Introduction The species of Australopithecus africanus was named in a February, 1925, issue of Nature by Raymond Dart.

Dart was one of the pioneers of paleoanthropology, and created quite a furor over naming the fossil specimen (the Taung Child skull and endocast) a hominid. The standard line at the time by some of the powerful figures in the field (e.g., A. Keith and O. Abel) was that the ancestors of humans should be found in Europe, and should have an enlarged brain and an apelike jaw (as was the case in the Piltdown Man hoax). The claim that the specimen was a hominid was rejected by those who saw the material as that of a young chimpanzee or gorilla. This view was not helped by the difficulty in acquiring casts. The material was distant from many in the field (few of which ever traveled to actually view the material), and most importantly, was that of a juvenile. Juveniles are often misrepresentative of adult states, and most researchers claimed that the Taung Child would have developed into a chimpanzee or gorilla ancestor. Due to the hostile or indifferent response of his peers, Dart never followed up the find with further excavations, and no other specimens of the species have been found at Taung. Dart dedicated himself to developing the anatomy department at the University of Witwatersrand, and it would be twenty years later when sites like Sterkfontein were found that corroborated Darts ideas. Though the genus designation mixed both Latin (australo) and Greek (pithecus), the genus name has become accepted as the label by which the group of pre-Homo hominids in Africa have come to be known. Dart claimed that A. africanus was bipedal due to the position of the foramen magnum, and was vindicated by later finds, such as STS 14, which showed unequivocally that africanus was an obligate biped. Diagnostic Features The earliest africanus material comes from sites such as Sterkfontein, Makapansgat, Gladysvale, and Taung. This material dates to the end of the Early Pliocene, mostly between 2.92.4 myr, with the Sterkfontein Member 2 material (possibly afarensis or other species) being the earliest known possible africanus, dating to about 3.5 myr. The Sterkfontein material is problematic, as there may be intrusions from later strata, and there is a heterogeneous mixture of earlier and more modern faunal species, and thus, this material may be as young as 1.0 myr. Most postcranial material attributed to africanus is well within the range of variation of the afarensis material, however, the limb proportions may be different.STS 14 is a 2.5 myr old specimen from Sterkfontein. This specimen is particularly important as it includes both os coxa, as well as many of the vertebrae. This find showed unequivocally that these hominids were bipedal, and were not simply apes, vindicating Raymond Dart. Features of STS 14 that align it with a more humanlike locomotor capacity include: y The iliac blade is short and wide. y There is a well-developed sciatic notch. y There is a strong anterior inferior iliac spine. STS 14 has six lumbar vertebrae (whereas modern humans have five, and chimps usually have three). With an increased number of lumbar vertebrae (the ancestral condition, as in cercopithecoids), bipedalism may have been the ancestral condition

(from a very small-bodied primate?). While it is very similar in morphology (relative to its size), there are also differences. This specimen differs from modern human in that: y There is a forward projecting anterior superior iliac spine. y A very small articular surface for the sacrum. y A marked outward flare of the iliac blades. There is a fairly large sample of africanus teeth known (though not as large a sample as the afarensis material). The material shows several important differences when compared to afarensis that include: y Postcanine teeth are larger, more bulbously cusped, and relatively broader (the size difference is greater in the later erupting teeth of each type), and may have somewhat thicker enamel, especially on the tooth walls. Dm1 is larger and more squared, with more equal sized cusps. y The anterior lower premolars are always bicuspid, usually with equal or close to equal sized cusps, and wear more similarly to the other premolars. y The anterior lower premolars have greater enamel thickness. y Compared intrasexually, the africanus central incisors show no reduction but the other anterior teeth are usually smaller. The ranges almost completely overlap, however, and there are very large canines and incisors in both samples. No canines wear to have cutting edges (canine-premolar diatemata are rare), even though a few are large enough to project beyond the level of the other teeth (this is much more common in the afarensis sample). Although the canines are reduced compared with the earlier Pliocene samples, their roots especially those of the maxilla teeth are still long and robust. The canines also wear more rapidly than the afarensis material, with the wear almost always on the tips. There is significant sexual dimorphism in the canines, although not as much as any of the apes, while there is sexual dimorphism on the level of gorillas in the postcanine material. This pattern of big teeth seems to have been influenced by the africanus diet and chewing pattern. A. Walker and M. Wolpoff claim that the africanus chewing pattern is similar to modern hunter-gatherer groups, with the molars and premolars designed to last a lifetime of wear and tear (the oldest individuals dying at about the time they have no crowns left in their mouth max age about 35). The diet of these South African hominids seems to have been seasonal, with emphasis on a frugivorous diet, with seeds and other hard objects being masticated. There is a good sampling of africanus crania, allowing reasonably strong comments to be made on the materials affinities to other material. Some of the better-known specimens include STS 5 (Mrs. Ples), a 2.5 myr cranium of an adult male with a brain about 485 cc, STS 71, a 2.5 myr male partial cranium with an estimated 428 cc brain, STW 505, an individual with a brain estimated to have been 625 cc, and the type specimen of africanus, the Taung Child. The facial features of the africanus material are a mixture of more modern and archaic ones, with similarity to (and important differences between) the afarensis material. Some of these features (relative to afarensis) include: y Retraction of the palate from a position in front of the face to under it. Forward shift of the zygomatic processes of the maxilla, the zygomatic bone, and the front of the masseter muscle, creating the zygomatic prominence. y Expansion of the anterior part of the temporalis muscle.

A broader nasal aperture. Anterior pillars extending above the canine roots, of variable expression creating thickened lateral nasal margins. y Structural changes in the jaw related to expanding premolars and molars, as well as incisor and (especially) canine reduction and decreased emphasis on anterior loading. Conclusions
y y

The africanus material is seen as different things by different people. Some see this as a regional variation or subspecies of afarensis, some see it as two completely different species, and some consider the africanus material to be the descendants of afarensis. Another important question that has been, is, and will probably always be debated is the question of whether the africanus material represents two or more species, a sexually dimorphic species, or a very variable species (especially with regards to inter-era speculation). The accepted view seems to be that they deserve separate species status due to both their differences from the afarensis material and their geographic separation from them. However, a very important question in debate is whether or not this species contributed to the modern human lineage. Australopithecus africanus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 23 million years ago in the Pliocene.[2] In common with the olderAustralopithecus afarensis, A. africanus was slenderly built, or gracile, and was thought to have been a direct ancestor of modern humans. Fossil remains indicate that A. africanus was significantly more like modern humans than A. afarensis, with a more human-like cranium permitting a larger brain and more humanoid facial features. A. africanus has been found at only four sites in southern Africa Taung (1924), Sterkfontein (1935), Makapansgat (1948) and Gladysvale (1992).[1] Famous fossils Taung Child Main article: Taung Child

Replica of the Taung Child skull interested in fossils found at the lime mine Raymond Dart became at Taung near Kimberley, South Africa in 1924.[3][4] The most promising of these was a skull of an odd ape-creature sharing human traits such as eye orbits, teeth, and, most importantly, the hole at the base of the skull over the spinal column (the foramen magnum) indicating a human-like posture. Dart assigned the specimen the name Australopithecus africanus ("southern ape of Africa"). This was the first time the word Australopithecus was assigned to any hominid. Dart claimed that the skull must have been an intermediate species between ape and humans, but his claim about the Taung Child was rejected by the scientific community at the time due to the belief that a large cranial capacity must precede bipedal locomotion.[1] This was exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of the Piltdown Man. Sir Arthur Keith, a fellow anatomist and anthropologist, suggested that the skull belonged to a young ape, most likely from an infant gorilla. It was not until 20 years later that the public accepted the new genus and that australopithecines were a true member of hominidae. Mrs. Ples Main article: Mrs. Ples

Skull of "Mrs. Ples", Transvaal MuseumPretoria

Dart's theory was supported by Robert Broom.[5] In 1938 Broom classified an adult endocranial cast having a brain capacity of 485 cc, which had been found by G. W. Barlow, as Plesianthropus transvaalensis. On April 18, 1947, Broom and John T. Robinson discovered a skull belonging to a middle-aged female,[6] (catalogue number STS 5), while blasting at Sterkfontein. Broom classified it also as Plesianthropus transvaalensis, and it was dubbed Mrs. Ples by Broom's young coworkers (though the skull is now thought to have belonged to a young male). The lack of facial projection in comparison to apes was noted by Raymond Dart (including from Taung Child), a trait in common with more advanced hominines. Both fossils were later classified as A. africanus. Morphology and interpretations

Natural endocranial cast (485 cm3) (Sts 60), articulated with a fragmentary skull still embedded in breccia (TM 1511) Like A. afarensis, A. africanus the South African counterpart was generally similar in many traits, a bipedalhominid with arms slightly larger than the legs (a physical trait also found in chimpanzees). Despite its slightly more human-like cranial features, seen for example in the crania Mr. Ples and STS 71, other more primitive features including apelike curved fingers for tree climbing are also present. Due to other more primitive features visible on A. africanus, some researchers believe the hominin, instead of being a direct ancestor of more modern hominins, evolved into Paranthropus. One robust australopithecine seen as a descendent of A. africanus is Paranthropus robustus. Both P. robustus and A. africanus crania seem very alike despite the more heavily built features of P. robustus that are adaptations for heavy chewing like a gorilla. A. africanus, on the other hand, had a cranium which quite closely resembled that of a chimp, yet both their brains measure about 400 cc to 500 cc and probably had an ape-like intelligence.[5] A. africanus had a pelvis that was built for slightly better bipedalism than that of A. afarensis.

