Plasticity, Political Economy, and Physical Growth Status of Guatemala Maya Children Living in the United States BARRY BOGIN 1 * AND JAMES LOUCKY 2 1 Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan–Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan 48128 2 Department ofAnthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225-9083 KEY WORDS migration; refugees; parental investment; life history theory ABSTRACT Migration of Maya refugees to the United States since the late 1970s affords the opportunity to study the consequences of life in a new environment on the growth of Maya children. The children of this study live in Indiantown, Florida, and Los Angeles, California. Maya children between 4 and 14 years old (n 5 240) were measured for height, weight, fatness, and muscularity. Overall, compared with reference data for the United States, the Maya children are, on average, healthy and well nourished. They are taller and heavier and carry more fat and muscle mass than Maya children living in a village in Guatemala. However, they are shorter, on average, than children of black, Mexican-American, and white ethnicity living in Indiantown. Children of Maya immigrants born in the United States tend to be taller than immigrant children born in Guatemala or Mexico. Families that invest economic and social resources in their children tend to have taller children. More economically successful families have taller children. Migration theory and political economy theory from the social sciences are combined with plasticity theory and life history theory (parental investment) from biology to interpret these data. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:17–32, 1997. r 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc. The physical growth and development of children are sensitive indicators of the qual- ity of the social, economic, and political environment in which they live (Fogel, 1986; Komlos, 1994; Schell, 1986; Tanner, 1981). In particular, child growth in terms of height, weight, and body composition (e.g., fatness and muscularity) are widely used indicators of nutritional status and health status for both individual child and the community. The reason that anthropometry serves as an index of environmental quality is that the development of the human phenotype is highly plastic. Plasticity refers to the ability of many organisms to change their biology or behavior during ontogeny to respond to changes in the environment, particularly when these are stressful. Plasticity is one of the three types of biological adaptations defined by Lasker (1969). The first and second types are ‘‘those genetically en- trenched in the population by repeated natu- ral selection and those dependent on a capac- ity to acclimatize in the short run’’ (Lasker, 1969:1484). Lasker characterizes the third type of adaptation as ‘‘modification of an individual during his growth and develop- ment . . . the process is essentially irrevers- ible after adulthood, . . . and may be sepa- rately designated as plasticity’’ (Lasker, 1969: 1484). Due to a long developmental period before adulthood, human beings are, per- haps, the most plastic of all species and hence one of the most variable in terms of physical form and behavior. Received 2 May 1995; Accepted 15 August 1996. *Correspondence to: Barry Bogin, Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan–Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48128. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 102:17–32 (1997) r 1997 WILEY-LISS, INC.