AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:485–495 (2005) Book Reviews THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF TUBERCULOSIS. By Charlotte A. Roberts and Jane E. Buikstra. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 2003. 343 pp. ISBN 0-8130-2643-1. $59.95 (cloth). Tuberculosis is one of the most studied infectious diseases in paleopathology, and over the last 100 years a large literature has accumulated on the disease in ancient human remains from around the world. In common with much work on ancient disease, many publications on tuberculosis take the form of case studies, and a general overview of the evidence is sorely needed. One of the main aims of this book is to provide this. It also attempts to place tuberculosis in its current context, and considers documentary evidence for it in the past. The book is divided into six chapters. The ﬁrst two concentrate principally on the disease today, Chapters 3 and 4 on the skeletal evidence, Chapter 5 on the historical data, and Chapter 6 on the future, both of the disease and of paleopathological studies of it. In Chapter 1, the authors point out that tuberculosis is one of the leading causes of death in the world today, and in countries where it was once thought conquered, it is reemerging. Factors connected with the current rise in tuberculosis are considered; chief among these are the spread of AIDS/HIV and the increasing resistance of tuberculosis to antibiotics. Chapter 2 considers the question of who in a population is most vulnerable to tuberculosis. In addition to those who are immunocompromised from infection with HIV, those who live in overcrowded conditions, have poor nutrition, or have occupational contact with animal vectors are most at risk. Increased travel also helps to spread the disease. The real core of the book from the paleopathological point of view consists of the surveys of skeletal evidence in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 is entitled ‘‘Tuberculosis in the Old World,’’ but in fact the ﬁrst part of it is a methodological digression covering the diagnosis of tuberculosis in skeletal remains and the problems in assessing its prevalence from skeletal samples. Although somewhat out of place here, this section provides a wellillustrated overview of the skeletal changes in the disease and the problems in their interpretation. However, I was surprised to see the claim (p. 88) that infection with Mycobacterium bovis (‘‘bovine tuberculosis’’) is 10 times more likely to produce bone lesions than infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (‘‘human tuberculosis’’). A sweeping statement such as this needs to be properly supported, but the only citation given for it is a reference to an unsupported assertion made in part of a comment published in the Paleopathology Association Newsletter. The second part of Chapter 3 provides an overview of published paleopathological cases of tuberculosis from the Old World; Chapter 4 does the same for pre-Columbian cases from the Americas. Although the authors make no claim to have been exhaustive in their surveys of paleopathological cases, they seem to me to have been rather assiduous in tracking down the relevant litera- # 2005 WILEY-LISS, INC. ture. Individual cases of the disease are itemized, and the authors take a critical view of published examples. They also detail, where possible, the bones affected in individual cases. There are supporting tables and maps, and photographs of some of the specimens. The Old World part of the survey is organized country by country. Importantly, the authors also indicate where published paleopathological cases of tuberculosis were looked for but not found. This includes sub-Saharan Africa, Australasia, and much of southern Asia. There is relatively little attempt to analyze the Old World data, but the scattered nature of the evidence perhaps makes this difﬁcult. The chapter on the Americas (written by Buikstra) is a concise summary of the New World evidence, and contains more in the way of data analysis than that for the Old World. However, it is, as the author admits, simply a slightly updated republication of an article which appeared in 1999 in the volume Tuberculosis Past and Present (Buikstra, 1999). This will disappoint readers hoping for a fresh perspective on the data. The emphasis in the discussion of the historical evidence in Chapter 5 is on the treatment of tuberculosis. There is a very long discussion of sanatoria which rather imbalances things, especially as they achieved little in the way of effective treatment and were in vogue for a relatively short period (mid-19th–mid-20th century). On the other hand, there is little on the discovery of the tubercle baccillus, the history of the use of of X-rays for diagnosis, and the rise of antibiotic therapies, despite the authors’ acknowledgment (p. 222) that these were key developments in combating the disease. In their concluding chapter, the writers suggest that the future of the paleopathological study of tuberculosis lies with population-based work, taking a biocultural approach to the study of the disease. They also point out that in the future, diagnoses based on biomolecular work (particularly ancient DNA) will play an increasing role. The title of the book somewhat misleading. There is quite a lot which is not bioarchaeology, and which makes the volume of broader interest. There is signiﬁcant material (mainly in Chapter 1) on tuberculosis in contemporary populations in the developing world, including indigenous beliefs concerning the disease, that is of potential interest to medical and social anthropologists. The discussion of written evidence for tuberculosis in the past makes the book of potential value to students of the history of medicine. In general, errors in the text are fairly few. However, in addition to some minor ones (e.g., Columella, the author of de Re Rustica, is misspelled throughout), a few are more signiﬁcant. For example, the date of the important Neolithic Italian specimen from Arma dell’ Aquila cave is given incorrectly on pages 182 and 183 as 5800 90 BC (it in fact dates to 5800 90 BP). The quality of the photographs is rather variable, and in some instances the captions to graphs or line drawings fail to explain adequately symbols or abbreviations used. Overall, this book represents a useful addition to the literature, and it will be of value both to graduate stu- 486 BOOK REVIEWS dents and to professionals. The success with which it has collated the rather fragmentary paleopathological literature on tuberculosis will make it a key reference work for those interested in tuberculosis in ancient skeletons. SIMON MAYS English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Portsmouth, UK E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org HUMAN GROWTH: ASSESSMENT AND INTERPRETATION. By Alex Roche and Shumei Sun. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2003. 