Australopithecus africanusreconstruction Sexual dimorphism Recent evidence regarding modern human sexual dimorphism (physical differences between men and women) in the lumbar spine has been seen in pre-modern primates such as A. africanus. This dimorphism has been seen as an evolutionary adaptation of females to better bear lumbar load duringpregnancy, an adaptation that non-bipedal primates would not need to make.[7][8] A 2011 study using ratios of strontium isotopes in teeth suggested that A. africanus and Paranthropus robustus groups in southern Africa were patrilocal: women tended to settle farther from their region of birth than men did.[9][10] [edit]Geochronology Based on current data Au. africanus dates to between 2.85 and 2.00 million years based on a combination of palaeomagnetism (Andy Herries, UNSW, Australia, Uranium-lead (Robyn Pickering (U. Melbourne, Australia), electron spin resonance (Darren Curnoe, UNSW, Australia) and faunal dating. TheMakapansgat fossils date to between 2.85 and 2.58 million years; Sterkfontein dates to between 2.58 and 2.00 million years with the Sts 5 Mrs Ples fossil dating to between 2.2 and 2.0 million years; and Gladysvale dates to between 2.4 and 2.0 million years. The age of the Taung child remains more difficult to determine and is the focus of a current project by Brian Kuhn (U. Witwatersrand, S. Africa), Phil Hopley (Birkbeck College, UK), Colin Menter (U. Johannesburg, S. Africa) and Andy Herries (UNSW, Australia).

Homo habilis 
Introduction Homo habilis is a well-known, but poorly defined species. The specimen that led to the naming of this species (OH 7) was discovered in 1960, by the Leakey team in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. This specimen and its designation was the subject of much controversies up through the 1970s. The material was found in the same region where A. boisei had previously been found, and many researchers of the time did not fully accept that the material was sufficiently different from that material (or maybe A. africanus) to denote a new species. Louis Leakey was convinced that this was the Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life looking for, and placed this as a direct human ancestor, with H. erectus a dead-end side-branch. The specimen was subjected to intense study by the multidisciplinary team of Louis Leakey, John Napier, and Phillip Tobias. They placed the material as different from penecontemporary australopithecines due to the teeth, which fell outside the known range of A. africanus, with very large incisors. Also, the large brain size and shape of the hand suggested a closer affinity with Homo. In January 1964, the team announced the new species Homo habilis. The name was suggested by Raymond Dart, and means handy man, in reference to this hominids supposed tool making prowess. Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they opinion that it was a direct

human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans. Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus, except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species. Diagnostic Features It is particularity hard to list the features of Homo habilis, because the specimens attributed to habilis (and the reasons the material was placed there) vary widely. The species is a mishmash of traits and specimens, whose composition depends upon what researcher one asks. The simplest way to describe the general features is to describe specimens that are generally considered habilis by most people, and list their relevant traits. OH 7 is the type specimen of habilis, and the first material attributed to the species. The specimen consists of a nearly complete left parietal, a fragmented right parietal, most of the mandibular body (including thirteen teeth), an upper molar, and twenty-one finger, hand, and wrist bones. The remains belonged to a 12 or 13 year old male. The brain size attributed to this specimen varies, ranging from 590710 cc. P. Tobias and G. von Koenigswald used three traits to set habilis apart, as a transitional species between A. africanus and H. erectus: y Expanded cranial capacity (relative to africanus). y Reduced postcanine tooth size. y The presence of a precision grip (determined from the hand bones present in OH 7), which provides the anatomical basis for tool-making. General features of the specimen seems to support these three traits (whether or not it is transitional from africanus to erectus): y Larger cranial capacity (though very problematic). Tobias gives an estimate of 647 cc, Holloway gives an estimate of 710 cc, and Wolpoff has estimated it at 590 cc. y Molar megadontia is gone, with molars longer than they are wide. y The P3 is smaller and more asymmetric. y The P4 is much more similar to the P3. y Metacarpal 1 and trapezium is much less interlocked, which allowed more movement. y The distal phalanges have apical tuffs. OH 8 a fairly complete foot was found nearby OH 7, and was initially determined to be from another individual. This was due to the fact that OH 7 was known to be from an adolescent around age 12, and the foot seemed to be of a more advanced age, due to the presence of arthritis in the specimen. However, the partially gnawed remains have

arthritis due to a sustained injury, and the actual age runs close to OH 7, making it likely they are from the same individual (many researchers consider this part of OH 7 now, rather than OH 8). The remains show clear signs that this was an obligate biped, including: y Presence of digital shortening. y Enlargement of the hallux, as well as being fully abducted. y Alignment of digits 25. y Thickened metatarsal shaft with a humanlike cross-sectional shape. y A fully developed double arch to the lower surface. y Mechanically set up for efficient weight transmission at the ankle. While it shows definite obligate bipedalism, the specimen also has a marked tubercule for the tibialis posterior muscle, an invertor of the foot that could be useful for climbing. So it is possible that while this individual was an obligate biped, it still spent some time in the trees (which goes well with paleoecological evidence that suggests that various hominid species spent most of their time in marginal woodland environments). From the talus, H. McHenry calculated an estimated weight of 31.7 kg. Using the various estimated brain size, one gets brain/body weight ratios of: Wolpoff: 590 cc brain = 1.86% Tobias: 647 cc brain = 2.04% Holloway: 710 cc brain = 2.24% Even using the smaller brain estimate, this is one of the largest relative brain size for any male hominid up to the time period this individual lived (1.75 myr). When compared to primate allometry, the OH 7 brain size is at the top of the allometric expectations within non-human primates. This is a large brained specimen relative to its body size. Another relatively complete habiline specimen is OH 13 Cinderella. This is a poorly preserved and fragmentary specimen of a 1516 year old female habilis, dating to a little younger than 1.66 myr. This makes it one of the most (if not the most) recent habilis specimens known. The material consists of the mandible and the maxilla, several teeth, pieces of the cranial vault, and some postcranial elements, including a small piece of proximal ulna. This specimen (along withOH 16) were the object of much inaccurate brain size estimations, which originally lead to the two being classified as H. erectus. More recent estimates put the brain size at around 500 cc, and along with an estimated body size near that of AL 2881, gives this specimen a relative brain/body weight ratio similar toOH 7. The case of OH 16 is a tragic one. The specimen was discovered nearly complete near the end of a field day, so the position of the find was marked and roped off. The next morning the researchers were horrified to discover that a herd of cattle had charged through the area, and completely crushed it. Some of the specimens features include: y Very large teeth (close to australopithecus in size). y An uncertain brain size, but probably larger than OH 7. y The individual was age 1516 when they died. y The individual had very bad caries on one side of its jaws (very unusual in ancient specimens), which lead to differential chewing on the other side, causing it to develop a huge temporalis muscle on that side. y Cranial bone markedly thinner that erectus.

Dramatic differences in the supraorbital torus and the nuchal torus that distinguish it from erectus.

These features (the last two shared with OH 13) seem to indicate that the specimen is a habiline, and not an erectus specimen, as was attributed by J. Robinson. OH 24 (Twiggy) is the most australopithecine-like of specimens attributed to H. habilis, and may be more highly correlated with A. africanus. The specimen was found completely fractured, and cemented together in a coating of limestone. R. Clarke was the researcher who went through the long and painful process of reconstruction, but over 100 small fragments could not be placed in the reconstruction. Hence, the specimen is extremely distorted, making an accurate estimate of its brain size very difficult, though Holloway has given an estimate of 590 cc (many researchers believe that number is too high). Several features caused this specimen to be placed in habilis, including: y Increased cranial capacity over australopithecines (though some doubt this estimate). y Less postorbital constriction. y Elongated molars. y Absence of postcanine megadontia. y Large front teeth relative to the postcanines. y A broad and short cranial base. y Anteriorly positioned foramen magnum. y Less convex and bulging zygomatics, and more vertically oriented. y A distinct maxillary notch. While these features seem to support the notion that it is not an australopithecine, several other features do not support the habilis distinction. For example: y Lacks a salient anterior nasal spine. y Lacks broad nasal bones. y Lacks nasal bone peaking caused by the internasal angle. y Lacks the projection of the middle and top of the nose away from the face, shown by expanded and outward projecting maxillary bones to its side (i.e., maxillary pillar eversion). While this specimen does not seem to be an australopithecine, it also does not seem to fit perfectly into the classic habilis mold. Perhaps it fits more closely with rudolfensis, or an undefined penecontemporary species. Another option may be that the distorted reconstruction is blurring a clear species designation. For now, a clear designation is up in the air. The last to discuss is OH 62. Publicized widely as Lucys Child by Johanson, it is a very scrappy collection of 302 bone fragments. Portions of the maxilla (which permitted identification as habilis), parts of the femur, and upper limb bones. The entire specimen is problematic, and raises many questions as to sexual variation and behavior. The most controversial aspect of the specimen was the Johanson et al. calculation of a humero-femoral index of 95%. The material was far too sparse to calculate such an index, but even using their own estimated range of possible lengths for the incomplete femur, they should have computed an index quite close to the A.L. 2881 value of

83.8%. It is unclear why Johanson et al. calculated the index in the manner they did, and it is generally not accepted in any form at all. Conclusions Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species. Homo Erectus Introduction Throughout the early years of paleoanthropology, there were only two different species that were attributed to the genus Homo. These included the Neanderthals, and Homo erectus. In the early 1960s, this began to change, and human ancestry seemed to be populated by many different players. Accordingly, erectus is one of the better-known members of genus Homo, especially in terms of its well-established place in paleoanthropology. This has begun to change, however, and now some question its place in human evolution. Some (e.g., M. Wolpoff) claim that erectus is an invalid taxon, though few accept this interpretation at this point in time. Others believe that the material previously attributed to erectus should be split into several different taxons: Asian and later African material remaining as erectus(with erectus not contributing to modern humans), early African material as ergaster, and European material as heidelbergensis. In this description of the species, the material that has been attributed as ergaster and erectus in the above splitting scenario will be covered, with theheidelbergensis material discussed under the page dedicated to that species. The species was named by Eugne Dubois (it was originally designated as Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1894, after his 1891 find from Trinil, Java, in Indonesia (Trinil 2). Dubois was inspired by A. Wallaces conviction that the origins of modern humans might lie in Southeast Asia. Dubois enlisted as an army surgeon in the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, and searched for fossils in Sumatra. He had little success in Sumatra, but found unearthed a thick mineralized hominid skull near the bank of the Solo River in Java. Dubois made his find public a few years later, and was met by derision from the dominant British paleontological hierarchy. Dubois was disillusioned, and this important find actually spent some time in a box underneath the floorboards of Dubois home. The material was later associated with the Chinese material from Zhoukoudian, and renamed Homo erectus. Except for modern Homo sapiens, erectus was the most farranging hominid to have existed. Material that has been attributed to erectus has come from South Africa, Indonesia, England, and just about everywhere in between, covering the entire continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The European material will not be discussed here (it is discussed under heidelbergensis), but the rest of the material will be covered here under erectus.

