For Intro to Anthropology 2025, after reading “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” we read part 1 of chapter 1, “Why Anthropology?” This class explains what to do when you need the four fields of anthropology explained. In the next class we finish the chapter.
Part 1: Introduction to the Four Fields
What Does It Mean to Be Human?
Anthropology studies “what it means to be human in the broadest possible sense” (3) and in “all places and times” (18). But who counts as human? Although we believe we know humans when we see them, the question of who belongs in the human family is actually up for debate—especially when it comes to those fossils we encounter in human evolution.
We call upright-walking primates hominins, and we see them appear in the fossil record 6 to 8 million years ago at the time of the Most Recent Common Ancestor. A tip on evolution: we aren’t looking for “missing links” anymore because that’s an outdated concept. What we look for are common ancestors to species that exist today.
The australopiths, including the famous “Lucy,” show up around 2.5 to 3 million years ago. They were securely bipedal with ape-like brain size—habitual upright walkers who seem to have used tools. Should we call them human? They’d be pretty strange to us. Around two million years ago, Homo erectus appears—some nearly six feet tall, possibly using fire and cooking. Getting closer to what we recognize as human behavior.
At about 100,000 years ago, several bipedal, large-brained creatures walked the earth, some of whom interbred with Homo sapiens. The Denisovans we know mostly genetically; the Neanderthals are more famous. I’m comfortable including them in the human family because most of us carry a little bit of their DNA—something happened there that made us part of the same interbreeding species.
Today, “Homo sapiens are the only surviving species of hominins” (3). All the others disappeared, probably around 30 to 40,000 years ago for the last Neanderthals. We are the only upright-walking primates that survive. For at least the last 40,000 years, we have been one single interbreeding species with no reproductively isolated populations anywhere. Whenever Homo sapiens get together, they try out the interbreeding thing—and here we are, all human beings together.
Why Anthropology Matters
Anthropology emerged about 150 years ago in a European and North American context where some people were reluctant to consider others fully human—what we now recognize as straight-up racism. Some believed they were studying people inferior to them, arranging the world in a hierarchy with “civilized” people on top and others labeled as subhuman.
From the beginning, anthropology has insisted—though it took time to fully embrace this—that people in all places and times are equally part of the human family. Today, as some groups still get labeled “less evolved” or “uncivilized,” anthropology’s commitment to human equality remains essential for countering dangerous hierarchies.
The Four Fields Explained
Biological anthropology studies human evolution and biological diversity, including primatology—the study of non-human primates. Why “non-human” primates? Because we are classified as primates too, thanks to Linnaeus, who did this before Darwin’s theory of evolution. Linnaeus was a creationist who believed he was classifying nature by God’s order, and he still put us in the primate family. This isn’t some Darwinian trick—Linnaeus simply recognized that chimpanzees and orangutans are pretty similar to us. “Biological anthropology is the most explicitly scientific of the four subfields, and biological anthropologists often use assessments of past and present biological materials (like genetic markers in blood, skeletons, or fossil remains) to test hypotheses about the origins, patterns, and implications of past and present human biological diversity” (4).
Archaeology examines past human societies through material remains and artifacts—the stuff people left behind, including structures, animal and plant remains, and other physical evidence that composes the “archaeological record.” Important caveat: most evidence disappears over time. Only a fraction of what people made survives hundreds or thousands of years. Even when we find artifacts, determining what they meant in context requires interpretation and combining evidence from all four subfields.
Cultural anthropology is the largest subfield, exploring “how people share, change, and dispute culture within a society” (6). Culture means learned behavior involving shared norms and symbols. Norms are shared beliefs about what’s acceptable—though they’re often disputed, since not everyone agrees. Symbols are abstract representations with culturally-specific meanings that have no natural basis.
Consider wedding rings. Traditionally, if you’re wearing a metal band on the fourth finger of your left hand in the United States, it means you’re married. But there’s no reason for this in nature—it’s not like biology tells us a metal band on this finger means marriage. When I was doing fieldwork in Colombia, people wore wedding bands on their right fourth finger. For many years I did that too because it fit better. But back in the US, I was told that a ring on a guy’s right finger signaled a same-sex relationship. These symbols have to be learned, but they become so natural we don’t think about them. We swim in worlds of symbols.
Cultural anthropologists practice participant observation—observing people while participating in their lives through fieldwork. You become “the instrument of data collection and analysis” (6), immersing yourself in a community to understand how symbols and practices make sense within their own contexts.
Linguistic anthropology is the smallest but crucial subfield, investigating “human language in social context” (7). Language is almost completely symbolic—there’s no necessary reason why words correspond to meanings. It’s a complicated system we all learn, and it distinguishes human beings through our ability to transmit ideas via symbolic language.
Dr. Jonathan Rosa is one of our coolest anthropologists working in this field. He studies language practices among high school students and has used linguistic anthropology to address what these issues mean in our society. As he wrote: “Being a linguistic anthropologist is fun because I regularly get to remind people that the only difference between forms of ‘aks’/’ask’ & ‘diffrent’/’different’ is racism in general and anti-Blackness in particular. Also, this relatively unremarkable linguistic phenomenon is called metathesis.”
Five hundred years ago around London, there were several different ways to say these words—multiple forms were acceptable. When educators criticize these variations while praising bilingualism in White speakers, they’re enforcing racial hierarchies rather than linguistic correctness. As Rosa and his co-authors put it: “Language is not the problem, racism is the problem. Students of color are always being told that they need to change the way they speak. But what if, instead, educators changed the way they listen?”
