Origins of Academic Anthropology
Evolutionary biology and academic anthropology emerged in the second half of 19th century from a theory of the origins of
humankind best articulated by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), who hypothesized that humans were linked by a relation of
DESCENT to other species. (Origin of Species, 1859) By comparing the anatomy of humans with the great apes (chimps,
orangutans, gorillas), Darwin also concluded that fossil remains of common ape/human ancestors would be found somewhere in
the present range of the apes, probably Africa. (Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 1871) This APICAL
ANCESTOR (aka LAST COMMON ANCESTOR) of humans and the African apes is famously called the ‘MISSING LINK’
and the search for fossil evidence of this link has been the holy grail of Paleoanthropology and Archeology ever since.
The same year that Darwin published his theory of ape origins of humankind, Edward Tylor (1832-1917) published Primitive
Culture (1871) where he embraced an approach to human cultures suggested by direct analogy with the comparative anatomy
method used by Darwin to create schemes of descent that showed the relationships between different animal and plant species.
Tylor compared human CUSTOMS in different ethnic groups (cultures) in order to show how these groups were linked by ties of
common descent. He placed much emphasis on "survivals" of customs such as CANNIBALISM or MAGIC to reconstruct
progressive stages of human cultural evolution: SAVAGERY> BARBARISM> CIVILIZATION. Tylor also established the term
ANTHROPOLOGY itself when he published a textbook with that one word title in 1881.
At the end of the 19th century, most anthropologists were still recruited ad hoc from other disciplines and anthropology was
mostly an almost recreational armchair philosophizing. But when the psychologist WILLIAM RIVERS of Cambridge University
took part in the multidisciplinary Torres Strait expedition to the South Seas (1898), he eventually applied his GENEALOGICAL
METHOD to the study of color perception, and defined the OBJECT OF STUDY that has been the starting point and frame of
reference for anthropological research ever since: human INSTITUTIONS OF KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE (kinship, marriage,
descent).
Bronislav Malinowski is usually credited with the "invention" of the ethnographic methodology, called PARTICIPANT
OBSERVATION as he practised it in the Trobriand Islands and expressed it in a series of brilliant ethnographies published in the
1920s and 1930s. (Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1922) Largely through Malinowski's example, Anthropology in the period
after World War I evolved from an armchair ETHNOLOGY (comparative work) based on collating travellers’ and missionaries’
reports about exotic peoples into a FIELDWORK oriented discipline based on ETHNOGRAPHY: longterm case studies,
containing "THICK DESCRIPTION" of small communities, encountered face-to-face and investigated in their own languages.
Primatology, ethology and human evolution
PRIMATOLOGY or ETHOLOGY as practised in anthropology is an application of ethnographic field methodology to primate
communities, informed by behavioral and adaptive comparisons across primate species and especially by comparisons of humans
with great ape species. The standard human ETHNOGRAPHY was used in the 1960s as a model for animal behavior case studies
of primates as first suggested by Louis Leakey, based on Darwin's hypothesis that the African apes are man's closest living
relatives. In 1960 Leakey recruited his secretary Jane Goodall (1934-) to study common chimpanzees at Gombe, Tanzania.
(There are two species of chimpanzees still extant: the bonobo or pygmy chimp and the 'common' chimpanzee aka chimp. The
two species diverged only about 2mya) Goodall's longterm field study has greatly modified our ideas about early hominid
ecology, tool use, social structure, and cultural capabilities. (The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, 1986 and
numerous popular works) Before her work, it was common to attribute to humans several UNIQUELY HUMAN CULTURAL
TRAITS, not shared by other primates, Goodall’s observations at Gombe decisively refuted most of these supposed uniquely
human traits:
1. One of the earliest and most famous discoveries that Goodall made was that chimpanzees use a number of different TOOLS;
especially common were wands for termiting and collecting ants, sponges for drinking, and various 'weapons' such as sticks or
stones for aggressive displays. Later work at other sites showed that chimps also used sticks and stones for cracking hardshelled
nuts. Tool use in the wild by bonobo chimps seems to be much rarer than among common chimps.