311 pp. ISBN 0-521-78145-7. $85.00. This is an excellent reference book for anthropologists and human biologists interested in human growth and its variation. The book is divided into ﬁve chapters that cover measurement and assessment, patterns of change in size and body composition, determinants of growth, secular changes in growth and maturity, and a ﬁnal chapter on the signiﬁcance of human growth. The majority of the studies cited come from developed countries, but the book will still serve as a good resource for those working on issues related to growth in developing countries. The book begins by addressing the issues of measurement and assessment, and includes a comprehensive review of the equipment, procedures, and growth reference tables needed to collect and interpret anthropometric data. Reference data are reviewed for healthy children as well as low birth weight infants, multiple births, and diseased children in developed countries. Adequate coverage is also given to assessing sexual maturity and the difﬁculties that arise when interpreting adolescent growth, which is signiﬁcant given that it is an important emerging area of research. Space is also devoted to presenting interobserver differences for various anthropometric measurements taken from the Fels longitudinal study. Chapter 2 covers mathematical models of growth and body composition and such topics as growth spurts, tracking, canalization, failure to thrive, catch-up growth, and prediction of adult stature. The importance of multiple measurements (increments) is highlighted for each of these topics, as is the issue of measurement error, which can overwhelm true relationships. The authors discuss several useful techniques for estimating the minimum length of intervals between measurements. The highlight of this chapter is the presentation of age-to-age correlations and a review of the relationship between early growth and adult weight and body composition. Results from a large number of studies on this topic are nicely organized and are presented in several tables. Chapter 3 is likely to be of the most theoretical interest to readers of this Journal, given that it examines factors responsible for producing variation in human growth and body composition. The authors cover, among other topics, the inﬂuence of genetics, family, parity, young child-feeding practices, socioeconomic status, and substance abuse on various growth outcomes. They also review interesting LITERATURE CITED Buikstra JE. 1999. Paleo epidemology of tuberculosis in the Americas. In. Palﬁ G, Dutour O, Deák J, Hutas I, editors. Tuberculosis past and present. Budapest: Golden Books. p 479–494. DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20120 Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) work on ethnic differences in growth outcomes, and mention several fascinating studies that compare birth outcomes among mothers of the same ethnic groups but who gave birth in different places (e.g., living in the USA vs. outside the USA) or resided for different amounts of time in the USA. For instance, several studies are reviewed showing that Mexican-American mothers with longer periods of residence in the States are more likely to produce low birth weight infants than Mexican-American mothers living in the USA for less than 5 years. These types of studies draw attention to the important role that anthropometry can play in exposing social and cultural inﬂuences on health. Chapter 4 provides an overview of secular trends in growth, age at maturity, birth weight, and body composition, and sets out the criteria needed to identify such trends and the implications they have for long-term serial growth studies. After reviewing the evidence for secular trends in the growth and maturation of children, four possible determinants of secular changes are explored: changes in nutrition, physical activity, socioeconomic status, and health. In contrast to the rest of the book, the discussion here is somewhat lacking, given the importance of the topic. For example, the authors point out the 100% increase in obesity between 1966–1990 among USA children aged 6–17 years, but their discussion of the determinants of this secular trend (and others) tends to be scattered and inconclusive. The ﬁnal chapter is, in many ways, a summary of the entire book, and could easily stand on its own. The relationship between early growth and later growth is reviewed, as is the relationship between growth and disease. This includes a helpful review of the relationship between size at birth and adult-onset diseases such as hypertension and coronary heart disease. The book concludes with a short discussion on the value of growth screening programs (in developed countries) for identifying undiagnosed abnormal growth in children. Highlights of the book include numerous well-organized tables that present large amounts of data in accessible and informative ways, an emphasis on effect size across studies, attention to interobserver errors and confounding factors, and the lengthy bibliography (which covers nearly a third of the book). I appreciated the authors’ cautionary notes that observed between-group variation could represent true biological variability or differences in study design, variable deﬁnitions (e.g., Socioeconomic Status), and statistical analysis. There are also suggestive ﬁndings, such as sex differences in growth outcomes, scattered throughout the book that 487 BOOK REVIEWS should intrigue anthropologists. There are only minor errors throughout the book (e.g., ‘‘exclusively breastfed to 12 months’’ should read ‘‘6 months,’’ p. 145), and in general the presentation is clean and highly readable. The focus of Human Growth is on those individuals living in developed countries. This, coupled with the high cost and the absence of a theoretical framework, certainly limited the book’s applicability as a text for biological anthropology courses. That said, selected chapters would provide students with good overviews, and the book as a whole is a solid and useful reference. EXAMINING THE FARMING/LANGUAGE DISPERSAL HYPOTHESIS. Edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. 2002. 505 pp. ISBN 1-902937-20-1. $85.00 (cloth). This volume presents 36 papers by archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists examining the core hypothesis that the spread of language families over wide regions is driven by expanding populations of agriculturalists. The editors, both prominent exponents of this view, organized the symposium held at the MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge in August 2001 and contributed introductory chapters as well as a concluding postscript to the volume. Following the Introduction, in which Renfrew and Bellwood lay out the ‘‘emerging synthesis’’ using the new discipline of ‘‘archaeogenetics’’ (population history from molecular genetics) and overview the components of the farming dispersal hypothesis, seven chapters ‘‘set the scene’’ for the discussion. These papers range from a comparison of the capacity for demographic expansion (Harris) and the economic demography of early farmers (Cohen), to the basic principles of linguistic divergence (Campbell), Y-chromosome histories (Underhill), demic diffusion as the basic process of human expansions (Cavalli-Sforza), the role of DNA technology in estimating chronologies (Forster and Renfrew), and the potential and limits of DNA studies (Bandelt et al.). While providing useful background, these papers quickly make clear that there are strong dissenters from the program. The major portion of the book comprises regional summaries, including Western Asia and North Africa, Asia and Oceania, Mesoamerica and the American Southwest, and Europe, the regions, according to the editors, that are the loci of most of the debate. Renfrew particularly has championed the origin and spread of Indo-European carried by Neolithic farmers from the Near East advancing through Europe, and Bellwood has long argued for a similar process spreading Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages through Southeast Asia and Oceania. Others have suggested that the spread of Bantu in Africa and perhaps Uto-Aztecan in the Americas was driven by agricultural expansion. These 27 chapters brieﬂy consider social and economic trends in prehistory and linguistic patterns for Western Asia, Africa, and the Americas, adding molecular genetic data to the linguistic/archaeological picture in Europe and Oceania, where extensive genetic surveys have been made. These short summaries (8–10 pages) present a great deal of information, but limitations of space obviously dictate some omissions. As with any multidisciplinary work, technical details may cause problems for CRAIG HADLEY Population Studies and Training Center Brown University Providence, Rhode Island E-mail: Craig_Hadley@Brown.edu DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20129 Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) some readers. But it is this sort of symposium that helps to bridge differences and develop common vocabularies and understandings. Linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s methods, and there is deﬁnite evidence that some of this was happening in this symposium. What are the critical components of the hypothesis, then, and has it been substantiated? For