Diagnostic Features The dates for erectus have become earlier and earlier, while habilis remains have been found in later and later deposits, making a lineage involving habilisancestral to erectus increasingly unlikely. Specimens that are considered erectus are dated very securely to at least 1.8 myr, and fairly securely to 1.9 myr. The question of this species evolutionary destiny is under some disagreement. Those who accept the validity of ergaster usually consider erectus an evolutionary dead-end that went from Africa into Asia, and went extinct there. Those who see erectusas a modern human ancestor, either see the Asian specimens as a dead-end side branch, or see all the ergaster, heidelbergensis, and erectus specimens as belonging to Homo sapiens. This view has some validity in that these species are usually considered chronospecies due to anagenesis. Some researchers do not support the concept of anagenesis as a valid mechanism of speciation, since there is a fuzzy area where the transition between species occurs, whereas in cladogenesis (the splitting of a species into two new species or the branching off of one species from another) there is a clear boundary. However, the method of speciation is the same in both, since beyond the moment of the split in cladogenesis, the transition to new species is by anagensis. So this is really a matter of semantics and differing ideologies. In any case, erectus shows clear trends in the modern direction, and I personally think that the most parsimonious answer is that erectus is an ancestor of modern humans, and not an evolutionary deadend. However, that is just my personal opinion. There are specimens from a wide time span and a vast geographical area that have been attributed to erectus. The traits of these specimens are very similar, and show a trend toward the modern human condition. Some of the trends linking erectus with sapiens includes: y An increase in brain size (erectus approximately 900 cc., sapiens approximately 1350 cc.). y A reduction in postcanine dentition, and a correlated decrease in jaw size. y Vertical shortening of the face. y Shortening of armbones (especially the forearm) to come to a very humanlike limb proportions (postcranial proportions are very similar to tropically adapted modern humans). y The development of a more barrel-shaped chest. y The formation of an external nose. y Reached modern human size in terms of height. One of the most important erectus specimen is the Nariokotome Boy, KNM-WT 15000. This specimen was discovered by a team led by R. Leakey and A. Walker at Nariokotome, Kenya, in 1984. This is the most complete early human skeleton ever discovered. The specimen was dated to 1.6 myr, and is considered by some as ergaster, but to most researchers it is definitely erectus. The relative completeness of this specimen allowed detailed examination of the anatomy of erectus, and has led to many influential ideas about this species. Some of its important features include: y It is the skeleton of a 1012 year old individual (generally considered male). y The teeth are unworn. y Shovel-shaped incisors.

y y y y y y y y y y

Was 53 (168 cm) tall at death, and may have been as tall as 60 (183 cm) if it had reached maturity. Resembles a very robust modern human from the neck down. A 880 cc. brain (estimated that its mature brain size would be 909 cc.). Brachial and humero-femoral index in the modern human range. Had relatively small (compared to modern humans) thoracic spinal canal diameter. Smaller cervical and lumbar swellings (relative to modern humans). External projecting nose. Longer vertebral spines (relative to modern humans). An elongated femoral neck. A narrow biilliac breadth.

The narrow spinal canal has been an issue of much speculation. Some contend that this means that KNM-WT 15000 had small intercostal muscles (used for fine air control during speech in modern humans). However, this was a juvenile and the neurocanal size may have increased by 30% by maturity. Also, even though it has a small canal size relative to its body size, it is still within the modern human range (albeit, at the bottom.) This is a very tenuous piece of evidence that has been used to make very specific statements about early human capacity for speech. Considering it is within the human range at all, it makes it unlikely that this would have prevented the capacity for speech, and since it is a juvenile specimen, sweeping statements about the species capacity for language based on this trait is very weak. A very important specimen (especially in terms of the history of paleoanthropology) is KNM-ER 3733. This fairly complete cranium is responsible for sinking the single species concept as a hard and fast rule. The specimen was found by a team led by R. Leakey at Koobi Fora, Kenya, in 1975. The specimen has been dated to approximately 1.75 myr. This is usually considered the remains of a female due to the decreased level of robusticity compared to conspecifics such as KNM-WT 15000. Some of its key features include: y Is a mature adult specimen (known from the closed cranial sutures and the erupted M3s). y A low cranial vault (characteristic of Asian erectus). y Some keeling along the midline of the cranium. y A round torus across the occipital bone. y A cranial base that is wider at the base than at the top of the cranium. y Possible evidence of alveolar torus. y An 848 cc. brain. y Moderately sized postcanines and large anterior teeth. y Clear evidence of an external projecting nose. y Double-arched supraorbitals. Another African erectus specimen is KNM-ER 3883. This specimen is thought to be a male from the same population that ER 3733 came from. It was found in the same area, Koobi Fora, Kenya. It has been dated to approximately 1.57 myr and is the bestpreserved early male cranium. Some of its features include: y Roughly equivalent brain size to ER 3733 (minimally 804 cc., but likely larger).

Clear evidence of an external projecting nose. Projecting nasal bones, which tend to be convex and relatively wide. Margins of nose everted laterally (deviate laterally). Presence of anterior nasal spine. Clear angulation of margin of nasal floor and premaxillae. A forehead flatter than ER 3733 with less of a supratoral sulcus separating it from the top of the supraorbitals. y Much larger mastoids than ER 3733. y A slightly developed nuchal torus. y Well-developed supraorbitals that are not double-arched. y The erectus specimens from China were some of the first hominids that were discovered. The various specimens from Dragon Bone Hill, in the cave of Zhoukoudian were discovered in the late 1920s; however, all but two teeth that were sent abroad for analysis were lost in the chaos of W.W.II. The material included five skullcaps, several cranial and facial fragments, eleven mandibles, and 147 isolated teeth. This material was used for the reconstruction of Peking Man by F. Weidenreich. A newer reconstruction has been made by I. Tattersall and G. Sawyer that uses fragments that are assumed to be male, as the original reconstruction used both male and female remains. The newer cranial reconstruction results in a larger cranial capacity with a more massive and projecting face, with a broader taller nasal region. This new reconstruction is more similar to erectus from elsewhere in the world. The material has been dated to approximately 400 kyr to 500 kyr. The five skullcaps have a mean cranial capacity of 1043 cc. The supraorbital torus on the reconstruction is smaller than that of OH 7 or Sangiran 17 from Java. The Zhoukoudian occipital bones are strongly flexed with a broad torus across the bones width. The skullcaps are also characterized by flat, thick, rectangular parietal bones. The facial bones are massive, and the mandibles are very robust. The Asian specimens show some general differences from African erectus, including more robust ridges of bone with the walls of the skull greatly thickened. The Javanese specimens are a source of great controversy. No specimen from Indonesia has been found in a well-dated locale. Often, they have been found by locals and bought by researchers or interested laypersons. The older dates (ranging near 1.7 myr) are very controversial, and very tenuous. For example, the Modjokerto child was discovered by a hired workman in 1936, and the specimen was dated decades later by looking at the material that adhered to the cranium, and matching that matrix to a strata based on the information of where the specimen was found, finding a strata that matched the material taken from the specimen, then dating the samples of stratum that were assumed to be where the specimen originally came from. Specimens like Sangiran 17 and Trinil 2 have been dated to approximately 800 kyr and 400 kyr, respectively. The best preserved hominid cranium from Java is Sangiran 17. This specimen was discovered by a farmer at Sangiran, Java, Indonesia, in 1969. Sangiran 17 has been an important specimen for those who accept the multiregional hypothesis that has erectus moving into Asia early, and evolving into Homo sapienswith gene flow being maintained between various African, Asian, and European populations. In
y y y y y y

Indonesia, this hypothesized lineage begins with Modjokerto, moves on through Sangiran 17, the material from Sambungmachan, Ngandong, all the way through present day Javanese. Some of the traits that are cited to link this lineage together includes: y A long relatively flat frontal bone. y A projecting face with massive, flat zygomatics. y A zygomaxillary tuberosity at the base of the zygomatics. y A rounded edge to the bottom at the eye sockets. y The lack of a clear demarcation between the nasal region and the lower face. The Sangiran 17 specimen itself shows several other features that distinguish the Indonesian material from other populations of erectus. Many of these also fit into the multiregional model. These features include: y Very thick cranial bones which are flattened along the sides of the braincase. y A maximum cranial breadth at the base of the cranium. y A reduced development of the frontal and parietal lobes of the brain, though more developed elsewhere (Sangiran 17 is at the high end of the erectus scale with an approximate 1029 cc. brain). y Prominent muscle markings along the sides and back of the cranium. Conclusions Homo erectus (or the various species which may be subsumed under that appellation) are extremely important in the study of modern human origins. The Middle Pleistocene is where the modern human postcrania develops, the modern cranial features begin to develop, and significant increases in brain size occur. It is also important because many behavioral changes occur in this time period, e.g., much more developed lithic industries, the controlled use of fire, regular meat-eating, hunting, etc. This is where the things most people consider human start to develop to the point where most people would recognize these pattern of anatomy and behavior as human. This is also a dynamic time in the evolutionary perspective caused by these species, with the recent well-dated Dmanisi remains in the Republic of Georgia, dated to 1.7 myr. Homo sapiens Introduction The discussion of our species, Homo sapiens, is probably the most difficult to put together. Whereas in the previous species have been introduced with historical background and a discussion of the early, most important finds, and the individuals responsible for the species designation, this introduction will focus on some of the theory implicit in the discussion of the origin and spread of H. sapiens. Most researchers currently accept the statement that modern humans can be considered to date to approximately 200250 kyr. Others (such as Milford Wolpoff), take the view that our species extends as far as approximately 2.0 myr, subsuming H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. heidelbergensis. There are two polarizing camps on the issue of our species origin (though there is varying degrees of compromise between the two stances as well as various alternative positions): the multiregional (or continuity) camp, and the Out of Africa (replacement) camp. The perspective of multiregionalists is that extending to the origin of H. erectus, there have been populations of humans living around the old world, and these all contributed

