One of the most elegant characterizations of anthropology describes it as the most scientific of the humanities, the most humanist of the sciences. This phrase encapsulates the unique balancing act that anthropology, in espousing a holistic approach, plays in the generation of knowledge pertaining to human beings. Over 50 years ago, this memorable phrase was quoted by Eric Wolf to contend that anthropology is “less subject matter than a bond between subject matters. It is in part history, part literature; in part natural science, part social science” (Wolf 1964) (p.88). Wolf denounced the narrowness of scholarly endeavors that banished and brandished certain disciplinary perspectives as unworthy or worthy of scholarly attention. However, disciplinary battles seldom die a good death in scholarly circles. They were drawn in 2010, for example, at the American Anthropological Association meetings with a controversy focused on the place of science within anthropology: strong views were expressed regarding whether the field should define itself as encompassing both evidence-based science and humanistic approaches, pitting scientific data against interpretive insights. Others fought for the banner of holism, advocating the return of a ‘big-tent’ anthropology (Antrosio 2011). As the controversy played out in scholarly publications, one Editor-in-Chief would argue that “journals should not serve a gatekeeping function in disciplinary debates” (Boellstroff 2011): they should publish the best scholarship relevant to the field, without expecting authors to strive for broader appeal beyond their sub-disciplines.