Renfrew, ‘‘some language families’’ were ‘‘at least in part’’ dispersed through ‘‘demographic and cultural processes . . . which accompanied the dispersal . . . of the practice of food production’’? (p. 3). This formulation may be so general as to be almost surely true. Nonetheless, there are many exceptions to the farming/language spread rule, as Campbell points out in Chapter 5. Only some agricultural systems seem suited for expansion, whereas others are not (Harris), and population growth rates among early farmers may not have been much above those of foragers (Cohen). In my view, the demographic underpinnings of the expansion model have always been suspect. The huge differentials in population growth rate between farmers and foragers required by the classic ‘‘wave of advance’’ (demic diffusion) model of Cavalli-Sforza and Menozzi seem to be highly unlikely, and are not demonstrable in the archaeological record (Zvelebil). Notably, however, the ‘‘emerging synthesis’’ (Renfrew) includes historical linguistics, molecular genetics, and archaeology, but not the comparative ethnography/demography that might provide perspective on the processes of population growth and range expansion. Do these criticisms invalidate or disprove the hypothesis? More generally, what evidence would it take to reject the hypothesis? Recall that the original hypothesis was that ‘‘early farmers, by virtue of their healthy demographic and economic proﬁles,’’ colonized and spread their ‘‘material culture, language and genetic distinctiveness’’ (Bellwood, p. 17). Thus a hard test would seem to require covariation of all three. Further, all three domains should show evidence of being dispersed together (contemporaneously), since the same colonizing process generated their distributions. In practice, different investigators emphasize one category of evidence over another. Hence Bellwood ﬁnds the linguistic evidence compelling; for him, languages only spread by the movement of people. On the other hand, Oppenheimer and Richards argue that migration is best tested by genes, since they are transmitted directly from parent to offspring. But since there are no exact methods for dating prehistoric events through either linguistics (with the demise of glottochronology) or genetics, neither avenue provides a strong constraint on interpretation. Without such constraints, the hypothesis may be compa- 488 BOOK REVIEWS tible with data but may not be tested by the data (see Hurles). In the absence of direct tests, computer modeling has been suggested as one way to generate and test hypotheses as well as explore the ‘‘limits of knowability’’ (Hurles). Some such studies do exist, and Chikhi in this volume discusses such a model applied to DNA variation in Europe. Finally, as the editors conclude, no consensus was achieved, but many ideas and viewpoints were expressed in this symposium. This is a big, interesting problem that has stimulated all sorts of research while fostering interdisciplinary cooperation. Even if the central premise were wrong, it would still be useful. As Darwin said in the last chapter of the Descent of Man (1897, p. 606), ‘‘False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE MIOCENE SINAP FORMATION, TURKEY. Edited by Mikael Fortelius, John Kappelman, Sevket Sen, and Raymond L. Bernor. New York: Columbia University Press. 2003. 409 pp. ISBN 0-231-11358-7. $95.00 (cloth). The Sinap Formation (Fm.) is an important set of exposures in central Anatolia (Turkey), dating from the middle to late Miocene. For biological anthropologists, the Sinap Fm. is of interest because it yielded Ankarapithecus meteai, a late Miocene large-bodied hominoid named by H. Fikret Ozansoy in 1957. The Sinap Project, a collaborative effort to document the sediments and fossils of this region, worked in the deposits for several summers, from 1989 until 1995. This volume is the product of that collaboration. The volume begins with an Introduction by Sevket Sen. This Introduction is a lively glimpse into the behind-the-scenes activities and personalities of scientists who have devoted major portions of their careers to unraveling the secrets of the Miocene of central Anatolia. Sen’s account is highly entertaining, especially his description of how one scientist failed to recognize the difference between a real fossil and a plaster reconstruction when discussing the mandibular corpus of Ankarapithecus. It is hoped, however, that the reader will realize that Sen’s comments about Berna Alpagut and her collaborators (most notably Peter Andrews) are opinionated, and that his perceptions have been refracted through the prism of professional rivalry. Rightly or wrongly, the ﬁeld of paleoanthropology has earned a reputation for adversarial and acrimonious relationships between rival teams of investigators. The competitive dynamic that exists between members of the Sinap Project (on the one hand) and Alpagut and her collaborators (on the other hand) is, regrettably, no exception to this prevailing negative stereotype. Apparently, this animus resulted in the ‘‘sudden termination of the Sinap Project’’ in late June 1995 (p. 282). The volume then proceeds with a section of two chapters on geology and chronology. This section clearly establishes the areal extent and antiquity of the deposits, the latter mainly by means of paleomagnetism. Of interest to biological anthropologists will be new estimates of the antiquity of Ankarapithecus (ca. 9.6 MA) that are slightly younger than those provided previously. supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.’’ ALAN G. FIX Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, California E-mail: agﬁx@ucr.edu DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20130 Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) There isn’t much here, however, in terms of ﬁne-scale paleoenvironmental reconstruction from paleosols or other sedimentary features. The nonprimate mammal paleontology section includes 13 chapters concerning the Insectivora, Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Carnivora, Tubulidentata, Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, and Artiodactyla. Several highlights of the nonprimate paleontology deserve mention. In the chapter on Schizogaleriz, Lena Selanne describes a new species of moonrat (S. intermedia) and notes that echinosoricines inhabit wooded environments close to surface water. Sevket Sen’s description of the Muridae and Gerbillidae includes a new genus of murid (Sinapodemus), distinguished from Progonomys by its more elongated ﬁrst molars. Fossorial rodents of the family Spalacidae are surprisingly well-represented in the Sinap Fm. Nuran Sarica and Sevket Sen revise the Spalacidae and name a new genus, Sinapospalax. Ochotonid and leporid lagomorphs from the Sinap Formation are described by Sevket Sen. The ochotonids include a new genus (Bellatonoides) as well as a new species of Ochotonoma. Sen provisionally suggests the presence of a ‘‘lagomorph vacuum’’ in Anatolia between the latest Astaracian-early Vallesian. As described by Suvi Viranta and Lars Werdelin, the Carnivora from the Sinap Fm. are intriguing because, although they generally conform to evolutionary patterns seen throughout western Eurasia, they also include Dinocrocuta senyureki, a taxon known from the late Miocene site of Sahabi (Libya). Viranta and Werdelin wisely caution against simplistic biogeographic reconstructions of late Miocene Carnivora, especially in the absence of revisions of the felids, mustelids, percrocutids, and ursids. A fascinating and innovative chapter on the Orycteropodidae by Mikael Fortelius, Sirpa Nummela, and Sevket Sen includes a reconstruction of hearing sensitivity in the fossil aardvark Orycteropus pottieri, based on the mass and density of the incus. Proboscideans are ably described by William Sanders. He begins by telling the reader that Ozanzoy described proboscidean remains from the Sinap Fm. in a series of publications spanning the 1950s and 1960s, and that 205 new proboscidean remains were collected by the Sinap Project. Rather than presenting all known proboscidean material from the Sinap Fm., however, Sanders