to successive generations, eventually leading to modern humans. In this scenario, the Chinese and Indonesian material are the most direct ancestors of modern East Asians, the African material are the most direct ancestors of modern Africans, and that either the European populations are the most direct ancestors of modern Europeans, or that the European populations contributed significant genetic material to modern Europeans, with most of modern Europeans origins rooted in Africa or West Asia. Adherents to this model look at early material and try to trace continuity in morphology from those early populations to later populations in the same geographic area. In this model, there are paralleled changes in all penecontemporary populations, with enough genetic migration to maintain close species bonds, while still allowing the suite of racial features we see today. The perspective of the Out of Africa model (often called Out of Africa II, referring to a second migration from Africa of a hominid population) adherents is that when there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa into Asia and Europe, these populations (seen in materials like the Chinese and Indonesian erectus) did not contribute a significant amount of genetic material to later populations that led to modern humans (some claim no genetic ancestry to these groups and their descendants at all, a strict replacement model). At approximately 200 kya there was a second migration of hominids out of Africa. This time it was fully modern H. sapiens, which proceeded to replace whatever populations that then occupied Asia and Europe. Some see direct competition and extermination of the native populations, some see passive replacement due to better adaptive strategies, and some see genetic admixture with the preponderance of genetic material coming from the incoming human populations, eventually replacing and assimilating them into the greater collective. In this view there is a specific speciation event that occurred which led to the origin of H. sapiens in Africa, and this population is the forerunner of modern humans, leaving the European Neanderthals, Chinese erectus, and others out in the cold. There are various models which embody combinations of these ideas, different strict interpretations of the two theories, etc. Multiregionalists look for similarities between populations in the same geographic location that are separated spatially, while people who follow replacement look for differences. It is oft a difference of semantics between different interpretations rather than real differences of opinion, but often there is real disagreement on the validity of research, and theoretical interpretations. This has led to some fairly severe strife within the paleoanthropological community, with potshots often taken unfairly at rival theories and rival theoreticians. For example, multiregionalism is often portrayed as a racist theory that claims different races have evolved to different levels of intelligence. Out of Africa II has often been portrayed as a religiously motivated idea that tries to come to terms with the biblical story of Genesis, as reference to the Eve theory suggests. Beyond disagreement over fundamental issues like What is a valid speciation event? one fact stands out: neither theory has proved itself above the other in terms of parsimonious explanation of the fossil evidence. The general opinion among researchers seems to go in cycles, supporting OoA, then supportingMRE, then supporting OoA, etc. Currently, we seem to be at a cusp of support for replacement, and there seems top be a shifting in opinion more favorable to continuity. The highly publicized genetic studies that purportedly proved that Neanderthals did not contribute

the modern human genome are so plagued with practical and theoretical problems to make their conclusions moot, especially since it does not in any way address the rest of the populations in the world, and their genetic fate. Diagnostic Features Europe No part of these descriptions will favor one camp over the other; this being said, multiregionists have a very valid criticism of the supposed lack of any evidence of continuity between earlier and later fossil groups in geographic regions. This certainly holds true for Europe, where the perceived differences between the earlier Neanderthal populations and later modern H. sapiens populations. There are many sites which are attributed to what are called early modern humans are not always particularly older than fully modern humans, nor later than Neanderthal sites. As discoveries have continued over the last century Neanderthals are now clearly associated with Upper Paleolithic sites, and modern humans are no longer an Upper Paleolithic phenomenon. The history of the interpretation of the European fossil record is marred by the fact that early attempts to demonstrate continuity by researchers such as A. Hrdlicka and G. Schwalbe were troubled by misdated specimens and faulty reconstructions, while early attempts to demonstrate replacement were based on the Piltdown hoax and the misdated Galley Hill material. These problematic foregrounds for further interpretation were also built upon by the faulty type approach of early paleoanthropologists, where La Chapelle was seen as a typical Neanderthal specimen and Cro-Magnon was seen as a typical early modern human. In fact, these two specimens are significantly atypical. Simple replacement and continuity models are beginning to fall apart, as the lines between earlier and later populations blurs in some respects and becomes more demarked in others. Two major lines of thinking exist regarding the origins of modern humans in Europe: Neanderthals contributed some amount of significant genetic material to later modern human populations, or they did not. There are three major lines of evidence arguing for continuity, including: y The evolution of the pre-Neanderthal and Neanderthal populations over time is in the direction of modern European populations. These trends include: anterior dental reduction, reduced nasal size, increased central and decreased lateral browridge height, and more developed mental eminences. y European Neanderthals show a number of unique or especially common features with later Europeans, with lower frequency of expression in modern European populations. y No other penecontemporary population shares unique features with the later Europeans. While some may argue the third point, it is not clearly correct or incorrect, and the first two points are definite. In contrast, the evidence for lack of continuity is expressed in the following points: y Early modern Europeans show limb proportions that are closely linked to warmadapted African populations, and not with European Neanderthals.

Genetic evidence in the form of mtDNA studies purporting to show evidence of Neanderthal and modern human divergence at approximately 700 kyr, and studies showing greater mtDNA variation in African populations, which is claimed evidence for African origin of modern humans. y Behavioral differences between the Neanderthals and early modern humans in both absolute traits and complexity. The genetic evidence is very suspect, and the theoretical and practical problems with such undertakings will continue to place such evidence as circumstantial at best for at least the next five to ten years. The behavioral evidence is an old one, and is crumbling into dust as paleoanthropology enters the 21st century. There likely were some behavioral differences between Neanderthal and later modern human populations, but there are many traits and sites linking the behaviors as developing at least in part from the former to the later. The limb proportion evidence, however, seems unmistakable. There was an influx of either populations or genetics into Europe with an African origin, though whether as a replacing invasion or a migration, with or without assimilation it is up in the air. Very possibly occurringat this time was assimilation of the Neanderthal populations with incoming early modern humans, with differential representation in the resulting genome on the modern human side. It is difficult to believe that the Neanderthal traits would evolve into the modern form without significant contribution of genes for more gracile features. And the limb proportion argument cannot be resolved without a migration of Africans either bodily or genetically. A description of European H. sapiens, is best accomplished by examining material that is post-Neanderthal, though still early. The largest site from the early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern and central Europe is Mladec. Discoveries of material from the site began in 1881, with descriptions beginning in 1925 by J. Szombathy. Tragically, the material was destroyed at the end of World War II by the Nazis, along with many other archaeological materials such as the Predmost material, when it was burned in the Mikulov Castle fire. The fossil material is associated with an early Central European Aurignacian industry. The material dates from c. 32 kyr or more, and is very important for the size of the skeletal sample, and its late date. The material consists of over 100 specimens from the main cave, and a related side cave that features a triple burial of two adult males and a child: Mladec 5,6, and 46. The male specimens are very robust, and there is significant sexual dimorphism in terms of morphological variability. The three male crania are characterized by: y Low braincases. y Thick cranial bones. y Posterior cranial flattening forming a Neanderthal-like occipital bun. y Marked spongy bone development. y Thick projecting supraorbitals (shaped differently than in Neanderthals). y Large cranial capacities (1650 cc. for Mladec 5). The female specimens are more gracile than the males, and are more modern in appearance. However, compared to more modern humans they are very robust, almost as robust as later Upper Paleolithic males. This population shows a reduction in the difference between male and female brain size relative to the Neanderthal condition. The females (Mladec 1 and Mladec 2) show cranial capacities of 1540 cc. and 1390 cc., respectively, an increase of 14% over Neanderthals, while the males (Mladec 5) show
y

an increase of only 5% above the Neanderthal condition. This has been taken as evidence of lack of Neanderthal ancestry, as well as evidence that the Neanderthal populations were evolving into the modern form. The Mladec females show both similarities and differences from the earlier Neanderthal females, including: y Larger cranial vault size. y More midfacial prognathism. y More anterior zygomatics. y Lack a maxillary notch. y A considerably narrower nose. y Presence of a distinct canine fossa. As noted before, there are some marked differences between the Mladec males and females. The systematic sexual differences include: y Larger cranial vaults in the males (1650 cc. for Mladec 5, 1465 cc. average, a 13% differences). y The males have larger and more projecting superciliary arches. y Males have a shallow sulcus at the base of the forehead. y Males have lower and less verticle foreheads. y Males have more angled occipital areas with lambdoidal flattenning. y Males have thick and broad superior nuchal lines extending onto the mastoids. y Females have smaller nuchal planes. y Females have a lower and less prominent inion. y Males exhibit more Neanderthal-like general features, while females exhibit more modern general features. Mladec is the earliest of the non-Neanderthal remains from Central Europe, but there are multiple sites dating later whose specimens show similar traits. Similar remains come from Zlaty Kun (Moravia), Cioclovina (Romania), Bacho Kiro levels 6/7 (Bulgaria), Velika Pecina (Croatia), Miesslingtal (Austria), the Stetten specimens (Vogelherd Cave, Germany), and the Hahnfersand (Germany). These specimens range from 33 kyr to 25 kyr in date. The material from Doln Vestonice and nearby Pavlov were found on the Pavlov Hill in southern Moravia. The material dates to approximately 2526 kyr, and is extremely variable in the expression of its traits. The Pavlov material is some of the most robust Upper Paleolithic remains known, while the Doln Vestonice material is far more gracile. The DV1-3 specimens are very gracile females, with DV3 being identified with a small sculpture found nearby (identified from a facial pathology on DV3 and a similar representation on the figure). The DV16 specimen is more robust, and unlike the robust Pavlov material shows some Neanderthal features. As a whole, this material is very modern, but it shows some Neanderthal like features which could be evidence of continuity. The Predmost material is likely the earliest of this later Upper Paleolithic human remains, and definitively the largest. Unfortunately, the fire the Nazis used to destroy the Mladec material also claimed the Predmost material. The material is very robust, though it does not approach the Neanderthal extreme, and shows very little difference between the sexes in this feature. As with the Mladec remains, the females show significant increases in brain size over the Neanderthals (13%), while the increase in the males is slight (2%). As with other material from this time period, some Neanderthal

