A plethora of controversial subjects and debates emerges in the field of paleoanthropology. The subject of what constitutes a new human species materializes tension within the field. The debates that arise from paleoanthropologist tend to be personal. This results from ambition and lifelong quests for recognition, funding, and fame, can make it difficult for paleoanthropologists to admit when they are wrong (Luskins). Therefore, research released by paleoanthropologist can cause conflict for students, teachers, and fellow specialist. Paleoanthropologist is to expect strife from counterparts, geography, and complication in the analysis of remains as a result of publicizing their data of unknown hominin species. Disagreements surface in regard to the publishing of a paleoanthropologist’s discoveries of new hominid species. According to Luskins, “paleoanthropology is rife with dissent and with few universally accepted theories among its practitioners.” A large quantity of the controversies within paleoanthropology arises from fellow paleoanthropologist. In the midst of the field, each …show more content…
The extensiveness of the research concluded within the field is the result of years of extensive observations. The skeletal remains require constant thorough analyzes to diminish the chances of errors. Misconceptions emerge from the incompetence of the lead researcher, and the lack of an appropriate amount of remains. Hominid fossils usually consist of fragmented bone, which makes it significantly laborious to establish the morphology of the specimens. For instance, without the presence of femurs, the pelvis, and feet, it is immensely difficult to determine if the specimen shows evidence of bipedalism. However, rare cases arise in which fossil 's present well represented specimens and are able to provide an astonishing amount of evidence to support certain physical
The skeleton had a hideous impact to the community and was predicted by local investigators to be reasonably modern. To get better understanding and avoid confusion, a bone sample was sent to a laboratory in the USA for investigation and analysation using series of scientific
Over the last few hundred years, more and more has been added to the world’s fossil collection, fossils from all over the world. New theories have been created and old theories have almost been proven about the evolution of man. For example, we have proof that different species of man existed with certain types of DNA sequences and instincts, some we may not have anymore, or some that other species did not have back then. Even though it is subjected to much debate, one of the most widely accepted theories however, is that Homo sapiens interbred with the slightly more primitive species of man, the Neanderthal.
A study performed by Martin Hausler and Peter Schmid of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, appeared in the October 1995 issue of Journal of Human Evolution, igniting controversy over the 1974 Australopithecus discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia. The most famous of the Hadar specimens is the 3-million-year-old skeleton, “Lucy,” who was recovered by paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson. In his article, Shreeve presents the methods and findings of Hausler and Schmid’s study as well as some counter arguments from other scientists in the field.
The partial remains of a skeleton belonging to a tiny female hominid that lived around 95K to 17Kya, was found in the Liang Bua cave on the island of Flores in Indonesia in 2003. This skeleton has unique traits. It has small body approximately 3’6” in length and an estimated body weight of 66 lbs. The 426 cc brain capacity led scientists to taxa the skeleton to a new species they called Homo floresiensis. Since the initial find, teeth and bones from as many as twelve H. floresiensis remains have been discovered at the Liang Bua cave which is the only known site where H. floresiensis has been found to date. This is the most recently discovered early human species so far. They had large teeth for their small size, they had no chins, their foreheads are receded, and they had relatively large feet in proportion to the short legs. Although they are small in body and brain size, H. floresiensis did make and use of stone tools. They hunted small elephants and large rodents. They had island predators such as giant Komodo dragons, and even may have used fire. However, arguments rising in the anthropology community and scientific world are questioning if the now nick named: “Hobbit”, of Flores Island, is the same species as modern day humans. Are they Homo species, or Homo sapiens with the medical condition called Cretinism? A severe hypothyroidism resulting in physical and mental stunting.
After analyzing the remaining family group, their appeared to be a difference in size among the discovered fossils. Johanson claimed that all the remains found belonged to one species; however, other anthropologists and scientists disagreed and believed that two or more were from different species. The analysis of Lucy’s knee joint indicated that cranium, mandible, dentation and postcranial skeleton contained unique characterizes, which resembled in a large degree the ones in a human being, and also indicated bipedal locomotion. After analyzing the remaining family group, their appeared to be a difference in size among the discovered fossils. Johanson claimed that all the remains found belonged to one species; however, other anthropologists and scientists disagreed and believed that two or more were from different
How are deserts, dinosaurs, and rocks similar? These are all things that a paleontologist can work with. This is a job that should be for people who want to because then they will work harder, and it can help them with doing other jobs by always doing their absolute best to complete that task and complete it well. Every job also has it’s pros and cons, and everyone has their own opinion on why it is a good job. To help their decision there are facts that can help them choose if it is a good job for them.