gives taxonomic attributions for only a few dozen specimens, all collected by the Sinap Project. Three deinothere deciduous BOOK REVIEWS premolars are attributed to the European and circumMediterranean species Deinotherium giganteum on the basis of size (dp4 dimensions of D. indicum and D. bozasi are slightly larger than those of the dp4 from the Sinap Fm.). Of course, this attribution is most probable, but it might be argued that aside from biogeographic considerations (and the slight difference in size of dp4), the deinothere of the Sinap Formation might just as well have been assigned to the species known from the late Miocene of the Siwaliks (D. indicum) or sub-Saharan Africa (D. bozasi). In other words, insofar as it is known only from deciduous mandibular cheekteeth, the Deinotherium species from the Sinap Fm. is undetermined. Two teeth and an astragalus referred to Gomphotherium angustidens come from the lower member; their size and morphology support a middle Miocene age (ca. 15 MA) for the earlier part of the Sinap Fm. Choerolophodont remains attributed to Choerolophodon anatolicus include numerous postcranial specimens, but these are not illustrated, and only preliminary comments about their morphology are provided. Perissodactyls are described in separate chapters devoted to Equidae and Rhinocerotidae. Analysis of the equid remains results in several interesting suggestions concerning the nature and context of the ‘‘Hipparion datum’’ in Eurasia. The Sinap Fm. rhinoceroses, as described by Mikael Fortelius, Kurt Heissig, Gercek Sarac, and Sevket Sen, are unusually diverse, both taxonomically and adaptively. Some beautifully complete cranial and mandibular specimens of rhinoceroses have come to light from the Sinap Fm. These were mainly collected early on by Ozanzoy (and sadly, some of the most complete specimens are now lost), while the Sinap Project collections are relatively poor. Rhinoceros collections reveal a major gap between the lower part of the formation (middle Miocene, ca. 15–16 MA) and the middle-upper part of the formation (late Miocene, ca. 10.1–6 MA). Artiodactyl fossils are divided among chapters devoted to Suoidea (Jan van der Made), Camelidae (Jan van der Made, Jorge Morales, Sevket Sen, and Fehmi Aslan), and Ruminantia (Alan Gentry). These chapters, especially Gentry’s on the bovids, cervids, and girafﬁds, are superb, and offer comprehensive discussions of the artiodactyls of the Sinap Fm. Although treatments of individual groups of nonprimate mammals are uniformly excellent, it is unfortunate that the editors did not provide here a synthetic overview of the chronologic and paleoenvironmental implications of the entire fauna. An idiosyncratic and speculative concluding chapter on the abundance of ‘‘Hipparion’’ in the Sinap Fm. is provocative, but cannot replace a more useful compilation of relative abundance of all taxa. It bears mentioning here that editing and proofreading are of the highest standard. Exceptions (e.g., italicizing Pecora as if it were a genus rather than a suborder, p. 333) are few and do not detract from the overall excellent quality of the volume. Of greatest interest to readers of this Journal is the chapter on fossil hominoids by John Kappelman, Brian Richmond, Eric Seiffert, A. Murat Maga, and Timothy Ryan. Included here are details concerning the recovery of a female skull of Ankarapithecus excavated by Zeynep Bostan and Berna Alpagut from Locality 12 on June 20, 1995. Some of these details, such as speculation that ‘‘a perhaps signiﬁcant portion of the neurocranium was inadvertently chiseled away’’ (p. 93), may make the reader cringe. Although the authors lay the blame for 489 this damage at the feet of Berna Alpagut and her student (they make it sound as if Bostan and Alpagut carelessly knocked off the braincase and discarded it), one can fairly assume the existence of another untold side of the story. This chapter includes the most comprehensive description of the skull of Ankarapithecus yet available. The skull of Ankarapithecus is one of a dozen or so highly informative cranial specimens of a Miocene catarrhine. Regression equations indicate that the individual represented by the skull weighed approximately 20 kg, about the size of a male drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus). In general, the descriptions are valuable because they are quite detailed and include comparative observations and data. The skull is well-illustrated except for the fact that there are no illustrations of the maxillary dentition. The skull is described as possessing ‘‘moderately developed supraorbital tori’’ (p. 95). The interorbital region of Ankarapithecus is documented as relatively narrow, falling within the range of cercopithecines, colobines, Pongo, and Pan. Thus Ankarapithecus does not possess the extremely narrow interorbital septum that links Sivapithecus with Pongo. Postcranial remains attributed to Ankarapithecus include a radius (lacking the distal end), two fragmentary phalanges, and a femur shaft (lacking both proximal and distal articulations). These postcranial remains are claimed to be ‘‘most consistent with a generally pronograde mode of locomotion that probably included some amount of terrestriality’’ (p. 120). Overall, the authors conclude that Ankarapithecus exhibits a number of unique features that complicate facile interpretion of its phylogenetic relationships, but that it ‘‘could reasonably be placed as either a sister group to all middle Miocene-Recent Eurasian hominoids or perhaps within this group but outside the SivapithecusPongo clade’’ (p. 120). A few comments need to be made here concerning the described morphology of the Ankarapithecus skull. In and of itself, the presence of supraorbital tori would be an important signal of afﬁnity to the African ape and human clade. But the description and interpretation of the supraorbital region of Ankarapithecus that appear in this volume suffer from an uncritical use of diagnostic anatomical terms. It is clear from inspection of ﬁgures and photographs in the volume that Ankarapithecus does not possess a true supraorbital torus. Instead, robust superciliary arches are present which are not continuous at midline and are not separated from the frontal squama by a posttoral sulcus (key components of the true supraorbital torus). Laterally, a rib-like process (the costa supraorbitalis) is evident, formed through coalescence of the superciliary arch and the temporal line. The apparent robusticity of the medial portion of the superciliary arch of Ankarapithecus is caused, at least in part, by inﬂation from the frontal sinus. The presence of the frontal sinus, as recently demonstrated by the work of James Rossie, is a primitive characteristic for Old World higher primates. Ankarapithecus possesses a primitive supraorbital morphology that links it neither with the Asian great ape clade (absence of a frontal sinus combined with the costa supraorbitalis) nor with the African great ape and human clade (presence of a frontal sinus derived from the ethmoid sinus combined with the true supraorbital torus). This primitive condition, which differs from the divergently derived conditions of modern Asian and African great apes, is also seen in Dryopithecus and Ouranopithecus. The skull is reconstructed as klinorhynch. This may prove to be the case in the future, 490 BOOK REVIEWS but for the time being is speculative because the cranial base was not recovered. In reality, the degree of basicranial ﬂexion is inferred rather than known (this is also the case for Dryopithecus). The section devoted to description of hominoid postcranial fossils includes descriptions of the radius, phalanges, and femur attributed to Ankarapithecus. The radius possesses a combination of features reﬂecting retention of a primitive positional repertoire, mainly pronograde quadrupedalism. The phalangeal fragments are too fragmentary and eroded to provide much useful information, especially concerning shaft curvature. Unfortunately, this section is marred by the fact that the femur attributed to Ankarapithecus is probably not a primate but instead seems to represent