2. Until Goodall demonstrated otherwise, anthropologists had assumed that only humans hunted, killed and ate other animals for
food. Chimps at Gombe were observed to hunt and eat a variety of animals, including bush pigs, antelopes, baboon infants and
colobus monkeys. The meat of these animals was the focus of intense begging behavior and excited sharing of meat. Hunters
were usually males.
3. By the end of the 1970s, Goodall had also established that both males and females were predators on their own kind,
exhibiting behaviors that in humans would be called MURDER and CANNIBALISM. Males killed and ate both mature and
infant chimpanzees from stranger communities; resident females in Goodall’s home community occasionally killed and ate the
offspring of other coresident females.
4. When her home community split into two rival communities, Goodall was able to observe an episode of ‘genocidal
WARFARE between the two groups, when ‘raiding parties’ from one of them periodically attacked all individuals in the other,
smaller community. This eventually led to the death or disappearance of all of the secessionist males.
5. As the result of the longterm nature of her study, Goodall was able to establish that chimpanzee FEMALES at sexual maturity
usually migrate out of the COMMUNITY into which they were born; MALES on the other hand usually REMAIN IN AND
DEFEND the boundaries of their natal community and tend to make alliances with close relatives (other males related in the male
line of descent, who in humans would be called AGNATES). Goodall found that groups of males would ‘PATROL' the outlying
borders of their territories to attack and sometimes kill isolated individuals from other territories when they encountered them at a
disadvantage. Thus it is possible to conclude from Goodall’s work that chimpanzees have a social system based on territories
defended by ‘BROTHERHOODS of related males (AGNATES), with females circulating between different territories, but
probably somewhat deterred by the tendency of both resident males and females to attack newly transferred females, sometimes
killing them and/or their offspring.
6. A negative result of longterm research at Gombe is the failure to find any behavioral patterns of communication which suggest
communication skills approaching those characteristic of human speech. In spite of intensive work on chimpanzee calls and their
contexts, no indications of even rudimentary ‘spoken language’ has been discovered, which is not to deny great emotional and
mood sensitivity to the chimps as well as a high level of observational intelligence. In fact, it has been claimed that chimpanzees
in captivity can indeed acquire command of grammatical human language (although not in a spoken mode), but the claim is hotly
contested in an extensive and acrimonious literature on the subject.
The longterm case studies of chimpanzee communities undertaken by Goodall and others have implications for explaining
incidences of CANNIBALISM in humans. Consider that:
1. Chimp cannibalism has recurred over many years or even decades in specific local chimp communities.
2. Females at sexual maturity usually transfer to a new community, i.e. there is an "exchange" of females between different
chimp communities, and these junior females must compete with established, senior members (both male and female) of the
community for various resources.
3. Groups of related males (brotherhoods/AGNATES) defend a community territory and the females and offspring within it from
outsiders (strangers are attacked and borders patrolled), and newly arrived individuals may be killed and eaten.
4. Both males and females will kill and eat the young of socially subordinate or marginal females.
5. The film Animal Cannibals explicitly relates cannibalism to 'sociobiological' causes, i.e. the behavior is said to enhance the
individual and inclusive fitness of the perpetrators. Two common types of cannibalism in humans, EXOCANNIBALISM, where
outsiders ("strangers") are on the menu, and ENDOCANNIBALISM, where members of the same community or parts of one's
own body are eaten, may be exemplified by male and female chimp behaviors respectively.
