Talk:Introduction to Paleoanthropology/Evolution Culture

us (Homo sapiens) and the others (other hominid species, e.g. Neandertals, Homo erectus) -- This may be inaccurate. There has been a lot of movement in the anthropological literature in the past 15 years, and I believe the Neandertals are no longer considered a separate species. We are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens; they are the subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. (Talk.Origins FAQ on Hominid Species -- Only mentions this in passing, but may be a good place to start looking for a definitive answer.)--Bedawyn 04:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: A bit of reading at talk.origins, and it looks like the Neandertals were considered the same species, but now there's talk of separating them out again. So this might not be inaccurate. Or it might be. Or it might not be now, but might be next year. I'd recommend deleting it just to be safe, and to avoid having to update it every time the wind changes directions. This is also something to keep an eye on when discussing Neandertals in later chapters.--Bedawyn 04:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

states/civilizations developed and remained within their own ecological boundaries... This situation shifted 500 years ago -- I think this is also a misstatement. The peoples Alexander conquered might argue the point, at any rate, as well as those subjugated by the Romans.

totally unparalleled scope -- This is very vague, and again I think it's an overstatement. Perhaps its unparalleled within the field of human evolution, but I don't think even that is provable.

There is therefore a problem to conceptualize the causes of the transformation process -- I'm not sure what this means. It is difficult to conceptualize the causes?

While resource exploitation is clearly the basic cause of the destruction of tribal peoples -- Again, debatable. It's certainly not the only cause.

Of course, as a culture of consumption -- I'm not sure what value is served by having this bold and centered. Makes it read more like an activist flyer than an objective textbook (as objective as anthropology can ever be, but that's a discussion for another time).

Unquestionably, tribal cultures represent a clear rejection of the materialistic values of industrial civilization -- *blink* A sweeping generalization, and hardly unquestionable. (I'm writing in sentence fragments -- yep, must be after midnight again.) The absence of a value set is not necessarily the same as the rejection of that value set.

Finally, and most importantly, I'm not sure this chapter even belongs in a book on paleoanthropology. It could certainly belong in a book on anthropology in general, but if it's to remain here, I think it needs to be cut for extraneous material and the remainder needs additional text to place it firmly within the context of paleoanthropology. For each paragraph, we should ask "Why is this relevant for a field that deals primarily with fossil hominids?"--Bedawyn 04:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As in introduction text, the first seven chapters are devoted to getting the reader acquainted with basic concepts that are needed to understand the area.


 * So how is this chapter relevant to paleoanthropology? If we wanted to make value judgements about the past, then I could see its relevance, while disagreeing with the content, but surely science is about avoiding value judgements. If we are sticking to the facts this chapter becomes irrelevant. Carandol


 * Actually, all science makes value judgments -- some just pretend they don't. *grin* Anthropology as a field just tries to be a bit more honest about it. Instead of saying "We don't make value judgments, no way, no sir!", anthropology makes an open effort to identify the value judgments that, as cultural products ourselves, we can't help making, so that once they are identified, we can take a step back from them and try to minimize their effects.--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * True, we can't always avoid value judgements, though we should attempt to. When we can't, it is indeed necessary to say what they are, which this draft doesn't. Carandol


 * Picture it as a closed glass window. If, as in many sciences, you're paying attention to what's beyond the window and not to the glass itself, you may think that your vision is clear. But anthropologists take the time to look at the glass first, how thick it is, how smudged or streaked is, and do their best to first clean it and then factor the uncleanable distortions out of their interpretations of what they see beyond the window. But you can't factor the distortions out if you don't first recognize them for what they are, which is why ethnocentrism is very much relevant for this book. (Which is not to say all the text in this chapter is relevant, or that this is the best presentation for ethnocentrism, but as a first draft it's not supposed to be).--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * However, the anthopologists (not paleoanthropologists) are all wearing their own pairs of glasses, so they see the window itself differently. Which one has the best glasses is hotly debated.