features can be found in specific specimens, but a systematic link between the Neanderthal and later human populations is lacking. While continuity is not proven impossible, the material is clearly more related to early modern humans from elsewhere in the world. There are next to no remains in Western Europe that dates to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. There is the material from the Aurignacian at El Castillo Cave (dated to between 37 and 49 kyr), but the specimens have been lost, and a review of existing notes on the specimens makes it impossible to determine if this is a Neanderthal or an early modern human site. The only other specimen which might date to the early Upper Paleolithic is the Combe Capelle specimen from France. This specimen is a very robust women that was originally associated with Chtelperronian levels (in 1909), but was surrounded by controversy from the time of its initial discovery. The specimen is definitely not a Neanderthal, but its circumspect dating makes its importance hard to determine. There are numerous isolated fragments in Western Europe that date to later Aurignacian levels, but few are diagnostic enough to clarify the West Europe transition from the Neanderthal populations to early modern humans. One site which was thought to have been Mousterian in age is Grotte des Enfants (Grimaldi). However, the specimens are likely to have been in a Gravettian layer, and are thus even younger than Cro Magnon, the best-dated early site from Western Europe. Probably the best known early modern specimen from Europe is the Cro Magnon material. This skeletal material was discovered at Abri Cro-Magnon, Les Eyzies, France, in 1868, and has been dated to approximately 32 kyr to 30 kyr. The material consists of five skeletons, three adult male, one adult female, and one infant. The site is an apparent deliberate burial, with various body adornments found alongside the skeletal material. The most cited specimen is Cro-Magnon 1; and adult male specimen. Also known as the Old Man, Cro-Magnon 1 has a face pitted with a fungal infection and died in middle age. The cranium is complete except for the teeth and the mandibular condyles. Cro-Magnon 1 is definitely modern human, as seen from such features as: y A high, rounded cranium. y A steep forehead. y Large cranial capacity (1600 cc.). y A short face with rectangular orbitals. y A tall and narrow nasal opening. y A parabolic palate. y A prominent mental eminence. West Asia The early humans from West Asia come from as early as 120 kyr, and have been much confused due to radiometric dating issues. For many years most of the Near Eastern archaic H. sapiens material was thought to date to approximately 45 kyr to 35 kyr, due to C14 dating. However, these dates were minimum ages, due to the limitations of radiocarbon dating. With the advent of TL (thermoluminescence) and ESR (electron spin resonance), more accurate dates have been procured. The material from this area of the world has had various interpretations as archaic modern human, Neanderthal, populations created by admixture of the former and latter, etc. However, it now seems

more and more likely that much of the material can be attributed to archaic H. sapiens or early modern human, with some intrusion of Neanderthal populations during certain time periods. The Near East material has been the center of much of the debate over replacement versus admixture in the Neanderthal issue. Due to the presence of both Neanderthal and early modern human material (and confusion as to what material belonged to which taxon), the various materials have been used as evidence of regional continuity, admixture between Neanderthals, early modern humans, and possibly East Asian lines, as well as evidence of marked differences between Neanderthals and early modern human populations. In summation, it seems apparent that Qafzeh and Skhul are early modern humans, and the habitation by both Neaderthal and early modern groups came at intervals of global weather changes, and do not constitute one highly variable population, or populations living simultaneously in the region. In other words, when it got colder the Neanderthals moved into the region and the early moderns moved into North Africa, and when it got warmer the Neanderthals moved back into Eastern Europe and the early moderns migrated back to the Near East. This pattern is seen in other fauna as well, at about the same time. Of the two main Lower Paleolithic early modern sites in the Near East (Qafzeh and Skhul), the site of Qafzeh dates to an earlier time period. The cave of Qafzeh, located in Israel, has been dated by several methods to approximately 100 kyr to 90 kyr, and has yielded at material from at least 15 individuals, and possibly as many as 21. The specimen that is usually held up as the example of this material is Qafzeh IX, a 20-yearold male that is the most complete skeleton from the site. There is some disagreement on the sex determination, but later examinations of the pubic bone shows that the specimen was likely a male. The specimen was part of a double burial and was discovered next to the remains of a very young child. The taxonomy of this specimen is definitely modern, and would not be too out of place in a modern osteological collection from Eastern Europe or West Asia. Some of Qafzeh IXs diagnostic features include: y A thin cranial wall that compares favorably to modern Europeans. y A high forehead. y A high, parallel-sided braincase. y A reduced browridge that is divided into a supercilliary arch and a weak lateral torus. y Presence of a canine fossa. y A flat midface. y A rounded occipital bone. y Partial development of a mental eminence. y Lack of a retromolar space. y Cranial capacity of approximately 1550 cc. y Approximately 172 cm in height. Another complete male cranium is Qafzeh XI, an older adult specimen with thick supraorbitals that are prominent and projecting, a broad nose that was not prominent, a short broad face, a canine fossa, a marked maxillary notch, and a brain size of approximately 1554 cc. These male features contrast somewhat with the female material (most prominently Qafzeh V and Qafzeh III). These feature flattened foreheads, and flattened cranial rears, which meet at the top of the skulls to form a distinct angle.

The supraorbitals are weakly developed, and more of a thickening at the end of the sloping frontal. Qafzeh III also features a thick, continuous, and projecting supraorbitals in front of the high rounded forehead, a broad occipital, thick cranial bone, and was about 160 cm tall. The cave site of Skhul is very problematic in terms of dating the site. The site has been dated from 120 kyr up to 40 kyr by various methods. It has been dated by ESR (65 kyr/93 kyr), U-series dating (40 kyr/80 kyr), and TL (119 kyr). Some researchers have suggested that the site has had two habitation periods (seen by the two different dates given for ESR and U-series dates), while others see it as a single habitation. Whatever the actual date (or dates) of the site, its earliest dates seem to indicate that it was inhabited around the same time of later than the Qafzeh site. The dating problems revolve around the fact that the site has been dated by two animal teeth that are different in age, and has been dated by material from the burial level dated by TL. Whatever the date, the site is an extremely important one, with the remains of at least fourteen individuals present at the site. The material from Skuhl is unequivocally modern in characteristic, though it is in no way identical to modern human populations. The specimens provide a wide range of features that are considered archaic as well as many that are considered modern. The best preserved crania are those of three males (Skhul 4, 5, and 9). This led to the false impression of large cranial capacity (average brain size of 1550 cc for the three) for the Skhul specimens. These three show many archaic features that resemble the European Neanderthals (though not as pronounced in most cases). For example, in proportion, there is little difference between the Skhul sample and the European Neanderthals, while facial breadths are also similar (though facial heights are reduced). The Skhul 5 cranium is the best preserved (though it lacks much of the facial region), and the one most often used as representative of the sample. Features of the Skhul 5 cranium include: y Age of death at approximately 30 to 40 (aged by wear on teeth and the cranial sutures). y A high cranial vault. y A rounded occipital at the rear. y A modern flex at the cranial base. y An underdeveloped mental eminence. y A prominent browridge. y A prognathic loew face. y Pathology include evidence of abscessed teeth and rheumatoid arthritis at the TMJ. y A 1518 cc brain (slightly below the modern European average). The female specimens are less well-preserved than the males, but retain enough characteristics to identify them as female, and to make comparisons between the males and females. Just like the males, the females show a mixture of both archaic and modern characteristics. Skhul 2 has a well-developed mental eminence (the best developed chin out of the Skhul sample), but its pronounced continuous supraorbital torus makes it nearly impossible to categorize the specimen by itself as an anatomically modern human. The Skhul 7 female has the most Neanderthal-like characteristics, but it

is as yet unreconstructed. The wide variation of traits from this site range from very Neanderthal-like, to very modern-like. These wide variations seen between the various specimens makes the use of Skhul V as the type specimen of the site unrealistic, especially since the differences between Skhul 5 and Skhul 9 are as great as those between modern humans and the Neanderthals. The Skhul V individual also provided some postcranial material in the burial. This material included some vertebrae, some ribs, most of a left scapula, the right clavicle and part of the left clavicle, both humeri, the right radius and part of the left radius, the right ulna and part of the left ulna, various hand bones, the right ilium, half of the ischium, most of the right femur and part of the left femur, parts of the right and left tibiae, most of the left fibula, and some of the left foot bones. In general, the limb bones are longer and more gracile than the more robust Neanderthals. Postcrania from the other individuals is also present, which makes an examination of the stature of these people possible. The Skhul 7 individual (female) is approximately 154 cm tall, while two male individuals (Skhul 4 and Skhul 5) average 180 cm, a very large sexual difference. The high sexual dimorphism seen in the sample is not particularly secure (or likely) due to the extremely small sample size. The average midsex height figure is 167 cm, a very high figure. The postcrania shows many more differences between the Skhul individuals and the Neanderthals than the cranial material does. Some of these differences include: y Smaller shaft proportions relative to limb length. y Smaller measures of articular surface relative to limb length. y A change in shaft form (e.g. the femora lack midshaft flattening and excess internal thickening of the cortical bone; meaning less stenotic). y A general reduction in robusticity. Analyses of the burials and the morphological characteristics may support the two date hypothesis, or may simply mean two different groups at approximately the same time period inhabited the place. It seems that two different groups in the age of the material are possible: an earlier group that includes Skhul 3 and 610, and a later group that includes Skhul 1, 4, and 5. Since the more modern appearing specimens include Skhul 4 and Skhul 5, this may explain the wide variation at the site. However, since equally modern features have been found at the Qafzeh site at an earlier time period, the presence of more or less modern appearing groups at the site may be deceiving and inconsequential. Africa The Middle and early Upper Pleistocene archaeological record is the best understood of the regions discussed, and the paleoanthropological record is the most complete. Earlier in the century Africa was thought to have a very incomplete and unknown history. This changed with the discovery of many more important fossils and better dating of the ones that were already known. Where African material was once placed into sequences based on European dates and sequences, Africa has become the obvious center and origin of modern humans, with Europe as more peripheral in early human evolution. Africa may be the origin of modern human anatomical features, but it also may be the origin of fully modern behavior. The later Middle Pleistocene, the Middle Stone Age