Biosocial anthropology (cultural or behavioral evolution in relations to genetic potential, aka SOCIOBIOLOGY, a term coined
by E.O. Wilson and also the title of his famous biology textbook) may be considered a combination of ETHOLOGY and
GENOMICS. It has focussed on issues of descent relating to human morphological and genetic diversity. With the deepening
understanding of the human genome, GENOMICS has achieved the status of arbiter of phylogenetic relationships among
different living species and subspecies (races). It was indeed a lucky day for biosocial anthropologists when on 08/08/08 the
journal Cell published a report by the group led by Svante Paabo [Svante Pääbo, 1955-] at the Max Planck Institutue on the
complete mtDNA sequencing of a 38kya Neanderthal: "Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the
Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimated of the divergence date between
the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 +/- 140,000 years." Most recently, it has been asserted, and accepted by Paabo, that some
non-African AMH lineages (races) may share from 1-4% of distinctive genetic components with Neanderthals and that H.
sapiens H. neanderthal interbreeding probably occurred 40-60kya when the two species were living in close contact in the Middle
East.
Comparative studies of the human and chimp genomes has been especially fruitful in generating new scenarios of possible
behaviors that may have had important evolutionary significance. For example, in 2006 the so-called HYBRIDIZATION
hypothesis explained the dating disparity between fossil (ARCHEOLOGICAL) evidence and genetic evidence of the humanchimp split as the result of male hybrid sterility in the human line and back-breeding of early "human" females with protochimp
populations. This behavioral scenario of course has implications for hidden ovulation in modern human females, a much
discussed human biological trait very unlike other primates. It is possible that the observed "sexual vigilance" practiced by extant
male chimps in behaviors such as cannibalizing of the offspring of newly transferred females may have created a selection
pressure enhancing the ability of protohuman females to avoid patterns of sequestration so favored by males to establish
"legitimate" or at least credible paternity (in chimps called CONSORTSHIP, in gorillas as in humans resulting in HAREM based
social groups).
Within the last decade or two a new line of investigation into human prehistory has been opened by GENOMICS by studying
species coadapted to humans, for example parasites such as lice, tapeworms and the malaria protozoans. As a case in point, the
genetic differences between body lice and head lice indicate that clothing (at least tight fitting clothing) may have covered the
human form only about 70kya. Comparing the various species of malaria parasites leads to the possibility that early hominids,
unlike chimpanzees, may have enjoyed immunity from malaria for a significant period of time, perhaps contributing to the
evident reproductive success of early humans in comparison to chimps and gorillas.
Core Methodologies of Anthropology
Ethnology = comparative study of topical or functional categories of human customs on analogy with comparative anatomy or
comparative linguistic reconstruction of language families.
Ethnography = a descriptive, longterm case study undertaken in medium of native language in small scale communities
(PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION) resulting in a holistic, functionally integrated account.
Ethology = Ethnology and ethnography applied to nonhuman social systems and animal behavior, especially apes.
Genomics = comparison of DNA sequences to define evolutionary and behavioral relationships within and among the array of
human (hominid) species, both extinct and extant.
Archeology = application of the comparative method to physical remains of humans themselves (aka FOSSILS) or human
interaction with the environment to create scenarios of human cultural patterns and behavior.
Fossil Hominids and the reconstruction of human evolution
Anthropologists have always kept one eye on PALEOANTHROPOLOGY (the reconstruction of the human evolutionary past) in
their observations of living primates, using the COMPARATIVE METHOD to reconstruct scenarios about early human
behavioral ecology. Elementary features of ECOLOGY, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION and CULTURE are compared among
extant living groups in order to reconstruct the evolutions of behaviors in now extinct species. One important question to be
answered is how extinct PALEOSPECIES of hominids are related to modern populations. At the present time, we have possible
fossil hominid remains that reach back five to six million and possibly even seven million years ago. Comparative DNA studies
on living primates have resulted in a MOLECULAR CLOCK which dates the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans
(whose DNA differs by about 1.5%) and thus of the ‘missing link’ in the range of 5-8 mya. Gorillas (whose DNA differs by
about 2%) are thought to have diverged from the Chimpanzee-Human stem some million or so years earlier. Orangutans, the only
extant Asian great ape, are thought to have diverged from the African line approximately 14mya. The various species of gibbons
are somewhat further removed from the ape line of descent leading to humans. A good example of the application of the
GENOMICS methodology in framing a picture of prehistoric human evolution independently of the ARCHEOLOGICAL
evidence is provided by a 2010 publication by population geneticists at the Univ of UT, who used three complete human
genomes to triangulate a population estimate of 18,500 for the breeding population 1.2mya that eventually evolved into the three
different AMH genomes. (NYT 19 Jan 2010).