the nimravid carnivore Barbourofelis piveteaui. Judging from photographs and descriptions in the volume, the morphology of the femur differs fundamentally from the known femoral anatomy of other large-bodied hominoids such as Proconsul, Nacholapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, and Oreopithecus. Some of the ways that the femur differs from conditions typically exhibited by hominoid primates are enumerated by the authors: ‘‘a relatively narrow anteroposterior diameter at the base of the neck, a slight anterior curve of the proximal anterior surfaces of the neck and greater trochanter, and a somewhat triangular shaft cross-section proximally and distally’’ (p. 111). Also unusual for hominoid primates is the fact that ‘‘there is no distinct linea aspera along the posterior surface’’ (p. 112). In addition to morphological differences from hominoids, the femur attributed to Ankarapithecus is too large to belong to the same species as is represented by the female skull. The authors use subtrochanteric dimensions of the femur and regression equations (from the work of Henry McHenry) to arrive at a body mass. According to the authors, ‘‘RMA regressions yield 75.6 kg and 75.3 kg’’ (p. 112) as estimates of the body mass of the individual represented by the femur. If the size difference between the femur and the female skull were simply sexual dimorphism, then males of Ankarapithecus meteai would weigh 3.75 times as much as females. This is an excessively great degree of body mass dimorphism (male orangutans, in comparison, weigh about 2.19 times as much as females). It is sometimes difﬁcult to distinguish limb bones of carnivores and creodonts from those of Miocene hominoids; Brian Richmond’s attribution in this volume of a nimravid carnivore femur to the hominoid Ankarapithecus is reminiscent of an identiﬁcation of a creodont ulna from Fort Ternan as Kenyapithecus (Kitko and Richmond, 1997). The authors’ undocumented claims concerning probable terrestriality notwithstanding, there are no indications of the substrate preference of Ankarapithecus. In summary, this volume is an indispensable compendium of information concerning the fauna and sediments of the Sinap Fm. Although specialists may dispute the authors’ descriptions and interpretations of fossils attributed to Ankarapithecus, valuable details are provided concerning the faunal, sedimentological, and chronological context of this still enigmatic genus. The authors and editors have done an admirable job of making this information available to paleontologists, including biological anthropologists. MONTE L. MCCROSSIN Department of Sociology and Anthropology New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico E-mail: email@example.com DARWIN AND DESIGN: DOES EVOLUTION HAVE A PURPOSE? By Michael Ruse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2003. 370 pp. ISBN 0-674-01023-X. $29.95. ments, and sought different organizing principles in living matter that have little to do with adaptive ‘‘purpose’’ or design. Ruse traces a tension in the history of organismal biology, from the Cuvier-Geoffroy debates of 1830 down to the present, between studies centered on adaptation/ design and those centering on structural regularities and historical narrative. A familiar current expression of this tension is the conﬂicting preoccupations of adaptationist biologists and cladistic systematists; what counts as a clear signal for the adaptation crowd (adaptive convergence in different clades) is ﬁltered out as noise by the cladists, and conversely. ‘‘It is a common grumble of morphologists,’’ Ruse notes, ‘‘especially those concerned with classiﬁcation, that adaptation is their greatest enemy.’’ In most of these disputes, Ruse’s sympathies lie with the adaptationists. Even the creationist ‘‘natural theology’’ of William Paley strikes him as hewing closer to the truths of biology than David Hume’s skepticism about design in nature. Ruse is no creationist, but he applauds natural theology as a regrettable but necessary precursor to something better—namely, the theory of natural The human heart pumps blood around the body. It also makes a thumping sound. It seems obvious to us that the heart is for pumping, not thumping, and that the noise it makes is incidental to its function. But this sort of language implies that the heart is built for something, that some of the effects it produces have a purpose. Do biologists have to talk about purpose in describing organisms? If they do, can they legitimately wave away the traditional corollary—the creationist’s inference from purpose to Purposiveness with a capital P? In Darwin and Design, the philosopher and historian Michael Ruse presents a short critical history of these questions in Western thought. Prior to Darwin, most scientists and natural philosophers who considered these issues accepted both the reality of contrivance in organic forms and the inference to a guiding intelligence. But Ruse reminds us that others have shrugged off both argu- LITERATURE CITED Kitko RE, Richmond BG. 1997. The phyletic and locomotor afﬁnities of the proximal ulna from Fort Ternan, Kenya (KNMFT 3381). Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 24:144. DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20131 Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) BOOK REVIEWS selection. That theory, Ruse suggests, could have germinated only in an ideological landscape like that of Victorian England, where the perception of design in nature was an unofﬁcial doctrine of the dominant religion. ‘‘Darwin,’’ Ruse insists, ‘‘became an evolutionist as much because of his religious beliefs as despite them.’’ Ruse thinks that Darwin’s 19th-century followers did evolution a disservice by abandoning the focus on adaptation and contrivance that Darwin had absorbed from English natural theology. In the hands of Haeckel, Huxley, Spencer, and their ilk, evolutionary biology degenerated into a ‘‘a second-rate, Germanized tracing of phylogenies’’ that concentrated on historical narrative and notions of progress. By the beginning of the 20th century, Darwinism had largely lost its scientiﬁc aspirations and become a secular religion, ‘‘an ideology to replace a no-longer-sufﬁcient Christianity.’’ It was only through the advent of population genetics and the exploration of its corollaries by such people as Fisher, Dobzhansky, Hamilton, and Trivers that Darwinism ﬁnally succeeded in becoming a genuine science: predictive, experimental, and empirical. In the last third of the book, Ruse examines and critiques some current sources of opposition to neoDarwinian adaptationism. The most popular but least scientiﬁcally interesting of these are the ‘‘intelligent design’’ theorists, who hail the reality of design in nature but deny the competence of blind natural selection to achieve it. Ruse makes short work of these people by pointing to more sophisticated biological analyses and to computer and mechanical models that disprove Behe’s ‘‘irreducible complexity’’ and Dembski’s ‘‘no free lunch’’ theorems. The proposition that ‘‘blind processes cannot lead to speciﬁed complexity,’’ Ruse concludes, is demonstrably ‘‘just plain wrong,’’ and nothing further needs to be said. More formidable challenges to Darwinian adaptationism emerge from what Ruse calls the ‘‘formalist’’ tradition. Under this heading, Ruse treats the biologists and philosophers who think that natural selection is so channeled and constrained by other forces—phylogeny, embryology, genomic structures, historical contingency, physical and mathematical necessity—that it plays a much smaller role in the evolutionary process than Darwinians like to think. Here we encounter D’Arcy Thompson’s laws of growth and form, Kaufmann’s selforganization, Gould and Lewontin’s spandrels, and various currently popular claims about the primacy of developmental factors and Bauplans. Ruse acknowledges that these forces play important parts in the evolutionary process, but insists that they themselves are under the ultimate control of natural selection. Any constraints that severely limit the capacity of a species for adaptive change tend either to vanish with the species they have handicapped, or to be replaced by other and more ﬂexible modes of organization. Ruse further observes that the new formalists’ downplaying of adaptation is helped along by ‘‘idiosyncratic (and self-serving) deﬁnitions of adaptation that refuse to apply the term to subsequent uses after the initial use.’’ Such deﬁnitions allow the formalist to refuse, say, to describe the limbs of mammals as locomotor adaptations because limbs were also locomotor adaptations in the ancestral tetrapods. ‘‘A ﬁnal move,’’ he notes acidly, ‘‘is to appropriate some fancy name like Bauplan, to give ontological status to what you are promoting, and the dish is complete. Function is relegated to the sidelines.’’ 491 But why talk about function or design at all? Is it the function of the human heart to help me to go on living, or my species to survive? To be sure, if a mammal’s blood stops circulating for more than a few minutes, tissues start dying and the animal soon dies with them. But what does it add to this description to say that the function or purpose of the heart is to pump blood, and that this function has value because it allows organisms and species to succeed in the struggle for existence? Why not give up these 19th century metaphors altogether? Nobody feels the need of them in describing other sorts of natural phenomena. Is the function of an offshore sandbar to keep a beach from being swept away by storms? Hardly. Do beaches, rocks, waves, and so on compete for a place on the earth’s surface? No? Well, neither do species. Ruse quotes Michael Ghiselin in this connection: ‘‘Instead of asking, What is good? we ask, What has happened? The new question does everything we could expect the old one to do, and a lot more besides.’’ Ruse dislikes this approach and criticizes its proponents at some length. But it seems to me that his reasons for rejecting it have more to do with his own religious agenda than with the logic of the science he studies. ‘‘What I am arguing for,’’ Ruse writes in his ﬁnal paragraphs, ‘‘is a theory of nature . . . that sees and appreciates the complex, adaptive glory of the living world, rejoices in it, and trembles before it.’’ Ruse thinks that this reverent awe is a core element both in natural theology and in a lot of natural science, and that ‘‘the genuine love and joy with which today’s professional evolutionists respond to their subjects’’ is what drives a lot of biologists into the Darwinian study of nature. I think Ruse may be right about this. If he wants to found a church grounded in that reverence for the glory of the living world, I might even drop in on an occasional service. But it seems to me that such religious feelings are essentially irrelevant to the scientiﬁc study of evolution, and that pretending that the two are somehow linked is a tactical and philosophical error that plays directly into the hands of the creationists who insist that Darwinism is a religion. As far as I can see, there is no conﬂict in principle between the blindly mechanical universe studied by science and the intentional, purposive universe postulated by traditional theism. If, as Augustine argued some 1,600 years ago, God exists in eternity, outside the ﬂow of time, then his will may be the ultimate First Cause of everything. But it can’t be the cause of anything in the usual scientiﬁc sense. Such ‘‘proximate’’ causes have to precede their effects in time, and the will of God has no temporal location. Whether something has a mechanical, temporal cause can’t have any bearing on whether it also has an intentional cause originating in an eternal Creator. The purposive creation of all things by God therefore can’t be refuted by demonstrations of blind universal mechanism. If God is atemporal, then ‘‘creation’’ is a relationship between the creature and the creator, not an event in the history of the world. Ruse recognizes all this, but he seems to regard the Augustinian solution as cheating. Such an approach, he protests, ‘‘has made Darwinism nonthreatening by making it irrelevant’’—i.e., irrelevant to the question of divine intentionality in the universe. But so what? What’s wrong with making Darwinism nonthreatening? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to dispel the popular perception of menace that has been hovering around the study of evolution for 150 years, especially if the menace is 492 BOOK REVIEWS imaginary? I don’t know whether God’s eye is on the sparrow or not, but I do know that Darwinism is never going to settle that question. Personally I would be happy to let evangelical Christians believe whatever they like about the fall of sparrows if they will let me use the word ‘‘evolution’’ in grant applications again without risking the wrath of the majority party in the US House of Representatives. Despite these reservations about Ruse’s theology, I have nothing but admiration for him as a historian and a writer. As usual, he writes with charm, wit, economy, and clarity. Darwin and Design is crammed with brilliant little capsule summaries of complex arguments: Hamilton on kin selection, Kimura on molecular drift, Trivers and Willard on social rank and sex of offspring, and so on and on. Ruse’s analysis of Kant’s views on teleology in organisms and their impact on later thinkers is BONE LOSS AND OSTEOPOROSIS: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. Edited by Sabrina C. Agarwal and Sam D. Stout. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 2004. 749 pp. ISBN 0-306-47767-X. $135.00 (cloth). The baby boomers in the US have received their AARP memberships and within the next two decades the oldest demographic brackets will be bulging at the seams. An aging population has signiﬁcant social and ﬁnancial ramiﬁcations as patients require more medical attention and quality of life decreases despite increased expected longevity. Thus, an anthropological examination of the underlying biological, genetic, environmental, and cultural causes of osteoporosis is quite timely. Born from an AAPA symposium, the editors amassed a multidisciplinary team of human biologists, clinical researchers, and skeletal biologists to produce a cutting-edge perspective of bone loss and fragility in modern and archaeological populations. The 13 chapters are arranged in four sections that follow a logical progression. The three chapters in the ﬁrst section discuss the current state of knowledge of the anatomical, chemical and histological nature of osteoporosis. Parﬁtt provides an accessible review of the basic multicellular unit (BMU) and its role in focal bone loss. Frost then follows with a discussion of the mechanostat, a negative feedback system that controls bone strength, mass, and architecture, depending on mechanical loading. Strains above a certain threshold will signal conservation remodeling, whereby the original amount of bone mass is preserved, but if strain drops below the threshold, disusemode remodeling will occur, resulting in net bone loss. Grynpas discusses a number of techniques available to measure bone quality, herein deﬁned as the mechanical properties, architecture, and mineralization of bone. He concludes that microdamage, slower repair, increased mineralization, and decreasing bone mass are culpable in compromising quality. The brief section on diagenesis seems out of place and is better treated in subsequent chapters on ancient bone. Nelson and Villa begin the next section on population approaches by examining biocultural variability in agerelated fracture risk. Importantly, the authors reject the a valuable contribution to the history of ideas. His new book will be a delightful read for scientists interested in these questions. Its accessible, plain-spoken prose and lucid exposition would also make it an excellent text for college courses dealing with the substance, philosophy, and history of Darwinism. MATT CARTMILL Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy Duke University Durham, North Carolina DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20142 Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) concept of race and instead use the term ethnicity to