(MSA), was a period of change in the lithic traditions of this area. All across Africa at this time, the Middle Stone Age developed out of the Acheulean. The large bifacial cutting and chopping tools (or cores for the flake tools depending on the artifact in question and the interpretation in question) fell into disuse and were replaced by more Mousterianlike small flake components. These changes seem to likely be related to the development of hafting, which allowed a wider range of tools and multiple component tools to be developed. Dating of the Middle Stone Age material place it beginning at over 180 kyr, and possibly even earlier. The African MSA is as early or earlier than other MSA variations in other regions, and is especially equally complex. This makes the old argument of Africa as a technological hinterland incorrect. Some of the African MSA traits include: y Grindstones for the preparation of plant foods. y Use of marine resources that were transported over 100 km. y Use of bone for tool formation. y The hafting of spear and other projectile points. Skeletal remains are found throughout all of Africa, and all of it is usually considered H. sapiens, though not all is considered anatomically modern human. The oldest of the Middle Pleistocene specimens is a partial cranium from Florisbad, South Africa. ESR dates for this cranium give an age of approximately 250 kyr. The cranium consists of the sides and part of the front of the face, with most of the back and cranial base missing. The specimen is attributed to being a female. The specimen has been considered a phylogenetic link between earlier populations and modern living African populations, though some have questioned the validity of that idea. Some of the Florisbad craniums features include: y A broad, low frontal that is evenly curved. y Presence of a wide sagittal keel. y Supraorbitals that are a thickening at the forward edge of the sloping frontal. y A shallow sulcus above the supraorbitals. y A short face that is very broad. y Expanded maxillary sinuses and consequentially puffy zygomatics. y The orbits are spaced far apart. y The nasal bones are broad and have little angulation. y The dentition was moderate in size. Other early MSA sites from Africa include the site of Eyasi, near Lake Tanganyika in Tanzania, which has been dated to 130 kyr and 200 kyr, with the real date unknown but likely somewhere in between. The Kbibat teenager was found in the Mifsud-Giudice quarry, near Rabat, and has been well-dated to greater than 200 kyr. From Southwest Djibouti, the Wadi Dagadl maxilla has been dated to approximately 250 kyr. The three specimens from the Kibish formation at Omo, Ethiopia, may or may not be associated with one another. Omo 1 was an excavated find, but Omo 2 and 3 were surface finds, and may not be related to each other or Omo 1. The site is also plagued by bad dating. A date of 130 kyr was originally given (uranium/thorium) but it was determined from shell, which is notoriously inaccurate for this method of dating, and the shell was from a lower level, making the Omo 1 specimen younger in any event. A faunal date of 60 kyr has been estimated as well, but the inability to relocate the site

makes any date attributed to the remains suspect. The two fairly complete specimens are Omo 1 and Omo 2, and the variation displayed between the two and earlier and later populations make them very important as a link from earlier to moden Africans. The specimens from Omo are undeniably modern in appearance, and at the time of their discovery (1967) doubled the known age of modern humans. In addition to the cranial elements, associated postcranial bones include bones from a shoulder, arm, hand, ribs, vertebrae, legs, and foot. These postcranial elements show the fully modern anatomy that is seen in the cranial specimens, further proof of these specimens status as fully modern H. sapiens. The Omo 1 specimen is the most modern appearing, and consists of the following modern features: y Long and curver parietals of an expanded brain case. y A short broad face and high forehead. y Prominent browridges that taper to the sides rather than forming a continuous thick bar. y A modern-looking U-shaped palate. y Presence of a mental eminence. y Modern appearing teeth in both size and shape. y A cranial capacity of over 1400 cc (exact measurement is difficult). y A low nuchal torus position. The most complete specimen from the MSA in Africa is the Ngaloba cranium (Laetoli 18). The cranium has been well-dated to between 129 kyr and 108 kyr by U-series dates. In general shape it resembles Omo 2, though the Ngaloba frontal is smaller and flatter, the sagittal keel is more weakly expressed, and the supraorbitals are less projecting. The Ngaloba specimen may be earlier than the Omo specimens, and may represent a link between earlier Broken Hill material, and the later Omo material (this works well for the frontal and occipital anatomy). However, since the Omo material is not securely dated, such an assumption may not be factual, and most likely will remain speculation unless better dated material is discovered. The best dated sample of South African humans from the early Upper Pleistocene is the Klasies River Mouth material that have been dated to approximately 90 kyr, although two maxillary fragments are older, by as much as 30 kyr. While these remains are welldated, ad have a central importance in the debates over a recent African origin or a Multiregional origin, they have been difficult to analyze due to the fragmentation, and the most that can be absolutely said for the morphology is that the population were relatively small, there seems to be great sexual dimorphism, and some features seem particularly modern while others are more archaic than similarly aged materials from other parts of the world. There are many other MSA sites that contribute to the understanding of the African sequence, and the population shifts associated with them. The Sea Harvest material (Saldanha Bay) consists of a few human fragments found in the remains of a hyena den, and has been dated to 128 kyr to 75 kyr by faunal analysis. The Jebel Irhoud material is the earliest from North African MSA, and provides the only evidence of North African Mousterian-associated crania. This Cave site has yielded two crania, a juvenile humerus, and a juvenile mandible, and has been dated to 127 kyr to 87 kyr by ESR dates on horse teeth (though dates of 190 kyr to 105 kyr have also been

espoused for this site. The Singa cranium from eastern Sudan provided fodder for many a debate, and has been described as Neanderthaloid, a Neanderthal-modern hybrid, a Proto-Bushman, and pathological. The last explanation is the one that has become accepted to explain some of the seemingly contradictory features of the specimen. This specimen has been dated to 133 kyr 2 kyr by uranium/thorium dating of calcrete deposits on the cranial vault. Material that dates to the Late Stone Age (LSA) in Africa come from Border Cave (some place it as early as the Klasies River Mouth, but evidence seems to place it much later) on the KwaZulu side of the border with Swaziland, the Origstad rock shelter (28.5 kyr), the Springbok Flats (Tuinplaas) material, the Lukenya material (17 kyr), the Circumturkana humans, the Kanjera material, and the Ishango material. East Asia The East Asian material is the material most often ignored by proponents of the Out of Africa model, and the one most touted by the Multiregional proponents as evidence to support their theory. While the Chinese material provides the best argument for continuity outside of Africa, the Indonesian sequence is filled with problems associated with dating and provenience, that make any argument connecting the various material specious. Current trends seems to be leading to a showdown between OoA proponents and MRE proponents over East Asia and Australia, so this are is very important for the future debates over general theory related to modern human origins. No matter the position of the particular researcher, none can say that this material is not important or interesting. The Indonesian material has been the object of much debate due to problems of provenience and dating. The Ngandong material are a clear example of this. Though the material is conventionally listed as H. erectus by most researchers, it will be discussed on this page, since the material has been redated to 53 kyr to 27 kyr, and may be a link to modern East Asians. I am highly skeptical of this for now, but as the possibility is fascinating and cannot be ignored (not to mention the material is more important to discuss as a link from archaic East Asians to modern East Asians rather than a late surviving archaic of a population that left no modern progeny). The Ngandong material provides the single largest collection of crania from Java, with 15 specimens (including two tibiae) recovered from the High Terrace of the Solo River near Ngandong, and an additional female was discovered at nearby Ngawi. This material (often called Solo rather than Ngandong) was originally placed in the Late Pleistocene due to the associated fauna found. Several attempts at dating have given dates of 101 kyr 10 kyr (uranium/thorium dating of animal bones), 165 kyr (dating of a nearby High Terrace site), less than 250 kyr (date from fission track dating from similar Javan deposits), older than 300 kyr (modified ESR date from one of the crania), and approximately 500 kyr (Potassium/Argon date from a tuff near the site). However, these date have come into question based on dates presented by C. Swisher et al. of 53 kyr to 27 kyr based on U-series and ESR dating of animal teeth from other deposits found near the site. However, these new dates are not widely accepted, and the teeth used are stained gray and bluish by manganese, while the human material are brown to black, and dense and ceramic-like. These specimens were fossilized in different

environments, and there seems to be no reason to assume the materials came from the same time period. The Ngandong material were studied intensively by F. Weidenreich, but he died during the preparation of a monograph on the material, and it was published incomplete. Of the 13 crania or cranial fragments, nine are clearly adult, and one is clearly a juvenile (the rest are not diagnostic). It is believed that Solo 5, 9, 10, and 11 are male, and Solo 1, 4, 6, 8, and the Ngawi specimen are female. The juvenile (Solo 2) is likely male. The determination of sex is based on cranial size, projection and size of the nuchal torus, and the development oa an external occipital protuberance. These features do not overlap between the sexes. Other characteristics do overlap, but show a average difference between the sexes, including vault thickness and development of the lines and crests marking the muscle attachments. These specimens are purported to share a number of similarities (regional similarities if the MRE hypothesis holds in East Asia) with earlier Indonesian specimens like the Sangiran material and the Sambungmachan material. Similarities that are reported between these samples include: y The frontal bone is flat, without any development of a frontal boss, and merges onto the top of the supraorbital torus. y The supraorbital torus is close to horizontal in orientation. y There is a distinct frontal keel extending over virtually the entire squama. y There is a prebregmatic eminence, a cross-like elevation at the meeting of the sagittal and coronal sutures. y The top of the vault is evenly curved along the sagittal suture. While there are isolated teeth that seem to be associalted with the later Middle and early Upper Pleistocene faunas known from several East Asian countries, the vast majority of material from this time period comes from China. The material from China comes from a broad spatial span, and includes several nearly complete crania, as well as much of a postcranial skeleton. This is the region where multiregional hypotheses gain their best evidence (indeed, some researchers have begun to accept continuity in East Asia, while maintaining support for replacement in Europe). The earliest material from China that has been designated as H. sapiens (or at least has a good probability of being H. sapiens) is the Dali cranium from Shaanxi Province, and several teeth from Tongzi in Guizhou Province. The Dali cranium was found in river gravels, and sustained some damage on its lower face that has never been reconstructed. This damage pushed the maxilla upwards, making the lower face look shorter than it actually was. The cranium came from a male individual under 30 years of age. Some of the features include: y A large, thick cranial vault. y A small braincase (1120 cc). y Large supraorbital tori that arch over the upper orbits. y A low forehead that begins behind the ridges. y A distinct frontal boss. y Presence of a narrow sagittal keel. y The occipital squama is expanded relative to the size of the nuchal plane. y The parietal bosses are well-developed.