The first prehistoric FOSSIL human remains were discovered and recognized as such in europe and asia in the second half of the
19th century. The Neanderthal remains found in Germany in the 1850s were already being discussed during Darwin's time and
Java Man (aka Pithecanthropus now usually termed Homo erectus or H. ergaster in Africa; H. ergaster is probably the population
referenced by the Univ UT study cited above) had been unearthed in Indonesia in 1891. Just before WW1 the fraudulent
Piltdown Man fossils had also been 'discovered' in England. Peking Man (aka Sinanthropus, now classified as Homo erectus)
provided far eastern fossils in the 1930s. These Eurasian finds overshadowed Raymond Dart’s 1924 discovery in South Africa of
Australopithecus africanus (a bipedal, small-brained apelike human) and led scholars to discount his argument in favor of early
human origins in Africa. The Piltdown fossils convinced most anthropologists that humans first evolved somewhere in Eurasia
rather than in Africa, in spite of Darwin’s prediction that the “missing” link would prove the close relationship of humans and
living African apes.
In the 1970s there were many new discoveries of very old fossils of potential human ancestors in Africa. The most spectacular
new species was called Australopithecus afarensis, discovered in Ethiopia by Don Johanson et al. ‘Lucy’, the most complete
individual, showed a pelvis and hind limbs demonstrating that true bipedality extended back beyond 3-4mya, twice as early as
previously thought. One fossil discovery after another has proved that the ‘bipedal apes’, aka HOMINIDS or roughly speaking,
the "australopithecines", were a demographically very successful adaptation and that they generally had a high degree of
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, A. afarensis males being larger than females by about 50%. Sexual dimorphism in all
australopithecine species suggests a harem-type social structure, perhaps resembling that of gorillas or hamadryas baboons.
Several species of australopithecines and other bipedal, small brain hominids existed during the period 6-1mya, yet [by
definition] there seems to have been no significant increase in the relative brain size of any of the australopithecines, who
remained essentially bipedal chimpanzees; thus we may call these early humans ‘the third (biped) chimpanzee’, and as
descendants of one or more of those early humans, the same label applies logically to modern humans as well. Fossil remains of
other early hominids have been given different genus names, but we will refer to them under the general and inclusive term of
"AUSTRALOPITHECINES" [australopiths], which in our usage means a "habitually bipedal, small brained ape" and includes a
variety of different genus and species fossil specimens as listed below. Some recent fossil finds (over the last twenty years or so)
that we may view as "australopiths" include:
Australopithecus afarensis see previous paragraph.
Australopithecus africanus Dart’s 1924 discovery in South Africa of the skull and brain cast of the "Taung child" provided the
first clear evidence of early human origins in Africa (see above), but similarly to Sahelanthropus and Orrorin (see below), the
fossil itself required rather extended interpretation in order to classify it as "hominid" [bipedal ape].
Ardipithecus ramidus, dated to approximately 4.3-5.8mya and thus earlier than A. afarensis, may have occupied a forested
environment similar to modern chimps; late 1990s finds by Haile-Selassie and Tim White in Ethiopia include foot bones that
establish the species' bipedality but also their astonishing mode of bipedality which had an opposable big toe like other apes and
unlike other australopithecines and humans (Homo spp). Demographically, the hominid (bipedal) line of descent of the African
apes has been very successful compared to our chimp and gorilla cousins: hundreds and even thousands of australopithecine
individuals are attested in the fossil record, but until very recently no certain remains of chimps have yet been found for the
approximately six million years in which these species have evolved in parallel. This said, perhaps anthropologists are just too
anxious to attribute every fossil find to our own ancestral line rather than our ape cousins.