include all cultural, geographic, and religious factors that can impact skeletal health. For instance, differing conclusions concerning bone turnover rates in South African and African American blacks ‘‘highlight the pitfalls associated with assuming that subgroups (such as geographically different populations) of a ‘racial’ group will be biological similar’’ (p. 51). The authors also note that cultural factors, such as diet, play an oft-overlooked role in bone maintenance. Stini contributes an important chapter on the prevalence of osteoporosis in males. The outcomes of two longitudinal studies in Arizona indicate that males also suffer age-related bone loss but, because the onset is later and they attain higher peak bone densities than females, they are less likely than females to develop osteoporosis. Because males have been relatively understudied in this context, this chapter offers a great deal of valuable information. Streeter and Stout take a different approach to understanding the inﬂuence of peak bone mass on the risk of developing age-related bone loss in that they study how and when peak bone mass is attained in modern juvenile ribs. The three chapters of Part III, ‘‘Evolutionary Perspectives,’’ proved the most thought-provoking. Agarwal and Stuart-Macadam conduct an extensive literature review to argue that there is no good connection between pregnancy and lactation stress and later bone loss. While bioarchaeologists typically interpret low bone mass in females as a function of reproduction-related stress, the authors argue that ‘‘it would be maladaptive if the female skeleton were incapable of efﬁcient bone maintenance’’ (p. 113). Indeed, their review demonstrates that bone mass does decrease in pregnancy but recovers after birth. Further, multiparity and breastfeeding also seem to increase bone mass or at least protect existing bone. There was no age proﬁle for the studies presented, and it would be interesting to see a study of pregnancy effects in older women in which normal bone mineral density would already be decreasing. In an outstanding chapter, Martin shows how the mechanostat maintains optimum density such that bones are mechanically viable yet sufﬁciently light to maximize speed and agility and control fatigue damage. Since estrogen lowers the mechanostat sensor for strain, thereby BOOK REVIEWS maintaining bone mass maintenance, the loss of estrogen raises the mechanostat, resulting in disuse remodeling and net bone loss. Vieth provides an in-depth overview of the complex pathway of vitamin D metabolism and its effects on bone. Via comparative human and nonhuman primate studies, he links osteoporosis to well-known theories concerning the adaptation of skin color, vitamin D synthesis, and lactose tolerance, the latter evolving due to the need for dietary calcium to compensate for decreased ultraviolet (UV) exposure that causes vitamin D deﬁciency. His argument for the prevention of osteoporosis by increasing sun exposure is not balanced by a discussion of the risk of skin cancer from high rates of UV radiation. The last section contains four chapters that tackle methodological and interpretive issues in diagnosing osteoporosis in past populations. Brickley and Agarwal review traditional and novel techniques for quantifying bone loss and changes in architecture. While well-cited, the chapter would be bolstered with a brief example from the literature for each method. Though several chapters brieﬂy discuss the confounding problem of diagenesis in studying bone mineral density in archaeological bone, Schultz deals with this issue directly. Distinguishing between pathological and postmortem bone loss, such as that caused by fungi, roots, and arthropods, can be extremely difﬁcult in archaeological bone, but Schultz argues that histological study improves diagnostic acumen. Robling and Stout provide a detailed examination of mechanical loading on cross-sectional geometry and intracortical remodeling in ancient Peruvian samples. They EVOLUTION. 3rd ed. By Mark Ridley. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. 2004. 751 pp. ISBN 1-4051-0345-0. $89.95 (paper). This is the third edition of Ridley’s widely used textbook, and it has been substantially updated in the 8 years since the last edition. The book is designed as a textbook to be used by undergraduate students with no previous introduction to evolutionary theory and processes. To this end, the text is supplemented by boxes, marginal comments, and marginal icons leading to a dedicated website. There is a glossary, comprehensive references, and an index. Most of the illustrations are simple, but they can easily be downloaded for PowerPoint presentations. Each chapter ends with study and review questions that are answered in a separate section at the back. There are ﬁve major sections in the book, encompassing population genetics, adaptation and natural selection, speciation, and macroevolution. A distinctive feature of the book is that many examples of ‘‘contemporary evolution’’ are scattered throughout. These document strong natural selection through historical records, and acknowledge incipient speciation within the span of decades or less. Examples of contemporary evolution are wide-ranging, and include reduced yields through ﬁshery practices, insect resistance to pesticides, vaccines and disease virulence, and the appearance of HIV drug immunity. Many instances of natural selection under ﬁeld or experimental conditions are discussed in detail. Strong signs of recent natural selection acting on favorable new mutations are documented by 493 correlate decreased remodeling rates over time to decreasing activity levels associated with subsistence strategies. This chapter is more advanced than the others, and may require some background reading prior to its assignment. The last chapter by Cho and Stout provides an example of the application of histomorphometrics to understanding ancient bone health in a Roman sample. In all, this is a very nice volume. The chapters are wellwritten, with good references and a rich index. Most of the ﬁgures are clear and helpful, and the book is attractive. My only signiﬁcant critique is that the editors do not provide an insightful summary chapter. The steep price and level of basic knowledge of skeletal biology assumed prior to approaching the chapters make the volume most appropriate for graduate or advanced undergraduate courses. It is also a vital reference for all human biologists, skeletal biologists, paleoanthropologists, bioengineers, and others who study bone biomechanics and health in the past or present, even if they do not specialize in age-related bone loss. DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN Department of Anthropology Binghamton University, State University of New York Binghamton, New York DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20143 Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) selective sweeps that reduce genetic diversity in neighboring DNA. An entire chapter is devoted to differing rates of evolutionary change derived from paleontology, ﬁeld biology, or laboratory experimentation, and Ridley lists factors that explain these differing rates. There is an extended discussion of selection vs. random drift in molecular evolution. Kimura’s original neutral theory is presented, along with the modiﬁed ‘‘nearly neutral’’ modern version, and a long section on the molecular clock powered by neutral drift. The molecular clock then surfaces in many later chapters, culminating in the last chapter, where it challenges the time documented in the fossil record for the origin of the placental mammal orders, and inﬂuences interpretation of the Cretaceous/ Tertiary mass extinction. There is a comprehensive presentation of Wright’s adaptive landscape model and shifting balance theory, as well as criticisms of these ideas. Ridley displays no philosophical angst about species deﬁnitions. He prefers to devote his attention to the mechanisms of speciation. He concentrates on deﬁning and giving examples of allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric speciation. The preponderance of evidence