The implementation of the NAGPRA has provoked a ranging conflict in interest between two groups, the scientists on one hand and the Native American tribes on the other. As expressed by Burt, scientists have held that the skeletal remains are a source of information that helps in relating the early and the new world (304). They argue that understanding the human evolution is beneficial to the modern communities as they are able to appreciate their history and origin. Conversely, the Native American tribes are of the views that preserving human remains prevents their spirits from resting. Unrest of the spirits may bring misfortune on the current and future generations. In terms of learning their history, the Native Americans bel...
Robbins Burling, David F. Armstrong, Ben G. Blount, Catherine A. Callaghan, Mary Lecron Foster, Barbara J. King, Sue Taylor Parker, Osamu Sakura, William C. Stokoe, Ron Wallace, Joel Wallman, A. Whiten, Sherman Wilcox and Thomas Wynn. Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 25-53
In recent years, the Homo Neanderthalensis were viewed as “subhuman brutes”, but are now seen as a different species from our own (Balter 2001). The Neanderthals were a branch of the Homo genus that evolved in Eurasia at least 200,000 years ago (Fagan 2010). The first Neand...
The species A. afarensis is one of the better known australopithecines, with regards to the number of samples attributed to the species. From speculations about their close relatives, the gorilla and chimpanzee, A. afarensis’ probable social structure can be presumed. The species was named by Johanson and Taieb in 1973. This discovery of a skeleton lead to a heated debate over the validity of the species. The species eventually was accepted by most researchers as a new species of australopithecine and a likely candidate for a human ancestor.
From the ancient bones of the Neanderthals, scientists have been able to extract small amounts of DNA. The DNA comparisons to modern humans show no relationship, implying evolutionary separation (Kunzig, 159). Some anthropologists say the small sections of DNA found are not conclusive evidence, because modern humans show just as much variation in DNA. These people point out that individuals such as the “Portugal Kid” are hybrids of Neanderthals and modern humans, showing there was gene trading. One argument against this is that there is no skull from the ‘Portugal Kid” so it is hard to compare it to Neanderthals. Also, it is known that closely related species can breed and their offspring can be fertile, but they are still separate species (Kunzig, 161).
Therefore, it’s difficult to start a conversation between geologists, archaeologists and historians. It’s vital to narrow the research prospects in these fields but also I think there needs to be more scientific discourse between different fields that affect each other in one way or another. The human historical paradigm is grounded in the research of archaeology. However, Hancock debates that the field of geology has more to teach humans about our history than we think. He debates that around 15,000 to 8,000 BC, during the last ice age, an unprecedented world-wide cataclysm was overlooked that led to the extinction of countless species, including the megafauna (Hancock
Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for well over 100,000 years. Then suddenly Homo neandertalensis began to die out and surrender the earth to Homo sapiens. Paleontologists and anthropologists have entertained several possibilities to the causes of this event: interbreeding among Neanderthals and humans, competition for natural resources, and Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest.” What the real cause has been has plagued scientists for years. Now, due to an international research team from Germany, those possibilities have been even further deduced, making it easier to pinpoint the exact reason Homo neandertalensis became extinct.
Paleoanthropology: Pliocene and Pleistocene Human Evolution. Paleobiology, 7:3:298-305. Frayer, David W. and Milford Walpoff 1985 Sexual Dimorphism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14:429-473 Key, Catherine A. 2000 The Evolution of Human Life History.
The increase in brain size may be related to changes in hominine behavior (See figure 3). The third major trend in hominine development is the gradual decrease in the size of the face and teeth. According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia ’98, the fossil evidence for direct ancestors of modern humans is divided into the category Australopithecus and Homo, and begins about 5 million years ago (See figure 1). Between 7 and 20 million years ago, primitive apelike animals were widely distributed on the African and, later, on the Eurasian continents (See figure 2). Although many fossil bones and teeth have been found, the way of life of these creatures, and their evolutionary relationships to the living apes and humans, remain matters of active discussion among scientists.