# Ask me about biological anthropology



## Jabrosky (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm a Biological Anthropology major at the University of California in San Diego. I am interested in human evolution along with physical variation and biological relationships between modern human populations (_Homo sapiens_). I got into this stuff after investigating controversies revolving around the "racial" makeup or population relationships of certain historical civilizations and cultures, though those may not be of interest to this community. However, I figure that I can still use the bio-anthropological knowledge I've accumulated over the years to help people who want to design plausible humanoid races for their fantasy worlds.

Other interests of mine include ancient Egyptian and other African history, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and dinosaur paleontology.


----------



## JCFarnham (Mar 4, 2012)

Something I've always found intriguing is the idea that primates exhibit the majority of the necessary cognitive capability to be considered capable of complex thought and interaction, but some where along the line, for unclear reasons, Homo sapiens made the leap from instinct to complex abstract thought and later organised language. We just don't yet understand why. What makes this more interesting for me is some chimps can be trained to perform better in intelligence tests than most humans could. I can't remember the exactly name of the chimp in question, but he and his kin were, and are, studied extensive by a Japanese scientist (maybe you'll know who I'm on about). 

I'm not entertaining research in this as such, but I was just wondering your thoughts on this "leap of abstraction" simply because I'm interested. Of course, you may not have studied this, though you did say you were interested in human evolution...


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 4, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> Something I've always found intriguing is the idea that primates exhibit the majority of the necessary cognitive capability to be considered capable of complex thought and interaction, but some where along the line, for unclear reasons, Homo sapiens made the leap from instinct to complex abstract thought and later organised language. We just don't yet understand why. What makes this more interesting for me is some chimps can be trained to perform better in intelligence tests than most humans could. I can't remember the exactly name of the chimp in question, but he and his kin were, and are, studied extensive by a Japanese scientist (maybe you'll know who I'm on about).
> 
> I'm not entertaining research in this as such, but I was just wondering your thoughts on this "leap of abstraction" simply because I'm interested. Of course, you may not have studied this, though you did say you were interested in human evolution...



I recall reading in an archaeology class last year a paper arguing cogently that modern humans possess much greater imaginative powers and a greater propensity for novelty than other hominids. The paper's author cited as part of his evidence the Neanderthals, who left behind very little if any art like our own and whose tools are much more homogenous in form across time and space than those of modern humans (suggesting that Neanderthals were less innovative toolmakers than us). In addition to that, I've read another article in a science magazine suggesting that what set modern humans apart from other hominids was greater cognitive flexibility and adaptability, owing perhaps to rapid climate shifts in Africa.

Other studies have shown that humans are better at cooperating and empathizing with others than chimps and other apes, so that would have given us an edge as well.


----------



## Devor (Mar 4, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> Other studies have shown that humans are better at cooperating and empathizing with others than chimps and other apes, so that would have given us an edge as well.



I know all of one thing about the subject, so I'll share that here.

According to a study I read about in HBR, there's a part of the brain which seems to be directly proportional to the maximum size of a community of primates, and it holds true even for humans.  The proportion isn't about your ability to know people, but about your ability to understand how these people relate to each.

For instance, it's not just about my ability to know Sparkie, Reaver and Sidekick, but for me to know that the three of them are friends around here and about how they interact with each other.

It varies for different types of primates, I remember seeing numbers from about 6 to about 15.  But for humans the number is 150 people.  And if you look at history, there's supposed to be a number of places where that exact number comes up as the number where communities like small tribes end up breaking in half.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 5, 2012)

I find research about the fate of the Neanderthals interesting. Whether they died out as a result of an inability to adapt to changes in climate, or were out-competed by Cro-Magnons, or were absorbed into the Cro-Magnon population by inter-breeding (which doesn't seem likely from what I've read).


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 31, 2012)

Sorry for not responding to this in a long time; I was distracted by other things.



Steerpike said:


> I find research about the fate of the Neanderthals interesting. Whether they died out as a result of an inability to adapt to changes in climate, or were out-competed by Cro-Magnons, or were absorbed into the Cro-Magnon population by inter-breeding (which doesn't seem likely from what I've read).



There are reports that non-African modern populations have roughly 4% greater genetic similarity to Neanderthals than Africans do, which _might_ show interbreeding once a subset of modern humans left Africa, but the fact that practically every genetic study before 2010 showed no evidence of interbreeding whatsoever makes me suspicious. I'd say the jury's still out on that question.

Speaking of population genetics and Africans compared to non-Africans, close the very beginning of this year the personal genomics company DNATribes released a report claiming that King Tut and his immediate family were genetically closest to modern "sub-Saharan" African populations, although a couple of mummies did have a much smaller Caucasian component. You can read the report here if you can read .pdf files. It's admittedly not the most rigorous peer-reviewed research, but I don't think it can dismissed it out of hand either; they did test actual genetic data from another publication which _was _peer-reviewed. The biggest issue I see is the small sample size of mummies. Right now it's unclear whether these results say anything about the larger Ancient Egyptian population or simply Tut and his family. Nonetheless, it would be a cool finding if it could be replicated.


----------