Key Terms
Ethnocentrism means judging other cultures by your own cultural standards. While anthropology emerged from a European colonial context, the field has evolved to reject such hierarchical thinking. Cultural relativism counters this by understanding practices within their cultural context—not moral relativism that says everything’s acceptable, but an intellectual commitment to understand before judging.
Understanding how human behavior is thoroughly symbolic is crucial to this course. It is our use of symbols—not just instincts or biological necessities—that is key to our humanity. That’s why “biological anthropologists consider the emergence of symbol-based behavior as a defining feature of our evolutionary past and fundamental to the success of hominin species thereafter” (6).
Part 2: Applying the Four Fields to Teeth
This lecture reviews how all four subfields approach a single topic—teeth. As the Nacirema reminded us, societies across the world are fascinated with what we can do with teeth. People have been filing, darkening, whitening, and removing teeth for thousands of years. Teeth are never just teeth—they communicate symbolic meanings and reveal social hierarchies.
How Each Subfield Studies Teeth
Cultural anthropology examines how we manipulate teeth to communicate social meanings (8). Filed teeth, darkened teeth, American-style whitened teeth—these modifications stand for things. They can indicate social hierarchy and inequality: Who can afford proper dental care, get their teeth straightened, get their mouth smelling nice enough to get a good job? Who cannot? Teeth reveal stratification within societies as well as different meanings across them.
Linguistic anthropology notes that we use our teeth to create different sounds (8). The sounds made with your tongue against your teeth, withdrawn from teeth, hissing or sucking sounds—in some languages these are essential. Sudanese refugees discovered that tooth gaps made English pronunciation difficult because English requires front teeth for certain sounds. The “tooth suck” in West African and Caribbean societies expresses displeasure—teeth create social meaning through sound.
Archaeology examines dental patterns in past societies (9). The customs we have about modifying teeth show up archaeologically, but teeth also reveal what people were eating, their healthcare practices, and how they treated their bodies. Archaeological evidence shows tooth removal traditions date back at least 15,000 years.
Biological anthropology relies heavily on teeth because they preserve best out of the whole skeleton. Consider Gigantopithecus, a huge primate—apparently the porcupines ate all the skeletons, but we have the teeth, and we’ve been able to deduce a lot from them. Tooth size differences between sexes reveal mating patterns: humans show minimal differences (5-10%), suggesting pair-bonding, unlike gorillas where males are twice as large.
Applied Anthropology: The Dinka, Nuer, and “The Gap”
This case study demonstrates how anthropology addresses real-world problems and the intersection of tradition, identity, and survival (9-10).
The Dinka and Nuer peoples from what is now Sudan practiced ritual removal of permanent front teeth during adolescence as part of coming-of-age rituals. Known as “The Gap,” this gave people social identity and ethnic belonging. Archaeological evidence suggests people did this as early as 15,000 years ago. The practice worked because the food in this area was soft—front teeth weren’t essential for eating—and the local languages could be spoken without them. The Nuer and Dinka are among the most anthropologically studied peoples, particularly by British anthropologists during colonial rule in Sudan.
But Sudan has been engulfed in civil war—one of the saddest and most intense conflicts of our time. Once some Sudanese came to the United States as refugees, they started wanting what they called “missing teeth” filled. Having a tooth gap meant they might not fit in. It made English pronunciation difficult because you need front teeth for certain sounds. American food—hamburgery, you might say—requires different chewing.
In an instance of applied anthropology, anthropologists argued that dental implants weren’t just aesthetic—they were essential for integration into new lives. Getting front teeth wasn’t about looking good but about being able to speak English, eat available food, and belong in society.
I found a picture from 2016 on a website called People of Praise out of Portland, Oregon—a Christian community working with Sudanese refugees. There was a woman from Sudan with the traditional tooth gap, and her children without it, growing up in a new cultural context. As the biblical principle goes, “We should care for the stranger because we were once strangers in the land of Egypt.”
This was a heartwarming story of applied anthropology helping refugees integrate. However: since 2016, refugee programs have been largely cancelled. Christians who worked with refugees have closed many programs—”what are you going to do? There aren’t that many refugees to take care of.” Out of every 10,000 people in the United States, maybe one or two are Sudanese refugees. We’re talking about 0.0002% of the US population. Understanding how something as simple as teeth can determine integration—or exclusion—reveals the human cost of our political choices.
Why This Example Matters
The teeth example demonstrates several crucial anthropological insights. No single subfield can fully understand teeth—you need cultural context, linguistic requirements, archaeological evidence, and biological preservation patterns. What seems like a simple body modification carries profound meaning for identity, belonging, and survival. A practice that works perfectly in one environment (soft food, compatible language) creates barriers in another (English pronunciation, American food). And even heartwarming anthropological interventions exist within political realities that can shut down humanitarian programs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the four fields of anthropology?
The four fields are biological anthropology (human evolution and diversity), archaeology (material remains of past societies), cultural anthropology (learned behavior and symbols), and linguistic anthropology (language in social context).
Why does anthropology have four fields?
Anthropology studies “what it means to be human in the broadest possible sense” (3), which requires spanning all disciplines—from fossils to language to culture.
How do the four fields work together?
The teeth example shows integration: biological anthropologists study preservation, archaeologists analyze diet, cultural anthropologists examine symbolic meanings, and linguistic anthropologists explore sounds made with teeth.