uld probably be somewhat familiar with them as an ethnographer besides) and was, in all likelihood, familiar with the dispute concerning the reliability of Chagnons work. As a respected ethnographer, he would probably be ridiculed if he presented vital evidence from a highly questionable source. Also, Harris does not necessarily need to use the Yanamamo as evidence he had already made his point in the previous chapter and made logical transitions and arguments to support it.However, one could argue that Chagnons faults damage Harriss credibility for using him as a major source (and probably knowingly), and thus shed doubt on Harriss book as a whole and possibly make his entire argument concerning warfare, male supremacy, and female infanticide buncombe. I do not agree with this view because I believe that Harris provides a sound logical argument that holds strong without evidence to support it. The evidence he does present is superfluous, but makes his points stronger. To argue successfully with Harriss conclusion would need a strong contrary logical base, which a single article like Tierneys The Fierce Anthropologist cannot provide.In addition to this, I believe that Tierney glorified Chagnons faults and downplayed his anthropological successes. The one thing that concerns me most is Tierneys claim that Chagnon has falsified data. In the article, Tierney says, Lizot criticized Chagnon for obscuring the identity of twelve villages in his homicide study, making it difficult for other anthropologists to verify his data, and that, (pg. 54) he [the German ethnologist Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt] and another Yanomami researcher at the institute wrote a letter to the American Human behavior and Evolution Society, which claimed that Chagnon had got important mortality rate statistics wrong. (Pg. 54) Even if these claims of deceiving information and others of plain false information (In The Fierce People, Chagnon wrote that the Yanomami were one o...
