survived), thereby promoting group-oriented (i.e., altruistic) behavior; and they do not mention the probability that in earliest human evolution, kin were largely the individual’s group. Regarding kin selection, the authors give more than a few examples (e.g., “The constraints of bipedalism may have served as an evolutionary incentive for the development of socially assisted birthing, in which females aid one another in achieving successful births”) that illustrate non-kin altruistic relationships, without noting that such inherently counters kin selection theory.
There’s acknowledgement – there has to be – of Darwin’s sexual selection, but there’s surprisingly little discussion about the role this, in combination with sub-population in isolated groups, plays in creating different physical traits (and standards of physical beauty). The authors discuss variation at the population, sub-population (i.e., race), and individual levels, yet only superficially discuss the implications of variation for human behavior. Genetic variation is the essence of the evolutionary process and good mutations (that survive natural selection) result in species-by-species traits, but the authors do not apply genetic variation at the individual level, among humans as applied to their behavior. For example, could it be that some individuals are moved to promote their self-interest regardless of the other’s interest (hence, the role of deceit, manipulation, and overpowering), whereas others are more group-oriented and that both constitute “fitness” strategies? Is it possible, in other words, that there’s not one single human nature but two extreme poles that provide pathways to reproductive success (hence, their widespread presence), with most humans falling in between?
The biggest issue I have with this textbook is with Chapter 17 dealing with the evolutionary basis for behavior. There are factual references about some facets of behavior (risk taking, inbreeding), and some speculative inferences (previously discussed) about the sexual division of labor, and the role of language (is that a behavior?). There’s some discussion of the main evolutionary approaches to the study of human behavior, but none deal with the underlying motive forces. It’s as if humans are skeletal beings, with brains that make decisions about which way they are going to go without any discussion about the biological basis for choosing one direction as opposed to another, even though humans, like all life, are essentially seeking and defending beings. There is nothing about the broad-level but fundamental motivations (seeking what is needed to survive and reproduce and avoiding threats; liking and not liking), as well as specific dispositions related to the basic needs for nurture, security, defense and sex, all of which pull in some fairly standard needs relating to our group nature (i.e., all of Darwin’s discussion of our tribal nature). Emotions are cast aside as just another feature of human behavior without any recognition of their role in providing the motive force that underlies why we do what we do, from immediate impulsive or reactive behavior to long-term planning and regulation of our behavior. In fact, the authors follow the lead of Gazzaniga who views behavior primarily in terms of cognition, void of emotive forces that in a contrary point of view are integrally tied to cognition. Hence the authors’ terminology of “cognitive behavior.” In looking at motivation, the authors would be able to shed, helpfully, further light on the nature-nurture distinction. Adaptation in evolutionary theory involves change, but the application of intelligence to life problems among humans also involve change. But the ends that intelligence serves – meeting needs and defending them along with the capacity to defend them (hence, anti-authoritarianism and the need for freedom) are fixed. It’s about meeting those evolutionarily-designed goals related to survival. Intelligence thus, it could be argued, serves the passions along the lines that Hume suggested, and probably accounts for all of the cultural variety that the cultural anthropologists have focused on. Clearly, none of this is settled theory, but there is an ample body of literature on this subject that should be acknowledged and discussed by the authors. In doing so, they would have added some soul to what in essence is for the authors still physical anthropology.
*I read the 2009 Pearson Education Canada edition with four authors: Craig Stanford, John S Allen, Susan C. Anton, and Nancy C. Lovell.
**While the authors acknowledge some cross-fertilization, the approach used by a biological anthropologist they say stands in contrast to cultural anthropologists who “have come to reject biological influences” on human behavior.
October 4, 2017
A good starting point for anyone interested in or studying Biological Anthropology. It summarises a great number of subfields (like forensic anthropology, primatology, palaeoanthropology, etc.) and gives you a taster of what's out there. It's by no means comprehensive (nor does it intend to be) and it can occasionally give you a headache. I do however still find myself referring back to it when I need a refresher in something I don't deal with daily and the comprehensive set of references within the book and at the back have helped me complete many an assignment.
August 5, 2008
After going through this textbook twice this summer I decided to add it to my reading list. It's a disappointing book, especially considering the research caliber of the authors (and I even have the 2009 second edition). The text is a bit loopy and the pictures/figures are often irrelevant. I will not choose this textbook the next time I teach an Intro to Biological Anthropology class.
August 4, 2011
This was for a class on Human Evolution. There were parts of it that were drier then coprolites, but over all the text was very well written and offered a large amount of information with plenty of diagrams, pictures and links to other resources.
December 14, 2010
The colored diagrams helped with the reading, but sometimes it was a little overwhelming. It was an okay textbook; first ever for me in the anthropology department.
April 18, 2009
I'm reading this for a class in school.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews