Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
The Evolutionary Perspective
The Modern Synthesis and the New Physical Anthropology
The modern synthesis of evolution merged the theories of genetics with Darwinian
natural selection between 1936 and 1947 ( Mayr, 1998 ). Notable figures in the modern evolu-
tionary synthesis were Julian Huxley (who coined the term), and Theodosius Dobzhansky.
This synthesis emerged when Mendelian genetics was found to be consistent with natural
selection and a seemingly gradual tempo for evolution. Ernst Mayr, who helped conceptu-
alize the modern synthesis, hoped that the new perspective on population genetics could
serve as a weapon against public racism ( Caspari, 2003; Mayr, 1998; Gould, 2002; Pigliucci
and M¨ ller, 2010 ).
Given the winds of change socially and politically within the United States and in the
biological sciences in general as discussed above, one of Hooton's students, Sherwood
Washburn (1951) , published a famous call to action for physical anthropology to discard
its use of the typological approach. Washburn suggested that the “new physical anthro-
pology” should change its focus from typology to the study of populations, with the goal
of research being to understand human variation and the process of evolution rather than
continued focus on types. Washburn, among others, wanted to see a change in emphasis
from the simple recording of a trait to asking the question of why the trait exists and what
function it serves. Washburn observed that the old physical anthropology was 80% measure-
ment and 20% heredity and he advised that the “new physical anthropology” should reverse
this proportion ( Washburn, 1951 ).
In addition, many anthropologists replaced the race concept with the concept of
geographical clines (a gradual change of a character or feature in a species over
a geographical area, e.g., skin color being darker near the equator and lighter in more
northern latitudes). Frank Livingstone's declaration , “There are no races, only clines”
began this trend (1962:279). Many other workers focused research efforts towards discov-
ering the patterning of human variation. For example, Richard Lewontin, evolutionary
biologist and population geneticist, famously demonstrated in 1972 that there is more
genetic variation within human populations than between them, meaning that human pop-
ulations are more similar to each other than they are different. While some contemporary
scholars disagree with Lewontin's conclusions and the cline concept as they relate to the
geographic patterning of human variation, all agree that race is neither a useful, accurate,
nor scientific way to characterize human variation ( Edgar and Hunley, 2009 ;andsee
discussions in DiGangi and Hefner [Chapter 5]; and Cabana et al. [Chapter 16], this
volume).
Processualism and Post-processualism
By the 1950s, due to the restricted primary role of skeletal analysis to the typological
classification of skulls, the specific application of skeletal analysis to archaeological questions
had decidedly stagnated when Washburn recommended a “new physical anthropology.”
( Jarcho, 1966 ; and see Smith [Chapter 7], this volume). In the late 1960s, the archaeologist
Louis Binford helped propel the discipline in a new direction (known as the “New Archae-
ology” or “processualism”) by arguing that cultural systems adapt to the environment. This
Search WWH ::




Custom Search