points to allopatry, but Ridley notes accumulating evidence for sympatric speciation, speciation by sexual selection, and the rarity of parapatric speciation in the animal world. There is a long discussion of the Dobzhansky-Muller genetic theory of postzygotic isolation, in which multiple genetic loci interact to cause reproductive isolation. A major theme of the book is that speciation is not difﬁcult, and there may be no risky phase when crossing a valley in Wright’s adaptive landscape. Furthermore, the genetic basis of speciation is likely to become well-known in the 494 BOOK REVIEWS era of comparative genomics. For example, the Odysseus ‘‘speciation gene’’ regulates development in the male reproductive system, and apparently evolves over a thousand times faster than other homeobox genes. The longest chapter in the book is on the reconstruction of phylogenies. Only dichotomous branching is shown (contradicting several trichotomies in the Hawaiian Drosophila phylogeny generated by chromosomal inversions: Fig. 15.27), and only cladistic techniques are used to infer phylogenies. Protein and DNA sequences that generate molecular phylogenies are used later in the book to test phylogenies based on morphological traits, infer the origin of major taxa in the absence of fossil evidence, examine biogeographic problems, and test potential cases of coevolution. Molecular distance, parsimony, and maximum likelihood are explained as techniques to generate molecular phylogenetic trees. In a long section, Ridley also notes ﬁve problems that afﬂict molecular phylogenies. The following chapter on classiﬁcation presents three taxonomic schools: phenetics, cladistics, and evolutionary classiﬁcation. Behavioral evolution is dealt with in a straightforward fashion. Ridley begins with the origin and maintenance of sex as a major theoretical issue, reviews evidence disproving group selection, and then details the potentially conﬂicting interests of males and females under sexual selection. Altruism and sociality are explained purely by kin selection; biased sex ratios develop when offspring help to rear younger siblings. Migration and dispersion are not discussed in terms of sociality. They appear in the section on population genetics, where they affect HardyWeinberg equilibrium expectations, and where subdivided populations show a greater percentage of homozygotes than undivided populations. Ridley stresses the difﬁculty of explaining extinctions, replacements, and coevolution using only the fossil record. However, as might be expected, paleontology dominates the section on macroevolution. Yet, two new chapters on evolutionary genomics and evolutionary development also appear here, signaling both the entry of genetics into BOOKS RECEIVED Anapol F, German RZ, and Jablonski NG (eds.) (2004) Shaping Primate Evolution: Form, Function, and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. 426 pp. $120.00 (cloth). Andrews C (2004) Egyptian Mummies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 95 pp. $17.95 (paper). Arthur W (2004) Biased Embryos and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. 233 pp. $32.00 (paper). Esch GW (2004) Parasites, People, and Places: Essays on Field Parasitology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 235 pp. $28.00 (cloth). Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, and Fedigan LM (2004) The Complete Capuchin: The Biology of the Genus Cebus. New York: Cambridge University Press. 339 pp. $50.00 (paper). Frison GC (2004) Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Human Predators and Animal Prey. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 266 pp. $34.95 (cloth). Fuller CJ (2004) The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 207 pp. $55.00 (paper). Hauspie RC, Cameron N, and Molinari L (eds.) (2004) Methods in Human Growth Research. New York: Cambridge University Press. 399 pp. $95.00 (cloth). research on broad timescales and a breakdown of the traditional segregation of genetics to microevolutionary studies. Hence, Ridley makes it clear that microevolution and macroevolution can no longer be decoupled. However, he also presents alternative ideas about the origins of higher taxa caused by rare, broad-scale events that do not operate during normal microevolutionary processes. An outstanding feature of the book is that Ridley always notes when ideas or interpretations are controversial. Many examples of ‘‘applied evolution,’’ such as pathogens evolving resistance to drugs, are biomedical in nature, and classic examples of evolution using human genetics also appear (e.g., the heterozygote advantage of hemoglobin S in endemic malarial regions, King and Wilson’s study of the morphological contrast between chimpanzees and humans in spite of genetic similarity). Otherwise, the book ranges freely throughout the realm of life, with no special emphasis on humans. This book is best used in upper-level undergraduate or introductory graduate courses in anthropology or biology. I used the previous edition as a text in a graduate anthropology course in evolutionary theory, because I think it counteracts the potential narrow specialization of anthropology students. I intend to continue using the text, because I am impressed by the author’s ability to simplify complex ideas, and, conversely, draw out subtle implications from ideas that appear uncomplicated. SUSAN CACHEL Department of Anthropology Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20144 Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) Hodder I, and Hutson S (2004) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Third Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 293 pp. $25.00 (paper). Jobling M, Hurles M, and Tyler-Smith C (2004) Human Evolutionary Genetics. Independence, KY: Garland Science. 523 pp. $59.95 (paper). Kappeler PM, and van Schaik C (2004) Sexual Selection in Primates: New and Comparative Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. 284 pp. $70.00 (paper). Larson D, Matthes U, Kelly PE, Lundholm J, and Gerrath J (2004) The Urban Cliff Revolution: New Findings on the Origins and Evolution of Human Habitats. Markham, Ontario, Canada: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. 198 pp. $28.95 (cloth). Lucas P (2004) Dental Functional Morphology: How Teeth Work. New York: Cambridge University Press. 355 pp. $130.00 (cloth). Meldrum DJ, and Hilton CE (eds.) (2004) From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking. New York: Kluwer Academic Press. 213 pp. $105.00 (cloth). Nelson SV (2003) The Extinction of Sivapithecus: Faunal and Environmental Changes Surrounding the Disappearance of a Miocene Hominoid in the Siwaliks of Pakistan. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 138 pp. $49.95 (paper). Rainbird P (2004) The Archaeology of Micronesia. New York: Cambridge University Press. 301 pp. $45.00 (paper). BOOK REVIEWS Richards GD, Jabbour RS, and Anderson JY (2003) Medial Mandibular Ramus: Ontogenetic, Idio–syncratic, and Geographic Variation in Recent Homo, Great Apes, and Fossil Hominids. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, Ltd. 113 pp. £30.00 (paper). Sarich V, and Miele F (2004) Race: The Reality of Human Difference. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 287 pp. $27.50 (paper). Schumaker RW, and Beck BB (2003) Primates in Question. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. 194 pp. $27.95 (paper). Scott EC (2004) Evolution vs. Creationism. Westport, CT: Greenwod Publishing Group, Inc. 272 pp. $49.95 (cloth). 495 Stanford C (2003) Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming Human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifﬂin Company. 204 pp. $24.00 (cloth). Steadman DS (ed.) (2003) Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 310 pp. $38.00 (paper). Wells S (2002) The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 224 pp. $29.95 (paper). Wiley AS (2004) An Ecology of High-Altitude Infancy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 245 pp. $80.00 (cloth). Wilkinson C (2004) Forensic Facial Reconstruction. New York: Cambridge University Press. 290 pp. $120.00 (cloth).