For at least three million years, knapping stone has been practiced by hominin societies large and small, past and present. Thus, understanding knapping, knappers, and knapping cultures is fundamental to anthropological research around the world. Although there is a general sense that stone knapping is inherently dangerous and can lead to injury, little is formally, specifically, or systematically known about the frequency, location, or severity of knapping injuries. Toward this end, we conducted a 31-question survey of modern knappers to better understand knapping risks. Responses from 173 survey participants suggest that knapping injuries are a real and persistent hazard, even though a majority of modern knappers use personal protective equipment. A variety of injuries (lacerations, punctures, aches, etc.) can occur on nearly any part of the body. The severity of injury sustained by some of our participants is shocking, and nearly one-quarter of respondents reported having sought or received professional medical attention for a flintknapping-related injury. Overall, the results of this survey suggest that there would have likely been serious, even fatal, costs to knappers in past societies. Such costs may have encouraged the deployment of any social learning capacities possessed by hominins or delayed the learning or exposure of young infants or children to knapping.

This paper sets out to briefly explore the definitions of two interrelated subfields of cultural anthropology; psychological anthropology and medical anthropology. This exploration will argue that culture and the individual are intimately intertwined. The theoretical evolution within psychological anthropology will be presented, from the bio-moral classifications of the ‘primitive’ to modern ‘experience near’ ethnographies, and fluid understanding of personhood. Theoretical and methodological approaches to mental health will be discussed briefly. Finally, the conclusion will ask the question: what is the future for medical and psychological anthropology?

Many teaching hospitals in the United States were founded on philanthropic principles and aimed to aid the urban poor and underserved. However, as times have changed, there has been a divide created between the urban poor and teaching hospitals. There is a plethora of reasons why this is the case. This paper will specifically focus on the histories of ten hospitals and medical schools and the effect that white flight, segregation, elitism, and marginalization had on healthcare institutions all over the United States. It will call for a reexamination of the values of Ivy League and Ivy Plus teaching hospitals and medical schools and for them to take an intentional look into their communities.

Ineffective, aversive and harmful medical treatments are common cross-culturally, historically and today. Using evolutionary game theory, we develop the following model to explain their persistence. Humans are often incapacitated by illness and injury, and are unusually dependent on care from others during convalescence. However, such caregiving is vulnerable to exploitation via illness deception, whereby people feign or exaggerate illness in order to gain access to care. Our model demonstrates that aversive treatments can counter-intuitively increase the range of conditions where caregiving is evolutionarily viable, because only individuals who stand to gain substantially from care will accept the treatment. Thus, contemporary and historical “ineffective” treatments may be solutions to the problem of allocating care to people whose true need is difficult to discern.

More and more, youth suicide in the Inuit community is gaining importance, with a frequency in Greenland rising from 14.4 (1960–64) to 110.4 per 100,000 person-years (2010–11). The huge cultural/educational changes during the last 20 years and the role of globalization, especially of the occidental influence on this community may be at the origin of such an “epidemics” of suicide in this cultural region. Recently, a political organization representing the Inuit community in Canada (ITK for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) launched a National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy (NISP) based on the specificities of this community in comparison to the occidental civilization. In fact, not only the Canadian Inuit community is concerned by this epidemics of suicide, but also many other autochthonous groups. In this context, the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on suicide treatment and prevention needs to be adjusted to autochthonous individuals’ needs.

This paper introduces, describes and analyses the emerging concept of Global Mental Health (GMH). The birth of GMH can be traced to London, 2007, with the publication of a series of high-profile papers in The Lancet. Since then, GMH has developed into a movement with proponents, adherents, opponents, an ideology and core activities. The stated aims of the Movement for GMH are ‘to improve services for people living with mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where effective services are often scarce’. GMH could be considered an attempt to right a historic wrong. During the colonial and post-colonial eras, the mental health of subject populations was accorded a very low priority. This was fuelled by scientific racism, which alleged that mental illness was uncommon in places such as Africa. As developing nations have made the epidemiological transition, the burden of mental illness has proportionately increased, with research suggesting a massive ‘treatment gap’ between those in need and those actually receiving formal mental health care. As such, much GMH research and action has been devoted to: (i) the identification and scale-up of cost-effective evidence-supported interventions that could be made more widely available; (ii) task-shifting of such intervention delivery to mental-health trained non-specialist Lay Health Workers. GMH has come under sustained critique. Critics suggest that GMH is colonial medicine come full circle, involving the top-down imposition of Western psychiatric models and solutions by Western-educated elites. These critiques suggest that GMH ignores the various indigenous modalities of healing present in non-Western cultures, which may be psychologically adaptive and curative. Relatedly, critics argue that GMH could be an unwitting Trojan horse for the mass medicalisation of people in developing countries, paving the way for exploitation by Big Pharma, while ignoring social determinants of health.