Final answer:
The 'Great Protein Debate' involved anthropologists Chagnon and Sahlins arguing about the role of protein in indigenous societies. Chagnon claimed protein scarcity led to warfare among the Yanomamo people, while Sahlins argued they lived in 'original affluence' with plenty of resources. The debate highlights the complexity of interpreting human behaviors through different anthropological lenses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The "Great Protein Debate" refers to a contentious argument between anthropologists regarding the importance of protein in indigenous diets. This debate notably involved Napoleon A. Chagnon and his opponent, Marshall Sahlins. Chagnon studied the Yanomamo people of the Amazon and argued that they were 'fiercely competitive' and that much of their social structure and inter-village dynamics were predicated on their quest for protein, which he believed was a scarce resource leading to constant tribal warfare and alliances for access to protein-rich resources.
Sahlins, on the other hand, challenged Chagnon's position by suggesting that pre-state societies like the Yanomamo often lived in a state of 'original affluence,' with ample access to resources, including protein. He proposed that these societies were more cooperative than competitive, with low levels of violence, and that warfare was not primarily about resources such as protein. Sahlins's argument framed the Yanomamo society within a context of material plenty, rather than scarcity and constant strife as Chagnon had described.
The debate is significant as it polarized anthropologists into two camps, those who aligned with Chagnon's ecological determinism and those who supported Sahlins's cultural and social interpretations. Personally, I believe that the answer may not be clear-cut and both environmental factors and cultural practices likely shape complex social behaviors.