 * I think seven chapters might be a bit too much, although I don't object to the idea of surveying relevant concepts from other subdisciplines. But the keyword there is relevant, and I think much of this chapter isn't relevant (the history of progressivism details, for instance). And again, I think it needs work to show why it's relevant. Considering this is just a first draft, though, I'm happy to leave most of the "why it's relevant" text for the next pass.--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the justification of relevancy seems likely to touch on political issues, which would make neutrality, and consensus, challenging.Carandol


 * Since sustainable culture is one of the defining characterists of humanity, it is essential in this introductory text for us to put things into context and to address possible misconceptions in mindset of the reader.


 * Defining? Since when? People might like it be defining, but that is not enough to make it so. We must not fall for the myth of the noble savage, with his/her idyllic, enviromentally sustainable, lifestyle. Carandol


 * Culture has been one of the defining characteristics. It can perhaps be argued, when you talk about tool-using animals for instance, but that's a debate for the experts, not an introductory text. "Sustainable" is more easily argued, although a case can be made that if it wasn't sustainable we wouldn't still be here after thousands of years. But in any case, I think sustainability is irrelevant here, especially since any discussion of it is also based on value judgements.--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sustainable is what I meant. In one sense, any extant species has a sustainable lifestyle, since it has sustained the species throughout its lifespan, but that's not what people normally mean. What the word should mean requires a value judgement, which can be provided by the reader. The text describes the extinction of the megafauna, and the possible role of man; the reader decides whether or not that's evidence of a sustainable culture. Carandol


 * As for the wording and format issues, they can be fixed in future edits. After 7 months of notes, I am trying to finish the rest of the chapters this weekend. Davodd 05:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If this chapter is to stay, it will require considerable rewriting. Taking the final three paragraphs alone:


 * 'Unquestionably', is far too strong a word, and the second clause of the first sentence is semantically empty. Anything can happen given the necessary conditions, but that tells us nothing. The final sentence is not entirely false; nothing has been said to show that the values are cultural universals, but since the contrary is also unsubstantiated the tone of this sentence is inappropriate.


 * Ethnocentric views are no more automatically wrong than they are automatically right, which makes the first sentence irrelevant. Almost anything could be defended as being 'reasonable', which undermines the conclusion of the second sentence. Besides, all three of these paragraphs appear meant to be rebuttal of the claim that tribal cultures desire material wealth and prosperity. Even if this paragraph showed reasonable needs were met by trbal culutures, it would do nothing to show they meet human desires, which makes the entire paragraph of marginal relevance.


 * Although I agree that this chapter needs much rewriting, I have to disagree that "Ethnocentric views are no more automatically wrong than they are automatically right". That may be true generally speaking, but here we are speaking specifically for the field of anthropology. Just as the medical field takes as a given the value judgment that "healing people is good, death and disease are bad", modern anthropology takes as a given that "ethnocentric views are bad", and a student of anthropology will be expected to understand this.--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Holding ethnocentric views is bad, but to argue that a view is wrong merely because it is ethnocentric is to argue ad hominem, a logical fallacy. Saying 'Many adult humans drink cows' milk' simply because they do so in England would be ethnocentric, but the conclusion would be true nonetheless. Thus, the truth of a statement has to be evaluated independantly of its ethnocentricity, or you're not doing science.Carandol 21:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This isn't just an ethical standpoint--it's a practical one. Ethnocentrism interferes with the practice of anthropology. If I look at a bone with 28 hash marks on it, before I assume that it's a lunar calendar, I need to recognize that I'm also assuming whoever made the hash marks gave a flip about lunar cycles, also valued numbers, and valued making records. Any or all of those ethnocentric assumptions may be wrong, and I can't properly evaluate that bone if I don't recognize that I'm looking at it through the eyes of someone with a lunar calendar on her own wall.--Bedawyn 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Abundant evidence' is highly questionable, as is any claim to measure 'real costs'. Any account of this will inevitably be politically sensitive; consensus on these issues most unlikely.


 * On the whole, it would be much simpler to stick to the objective facts. Carandol 09:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)