Kenyanthropus platyops ("flat-faced man of Kenya"), dated to about 3.5 mya, is a discovery of Meave Leakey near Lake
Turkana. This fossil, with its flat face, small cranium, and low brow ridges, emphasizes the "bushy" nature of the early hominid
evolutionary tree; it was contemporary with A. afarensis but quite distinct from it, as indicated by the new genus name.
According to the Leakeys, this species is the best candidate for an ancestor leading directly to the Homo line.
Orrorin tugenensis ("original man of the Tugen Hills") dates back to approximately 6 mya. Announced in 2000 and found in
western Kenya, this hominid had teeth that were more or less intermediate between chimps and later hominids, while the limb
bones suggest climbing as an important adaptation. Like Ardipithecus ramidus, Ororrin seems to have lived in a forested
environment along lakes and streams and seems to have been a competent biped, although the evidence is somewhat indirect.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an almost complete cranium found 2002 in Chad [Central Africa NOT in east or south Africa as
were all previous australopithecines] and dated to 6-7mya. Unfortunately no limb bones were found, so whether it was bipedal or
not is as yet indeterminate, similar to the situation with the Au. africanus Taung child. Its dental features do suggest closer
affinities to humans than apes. Comparative work on the skull published in 2006 finds no good evidence of bipedality and
suggests that it might be an ancestral gorilla. If so, it would join the Pan troglodytes (common chimp) fossil teeth (dated 545kya)
found in 2006 in Kenya as the earliest known fossils of either gorillas or chimpanzees, almost the only ones.
Australipithecus sediba is the 2010 addition to the list of important fossil discoveries from South Africa. A. sediba is considered
an immediate descendant of A. africanus; some consider that it may be a transitional form leading to earliest Homo, but its dating
of about 2-1.75mya presents difficulties for that interpretation. The earliest Homo fossil example is usually considered to date to
about 2.5mya. A. sediba differs from earlier australopithecines in having evolved a number of more efficient locomotor
adaptations.
Paranthopus spp. or "the robust astralopithecines" includes at least two species of australopiths that survived longest, perhaps as
late as 1mya, seemingly in environments closely alongside other evolving hominids who would eventually be classified as in the
genus "Homo" and thus potentially ancestral to ourselves. P. [or Au.] robustus was discovered by Dart's coworker Robert Broom
in South Africa [Paranthropus means 'parallel human'], and P. [Au] boisei was discovered in East Africa's Olduvai Gorge by the
Leakeys after 30 years of frustrating fossil hunting, the first really important fossil hominid found there (1959). These robust
australopiths were highly sexually dimorphic and it is perhaps reasonable to imagine their social and family life as similar to
gorillas but in more open country.
Darwin Vindicated: African Origins of the Missing Link
After WW2 and the exposure of the Piltdown fossils as a hoax, an African origin for the earliest hominids became generally
accepted, ending the long misallocation of effort in seeking early human fossils in eurasia. By the 1970s the basic pattern of
human evolution was recognized as an evolutionary mosaic: 1=bipedalism appeared about 5-7mya (australopithecines,
ardipithecus, orrorin, kenyanthropus and sahelanthropus are all early bipeds older than 4my); 2=stone tools and expansion of the
brain only began around 2.5 mya (cf. Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis); 3=Representative art, evidence of body adornment,
tools of bone, antler and stone with an "esthetic" about them, and a slight reduction in average brainsize are in evidence at the
earliest only after 100kya. These features all probably imply complex spoken language and cognitive processes characteristic
only of modern Homo sapiens or AMH, "anatomically modern humans". Like the type speciment of A. africanus (the Taung
child), the A. sediba type specimen is also a juvenile and thus subject to uncertainties of interpretation. Most perplexing is the
relationship between the Australopithecines and the Ardipithecines: just how many of the hominid fossils we now know to have
proliferated in Africa before 2mya can have actually been in the direct line of descent leading to AMH? ARDI with her unique
stride makes many wonder if she might have more to testify about chimps than Homo.