Exploring Biological Anthropology: The Essentials (2nd Edition

Forget how fast Amazon or one Amazon's sellers get this book to you and what kind of shape it is in, this is among the most horrible textbooks I have ever encountered. While the grammar used is generally correct, sentences which are intended to convey important information are often strung together haphazardly. Using odd fashions of the vernacular, the book forces the reader to often ask "What is the actual meaning if this sentence?" In addition to the difficult writing style employed in many places, the content (even when properly deciphered) is either fallacious or draws the reader to the wrong conclusion. Quite often statements are made, which the reader should assume were derivatives of some thought process, although the ideation in the thought processes is never elucidated. For example, in the discussion of developmental adaptability of body proportions as a biological response to 'coldness' of the environment of their development, in relation to subsets of the military population drawn from the various U.S. states (by latitude), the authors cite a 1950 study which was done at a time when Blacks were substantially underrepresented in the military in relation to their representation in the overall U.S. population (48%B to 69%W). The authors of the original study concluded that the differences were probably due to developmental adaptability and not to genetic adaptation. The book authors then go on to contrast these findings of a 2003 (which was conducted when Blacks were very underrepresented in the military and Whites were even slightly more so) study which concludes "that if one takes into account whether the soldiers are from African or European ancestry, the climate association disappears". The final sentence of the paragraph (which immediately succeeded the last one) is the real 'creative' work. "American whites have shorter legs and longer trunks than American blacks, and warmer (i.e.) southern states may have a greater representation of blacks than colder states". What am I, the student reader of that mess, supposed to conclude? Not only do the authors ignore the representation of the Blacks and Whites at the time of each study, their ultimate conclusion appears to be that there IS a difference between the body proportions as a function of State, and that it MAY be due to the proportions of Blacks and Whites in each state, and that it is ultimately the Black/White body proportion differences that MAY account for the differences because Blacks make up larger proportions of the populations of Southern States. Even though they come to that conclusion, they fail to acknowledge that their hypothesis can be easily tested by actually looking at the Black/White proportional representation from each state (the military does keep these records). At any rate, I'm drawing a blank.Finally, my biggest peeve with this text is the often contradictory relationship (or sometime lack of correspondence, altogether) between the literal text and in the illustrations that are indexed in the text. In the section on lactose intolerance they make the statement "African figures in the tables are from countries not ethnic groups" yet under Africa in the table Bantu and Watutsi are both listed. Similarly, in the text a broad statement about the lack of lactose intolerance found in the Middle East, yet no entry in the table is from a Middle Eastern country. Also, since I was aware of the fact that Jews in Israel have a relatively high degree of lactose intolerance, I wanted to assess the accuracy of their statement inclusive for the Middle East (because Israel was in the Middle East last time I looked). As it turns out, northern Egyptians are about as lactose intolerant as are Israelis, that countries immediately surrounding Israel express about as much lactose intolerance as does Israel, that Iran has very high levels of lactose intolerance, and that in the Middle East and northern Africa the real correlation between lactose tolerance and geography appears to be more in accordance with historical aridity than with geographical position. Egyptians express lesser degrees of lactose intolerance as a function of north south location. Those at the mouth of the Nile are very lactose intolerant and those at the southern, more arid end near Sudan are more lactose tolerant. A more interesting evolutionary hypothesis to explain the REAL data is that the more desert dwelling people probably relied on drinking camel's milk for survival.Anyway, my intent was not to give an anthropology lesson, but to provide the reader with concrete examples of what is wrong with this text. If you are an educator considering using it, carefully read a copy before you make the decision. I'm no anthropologist, but I have to believe there is a better text somewhere out there.

Contrary to another reviewer, I found this book easy to read and well-written. I am NOT a fan of textbooks that use big words and huge sentences for the sake of turning your brain to mush. I have not read the book in its entirety yet but the information is accurate and easily understood. The book is well organized and everything makes sense to me, its nice to have a textbook for a class that doesn't discourage me from reading it for once.I took away one star because this book does seem to be highly opinionated. I felt that in the beginning chapters the author goes on way too long about the debate if evolution should be taught in schools, while I like the fact that he does explain the different sides in details he goes on too long because he is obviously a firm supporter of teaching evolution. Not that I disagree with him but I just do not think this book is the place for that. There are other small instances where there seems to be more opinion than fact

The textbook was new and in great condition, and it arrived very quickly which was great because I needed this books for an online class. Only negative is that you could tell that the book came with and online CD and it was ripped out of the plastic covering

i really enjoyed this book. i know it is a textbook but it was easy to read and was very informative that it is easy to forget that it is for school. it has great images to help with internalizing the material. i kept mine because i like it so much. i wouldn't re-sell it.

Did not enjoy reading this book, honestly wish my professor picked another book for her class but unfortunately got stuck reading this. Text is difficult to keep up with maybe i don't like this book because i don't enjoy this major but overall i think the book could have been organized better. If you are looking for a good book to read and teach yourself a little about anthropology, do yourself a favor and decide against this textbook!

fantastic

great book!

Right on time, easy to rent. Would recommend.