The Dali cranium has several other features that have been presented as evidence of a link between the earlier Chinese material from Zhoukoudian, as well as between the Java material from Ngandong. These features are also used as evidence to fit Dali into a set of East Asia characteristics that link the fossil material between what is generally considered the East Asian H. erectus material and modern living Asians. These characteristics include: y The angular torus. y The temporal-frontal articulation in the temple region. y The thick vault bones. y The depressed region where the browridges meet over the nose. y An elevated lower cheek border. y The presence of a maxillary notch. y Orbital pillars that face forward. y Nasal bones that are narrow, flat, and oriented vertically, with a constricted internasal crest. y A moderate swelling of the maxilla along the nasal border. While the lack of dentition in Dali prevents the inquiry into whether it had shovel-shaped incisors like current East Asian populations, the six teeth from Tongzi include a central incisor that is shovel-shaped in the normal East Asian pattern. The incisor has moderately strong marginal ridges, a lingual tubercle, and a straight buccal face. This is another point in favor of East Asian continuity. From a little more recent time period in China, comes the Jinniushan material. The material from Jinniushan in Liaoning Province consists of the cranium and much of the postcranial skeleton of a 20-year-old female. The postcrania include four vertebrae, some ribs, an os coxa, an ulna, a patella, and 30 hand and foot bones. The remains were found in a consolidated fissure-filling in an isolated karst prominence. ESR dates (early uptake model) by Chen Tiemei et al. has given a dat of approximately 187 kyr (165 kyr to 195 kyr) for this material. The cranium has the following features: y A large cranial vault (1260 cc). y Unusually thin vault bones. y A gabled cranial contour. y A broad frontal bone. y Central supraorbital thinning. y A gracilized posterior region with marked nuchal plane reduction. While these features combine to make Jinniushan the earliest specimen with this mixture of modern features, there are many features that are not modern. These features include a great distance between the orbits, the supraorbitals project far in front of the forehead, and the nuchal torus extends across the entire occipital bone and has a distinct, straight upper border there. However, the case for calling this specimen modern H. sapiens is probably as strong as African (Klasies River Mouth) and West Asian (Qafzeh) samples of almost half the age of Jinniushan. This specimen has also been used as a link to the earlier Zhoukoudian material, with similar features that include: y Arched supraorbitals with a sulcus separating them from the frontal squama. y A tall narrow keel on the frontal bone.

y y y y y

Transversely flat, vertically oriented face. Marked facial breadth. The top of the nasal bones makes a horizontal juncture with the frontal bone. A high position for the maxillary notch. Incisor shoveling, marginal ridges combined with a straight incisor blade with a tubercle with finger-like projections extending above it. M3 reduction.

Other earlier H. sapiens remains from China include a maxilla and occipital bone from Chaohu (also known as both Chaoxian and Yinshan) in Anhui Province, the Changyang maxilla from Hubei, a childs parietal and teeth from Dincun (Shanxi), teeth from Xindong (Beijing), a skullcap from Maba in Guangdong Province, and material from ten individuals at Xujiayao (Shanxi) (2, 3, mandible). The unequivocable modern H. sapiens from continental East Asia include: the Liujiang material (67 kyr), cranial and limb remains from Salawusu (50 kyr to 37 kyr), the Laishui material (60 kyr), the Ziyang material (either 39 kyr to 36 kyr, or 7 kyr depending on which level it came from, though this can no longer be established), the Upper Cave (101, 102) material at Zhoukoudian (29 kyr to 24 kyr), an occipital from Shiyu (28 kyr), the Hamakita material from Japan, the Yamashita-cho material from Okinawa (32 kyr), the Pinza-Abu cranial fragment and postcrania (26 kyr), Minatogawa material (18 the kyr), the Niah Cave material from Borneo (40 kyr), and the Wadjak material (1, 2) from Indonesia. Australia The origin of the native Australians has been debated for years, with the estimate of when Australia was likely inhabited being pushed further back in time over the years. It is now absolutely certain that Australia was inhabited by at least 60 kyr to 50 kyr, and there is evidence that indicates the first habitation occurred by 115 kyr. The evidence of the earlier habitation comes from a supposed link between the much younger skeletal remains from Australia, the Javan material. This argument his centered around a single fossil (WLH 50) at this time (though there are several other Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene fossils that purpoted to demonstrate this also). M. Wolpoff has also noted similarities between his reconstruction of Sangiran 17 and Aboriginal Australians, including: y Marked prognathism, especially at the lower nasal border and below and is reflected in the high facial angle.
y y

A ridge or ridges paralleling the suture between zygomatic and maxillary bones. Eversion of the lower zygomatic, caused by the fact that the lower outside corner of the zygomatic, at the corner between the side and front of the face, extends more laterally than any of the face above it and gives the facial profile the outline of a pentagon.

y y

The lower outside rim of the orbit is rounded. The lower border of the nose lacks a distinct line marking the change from nasal floor to the face of the maxilla below the nose. The alveolar plane for the posterior tooth row is convexly curved.

The earliest dated Australian skeletal material comes from the Willandra Lakes system in New South Wales, and has been dated to greater than 35 kyr. The Willandra hominids include three mostly complete specimens, the most important in current debates is WLH 50. WLH 50 was a surface find that is the least securely dated of the three crania (though ESR dates of the bone place it minimally within the same time span as the others), and Wolpoff and others consider it a clear link to the early Indonesian material. One of the notable features of the specimen is its large cranial capacity of 1540 cc, larger than the recorded maximum of modern Native Australians. The other two Willandra specimens include WLH (Mungo) 1, a fragmentary cremated female, and WLH (Mungo) 3 is an older, nearly complete male specimen. Both are smaller and more gracile than WLH 50, with well-rounded foreheads, thin vault bones, weak muscle attachments, and weak or moderate supraorbital development. While in general their features can be considered gracile, there is some robusticity related to heavy anterior tooth wear, including the presence of inion well above internal occipital protuberance in WLH 1, and a broadly developed nuchal torus on WLH 3. In addition, the incisors and canines of WLH 3 are worn much more than the posterior teeth. Much later in time come specimens such as the Kow Swamp material (e.g. Kow Swamp 1 and 5) at 14 kyr to 9.5 kyr, the Coobool Crossing material (e.g. 16, 49, 65, 76, 86) at 14 kyr, and the Keilor cranium and femur at 12 kyr.

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Architecture and Fine Arts Department of Architecture

Cultural Anthropology
Assignment 01

Submitted to:
Archt. Rolando T. Herrero

Submitted by:
Martinez, Emmanuel S. B.S. Architecture III-1

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Architecture and Fine Arts Department of Architecture

Cultural Anthropology
Assignment 02

Submitted to:
Archt. Rolando T. Herrero

Submitted by:
Martinez, Emmanuel S. B.S. Architecture III-1

Anthropology Anthropology is the holistic study of human cultures and the human place in nature. The discipline emphasizes comparing human groups to understand the range of variation in human behavior and biology, and therefore considers what it is to be human. The Anthropology program in the College of Arts and Sciences is designed to provide students with a broad, holistic, and scientific understanding of human culture and the human place in nature. Anthropology helps students gain a fuller understanding of human behavior through introductory and advanced courses in the subfields of archeology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology. Field courses in these subfields are designed to take advantage of the varied ecology and history and the rich multicultural environment of Hawai i Island. The international nature of anthropology makes this field of study increasingly important in our shrinking world. People in all fields of business, politics, medicine, ecology, and academia now work daily with people from other cultures. The success of their enterprise often depends on their ability to understand and communicate with people whose cultures differ from their own. Anthropology attempts to provide a general worldview, characterized by its holistic ideal: a belief that an understanding of human nature requires drawing together and relating information from all aspects of the human condition. The contribution of anthropology is in integrating concepts from many different disciplines into a meaningful understanding of that most complex animal, Homo sapiens. Anthropology ( /n r p l d i/) is the study of humanity. It has origins in

the humanities, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.[1] The term "anthropology" is from the Greek anthr pos ( ), "human being", and -logia (), "discourse" or "study", and was first used in 1501 by German philosopher Magnus Hundt.[2] Anthropology's basic concerns are "What defines Homo sapiens?", "Who are the ancestors of modern Homo sapiens?", "What are humans' physical traits?", "How do humans behave?", "Why are there variations and differences among different groups of humans?", "How has the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens influenced its social organization and culture?" and so forth. In the United States, contemporary anthropology is typically divided into four subfields: cultural anthropology also known as social anthropology, archaeology, linguistic anthropology, and physical (or biological) anthropology.[3] The four-field approach to anthropology is reflected in many undergraduate textbooks[4] as well as anthropology programs (e.g. Michigan, Berkeley, Penn). At universities in the United Kingdom, and

much of Europe, these "sub-fields" are frequently housed in separate departments and are seen as distinct disciplines.[5] The social and cultural sub-field has been heavily influenced by structuralist and postmodern theories, as well as a shift toward the analysis of modern societies (an arena more typically in the remit of sociologists). During the 1970s and 1990s there was anepistemological shift away from the positivist traditions that had largely informed the discipline.[6] During this shift, enduring questions about the nature and production of knowledge came to occupy a central place in cultural and social anthropology. In contrast, archaeology, biological anthropology, and linguistic anthropology remained largely positivist. Due to this difference in epistemology, anthropology as a discipline has lacked cohesion over the last several decades. This has even led to departments diverging, for example in the 19989 academic year at Stanford University, where the "scientists" and "non-scientists" divided into two departments: anthropological sciences and cultural & social anthropology;[7] these departments later reunified in the 20089 academic year.[8] Anthropology is traditionally divided into four sub-fields, each with its own further branches: biological or physical anthropology, social anthropology or cultural anthropology, archaeology and anthropological linguistics.[3] These fields frequently overlap, but tend to use different methodologies and techniques. Biological anthropology, or physical anthropology, focuses on the study of human population using an evolutionary framework. Biological anthropologists have theorized about how the globe has become populated with humans (e.g. the "Out Of Africa" and "multi-regional evolution" debate), as well as tried to explain geographical human variation and race. Many biological anthropologists studying modern human populations identify their field as human ecology, itself linked tosociobiology. Human ecology uses evolutionary theory to understand phenomena among contemporary human populations. Another large sector of biological anthropology is primatology, where anthropologists focus on understanding other primate populations. In terms of methodology, primatologists borrow heavily from field biology and ecology in their research. Cultural anthropology is also called socio-cultural anthropology or social anthropology (especially in the United Kingdom). It is the study of culture, and is based mainly on ethnography. Ethnography can refer to both a methodology and a product of research, namely a monograph or book. Ethnography is a grounded, inductive method

that heavily relies on participant-observation. Ethnology involves the systematic comparison of different cultures. The process of participant-observation can be especially helpful to understanding a culture from an emic point of view, which would otherwise be unattainable by simply reading from a book. In some European countries, all cultural anthropology is known as ethnology (a term coined and defined by Adam F. Kollr in 1783).[9] The study of kinship and social organization is a central focus of cultural anthropology, as kinship is a human universal. Cultural anthropology also covers economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, material culture, technology, infrastructure, gender relations, ethnicity, childrearing and socialization, religion, myth, symbols, values, etiquette, worldview, sports, music, nutrition, recreation, games, food, festivals, and language (which is also the object of study in linguistic anthropology). Archaeology is the study of human material culture, including both artifacts (older pieces of human culture) carefully gathered in situ, museum pieces and modern garbage.[10] Archaeologists work closely with biological anthropologists, art historians, physics laboratories (for dating), and museums. They are charged with preserving the results of their excavations and are often found in museums. In the typical scenario, archaeologists are associated with "digs," or excavation of layers of ancient sites. Archaeologists subdivide time into cultural periods based on long-lasting artifacts: the Paleolithic, the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, which are further subdivided according to artifact traditions and culture region, such as the Oldowan or the Gravettian. In this way, archaeologists provide a vast frame of reference for the places human beings have traveled, their ways of making a living, and their demographics. Archaeologists also investigate nutrition, symbolization, art, systems of writing, and other physical remnants of human cultural activity. Linguistic anthropology (also called anthropological linguistics) seeks to understand the processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation inlanguage across time and space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture. It is the branch of anthropology that brings linguistic methods to bear on anthropological problems, linking the analysis of linguistic forms and processes to the interpretation of sociocultural processes. Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields including sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, and narrativeanalysis.[11]

Linguistic anthropology is divided into its own sub-fields: descriptive linguistics the construction of grammars and lexicons for unstudied languages; historical linguistics, including the reconstruction of past languages, from which our current languages have descended; ethnolinguistics, the study of the relationship between language and culture, and sociolinguistics, the study of the social functions of language. Anthropological linguistics is also concerned with the evolution of the parts of the brain that deal with language.[12] Because anthropology developed from so many different enterprises (see History of Anthropology), including but not limited to fossil-hunting, exploring, documentary filmmaking, paleontology, primatology, antiquity dealings and curatorship, philology, etymology, genetics, regional analysis, ethnology, history,philosophy, and religious studies,[13][14] it is difficult to characterize the entire field in a brief article, although attempts to write histories of the entire field have been made.[15] On the one hand this has led to instability in many American anthropology departments, resulting in the division or reorganization of sub-fields (e.g. at Stanford, Duke, and most recently at Harvard).[16] However, seen in a positive light, anthropology is one of the few places in many American universities where humanities, social, and natural sciences are forced to confront one another. As such, anthropology has also been central in the development of several new (late 20th century) interdisciplinary fields such as cognitive science, global studies, human-computer interaction, and various ethnic studies. Because of the holistic nature of anthropological research, all branches of anthropology have widespread practical application in diverse fields. This is known asapplied anthropology. Thus military expeditions employ anthropologists to discern strategic cultural footholds; marketing professionals employ anthropology to determine propitious placement of advertising; and humanitarian agencies depend on anthropological insights as means to fight poverty. Examples of applied anthropology are ubiquitous.

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate")[1] is a term that has many different meanings. For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" inCulture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.[2] However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:


Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture

An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group

When the concept first emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, it connoted a process of cultivation or improvement, as in agriculture or horticulture. In the nineteenth century, it came to refer first to the betterment or refinement of the individual, especially through education, and then to the fulfillment of national aspirations or ideals. In the mid-nineteenth century, some scientists used the term "culture" to refer to a universal human capacity. For the German nonpositivist sociologist Georg Simmel, culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history".[3] In the twentieth century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively. Following World War II, the term became important, albeit with different meanings, in other disciplines such as cultural studies, organizational psychology and management studies

The nature of culture is a very broad scope of study. And different theorists have different interpretations to the term nature of culture. It is difficult to come to an unanimous conclusion on this subject. However, popular idealisms state that the nature of culture has basically six elements:
y y y y y y

Civilization Community Ethnic group People Group lifestyle Society

Civilization The term civilization is itself intriguing as it has different interpretations. However, it refers primarily to human culture in relation to technology, science, politics and division

of labour. Civilizations are mostly urban in nature. Civilized people are in contrast to barbarian or primitive people refined in their taste and behavior. Community Community is defined as a group of interacting organisms where factors such as intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions act and interact with each other and pose an impact on the identity of the community members with their degree of cohesiveness. The concept of community has always been the subject of considerable debate and sociologists are still trying to come to a significant solution. However, traditionally, community has been always regarded as a group of interacting people living in a common location. Communities are groups that are organized and have common values in a single geographical location. Ethnic Group Ethnic groups are the group of people who can identify with each other and share a common heritage, - like, common language, culture, sometimes common religion, ancestry or endogamy. Ethnic groups can be simply regarded as biologically selfperpetuating group with same interests and sharing a specific geographical area,language and specific traditions like food habits. People The people are a collective plurality of human beings having two usages. 1. Persons, signifying group of people having specific unifying 2. Used as singular, it refers to an indefinite ethnic group or nation Group Lifestyle The group lifestyle is the portrayal of the ways a group lives. It can be simply interpreted as a set of behaviors to define a given lifestyle of a group of people. The term is used with reference to politics, marketing, and publishing. A group lifestyle, in a given time and place, includes various important factors like social relations, entertainment, dress, and other behavioral practices and reasoned actions within the group lifestyle. Society Society or human society signifies a group of people who are related to each other through social status, roles and social networks. They share the same geographical territory and are governed by the same political authority and cultural behaviors.

traits.

The Beginnings of Human History, Society, and Culture

See all 5 photos

reconstruction of australopithecus, the first known hominid.

The First Hominans When does human history begin? If we seek help from anthropology, then we find that the first animals of the homininans appeared in Africa around 6 million years ago and the first Homo sapiens appeared 600,000 to 200,000 years ago, also in Africa. From this perspective, we are all descendants of mother Africa. The dates of this first appearance the sequence of species that arose over time is a constant state of flux as scientists uncover new fossil evidence. The earliest homininan isaustralopithecus whose mind and biology may have been very similar to the modern bonobo ape. Australopithecus are found only in Africa. Prehistory of human beings is usually divided up into the paleolithic period, neolithic period, bronze age, and iron age. In 1816, Christian Thomsendivided up prehistory into the stone age, the bronze age, and the iron age. In 1865, John Lubbock divided up the stone age into the old stone age (paleolithic period) and new stone age (neolithic period).
y y y y

The Paleolithic Period covers the time from the first emergence of Homo sapiens until the discovery of farming. The Neolithic Period covers the time from the first use of farming until the discovery of metals. The Bronze Age begins when a society starts to use copper and tin as part of their metal culture. The Iron Age begins when a society starts to use iron as part of their metal culture.

Prehistoric stone implements

Paleolithic Period The genus Homo may have first appeared 2.5 million years ago. It is believed that with rise of this genus, hominoids began a more sophisticated tool culture. Many animals have been known to use tools at a very primitive level but the emergence of this new genus, we see remnants of stone flakes. There is controversy for when this genus begins. It is currently believed that there were multiple species in this genus that may have lived simultaneously and interacted. There is also controversy for when Homo sapiens arise and whether Homo sapiens descended from the other species or whether the multiple species represent offshoots from a common ancestor. The earlier Homo sapien appears over 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens lived in families within tribes. In the early stages, the lived as hunters and gatherers. All known human societies possess rich, tool cultures and spoken language. Lifestyles vary with the geography in which they live. For some, the geography was rich enough to allow a sedentary life of hunting and gathering while for others, a nomadic lifestyle was needed to follow herds of animals in their migrations or move to different locations as the seasons changed. It is believed that the first human beings left Africa 70,000 years ago. Why they took so long to leave is not clear. Perhaps the date is wrong and only indicative of the earliest known fossil evidence. What does seem to be clear is that other species of the genus Homo left Africa far earlier than this so when Homo sapiens also left Africa, they may have encountered these other species. Current scientific evidence suggests that these encounters occurred.

Jericho excavation, farming enabled towns and cities

Neolithic Period Not all human societies have embraced farming. For certain geographies, the climate is too extreme and for others, hunting and gathering is enough. It is believed at this time that by this time, Homo sapiens are the only species remaining of the genus Homo.

Despite the connotation of farming representing the beginnings of civilizations, a more objective assessment is that farming represents a significant change in human sociology in the sense that it enables significantly higher human population densities. After all, all known human societies have spoken language, culture, sophisticated tool use, belief systems, traditions, and family units. The neolithic period begins at different times for different places. The earliest evidence for a farming community can be found in Jericho dating around 9500 B.C. It is believed farming began first with wild and domesticated plants and then around 8000 B.C, it includes domesticated animals.

bronze age weapons

Bronze Age The bronze age begins with the use of copper and tin in the metal culture of a human society and ends with the discovery of iron. Not all cultures went through a bronze age distinct from an iron age. Some societies for example went directly from a neolithic society to an iron age society. The earliest known bronze use begins around 3300 BC. Like the neolithic period, different societies passed through a bronze age at different times. The first known domestication of horses began in this period.

Hittite metal sculpture: Hittites were one of the first societies to enter the iron age.

Iron Age The iron age is believed to have begun around 1200 BC. Iron is a harder metal to work with this bronze because its melting point is at a higher temperature. The high point of the iron age is the discovery of steel which is made from iron and carbon.