72

CHAPTER 3

SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS RELEVANCE

ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS BRANCHES

―Anthropology is the scientific study of the physical, social and cultural

development and behaviour of human beings since their appearance on this

earth48‖. The word Anthropology has been derived from two Greek words,

anthrops (man) and logus (study or science). Anthropology is, thus, the

Science of man. This etymological meaning, of course, is too broad and

general. More precisely it may be called ―the Science of man his works and

behaviour.‖Anthropologists are interested in all aspects of the human species

and human behaviour, in all places and at all times, from the origin and

evolution of the species through its prehistoric civilizations, down to the

present situation. Anthropologists study human behaviour not concerned with

particular men as such, but with men in ‗groups,‘ with races and peoples and

their happenings or doings. So Anthropology may be defined briefly as the

―science of groups of men and their behaviour and productions.‖ This will
48
Sharma R.N., Social and Cultural Anthropology, Surjeet Publications, Delhi, 2003,.P. 1
 73

include any findings on the total human species, since this constitutes an

aggregate of races or peoples, or a sort of super-group or total society.

Anthropology studies man and his contemporary society, his past, and also his

sub-human and pre-human origins, it studies main irrespective of whether he is

primitive or civilized. Thus, it studies man at all levels of culture49.

Anthropology is, thus, the study of emergence and development of man

from physical, cultural and social points of view. Since it studies the physical

emergence of man, the roots of Anthropology as a Science may be found in the

natural sciences like Biology, Zoology, etc. The Physical Anthropologists of

the 19th century mainly concentrated in studying the biological evolution of

man. Charles Darwin‘s (1809-1882) early research is typical example of this

approach. During his five-year voyage around the world (from 1831 to1836),

he gathered the information about animal varieties which ultimately enabled

him to put together his idea about evolution. The social and cultural

Anthropologists include a broad range of approaches derived from the social

sciences like Sociology, Psychology, Human-geography, Economics, History,

Political science, etc. Anthropology is, thus, able to relate all of these

49
Makhan jha, An Introduction to Social Anthropology, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi 1994, P.1
 74

disciplines to its quest for an understanding of human behaviour, and draws

upon all of them to interpret the way in which all biological and social factors

enter to depict the man‘s culture and behaviour in totality.50Anthropology, the

study of humankind everywhere, throughout time, seeks to produce reliable

knowledge about people and their behaviour, both about what makes them

different and what they all share in common. Anthropologists, in common with

other scientists, are concerned with the formulation and testing of hypothesis,

or tentative explanations of observed phenomena. In so doing, they hope to

develop reliable theories- explanations supported by bodies of data- although

they recognize that no theory is ever completely beyond challenge.51

Anthropology has been divided into two main branches: Physical

Anthropology and Cultural Anthropology. These two main branches have been

again subdivided into several other branches.

Anthropology

(1) Physical Anthropology (2) Cultural Anthropology

(1.1) Human Genetics (2.1) Prehistoric Anthropology

50
ibid, 1994, PP. 2,3.
51
Anthropology and the Study of Culture, P.5
 75

(1.2) Human Paleontology (2.3) Social Anthropology

(1.3) Ethnology

(1.4) Anthropometry

(1.4) Biometry

Physical Anthropology studies human body, Genetics and the status of

man among living beings. The study of races requires the study of human

Genetics. (1.1) Human Genetics is the branch of physical anthropology also

studies the genesis of man. (1.2) HumanPaleontology studies the old human

skeletons of different stages. It also studies the history of earth evolution. (1.3)

Ethnology studies human races. It is a comparative study of the races and

cultures of mankind in their different aspects. Ethnology classifies human

races and studies their physical characteristics. (1.4) Anthropometry may be

defined as the measurement of man. It decided certain traits by the

measurement of which human races may be classified. Anthropometry again

has been classified into two branches, study of the physical structures of living

human beings and study of human fossils. (1.4) Biometry is the statistical

analysis of biological studies specially was applied to such areas as disease,

 76

birth, growth, and death. Thus Biometry is the statistical study of biological

characteristics.

Cultural Anthropology, as is clear by the nomenclature, studies human

cultures. In order to carry on his personal and social life man invents some sort

of system, develops and establishes it. This total system is culture. Culture is

the learned portion of human behaviour. Each society has its own culture

which embodies social experience of ages. Thus culture is embedded in

society. Culture, however, transcends the individual. It controls individual‘s

behaviour and moulds it. It includes customs and traditions, social

organization, procedures of activities, moral fabric, system of values, science,

art, religion, literature and all that man has developed through experience of

ages. In brief, it is the total way of living. It studies human customs, mores,

traditions, social life, religion, art, science, literature and economic and

political organization. (2.1 Archaeology or Prehistory primarily deals with

ancient cultures and with past phases of modern civilization. It attempts to

reconstruct the cultural forms of the past and to trace their growth and

development to Anthropology. It also helps in reconstruction of the social,

economic and political organizations of these cultures. It records cultural

 77

success of a particular era and also area of its expansion. (2.2) Social

Anthropology is the study of social behaviour especially from the point of

view of the systematic comparative study of the social forms and institutions.

SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Social Anthropology is an important branch of Anthropology. Social

Anthropology is social. This meaning of the word ‗social‘ is enough to show

how the field and viewpoint of Social Anthropology is different from other

branches of Anthropology.

Definitions of Social Anthropology

1. Piddington: Social Anthropologists study cultures of contemporary

primitive communities. This definition of Social Anthropology is a bit narrow

because Anthropology does, not only study primitive cultures but studies

contemporary cultures also.

2. S.C. Dubey: Social Anthropology is that part of Cultural

Anthropology which devotes its primary attention to the study of social

structure and religion rather than material aspects of culture. It is clear that
 78

Social Anthropology studies the different aspects of social structure such as

social institutions, social relations and social events etc.

3. Penniman: That part of Cultural Anthropology which treats of social

phenomena is called Social Anthropology

4. M.N.Srinivas: It is a primitive study of human societies, primitive,

civilized and historic.

5. Charles Winick: Social Anthropology is the study of social behavior,

especially from the point of view of the systematic comparative study of social

forms and institutions.

Scope of Social Anthropology

In Social Anthropology, study the various comparative components of

social system, their organization, function, etc. the social systems are the

interdependent activities, institutions, and values by which people live and it is

the job of Social Anthropologists to identify these components of social

systems. Various theories and concepts have been developed of Social

Anthropology to the trichotomatic view points, viz., of the social structure, the
 79

social organization and the social function. The main branches of Social

Anthropology are:-

1. Ethnography

2. Familial Anthropology

3. Economic Anthropology

4. Political Anthropology

5. Symbology and Linguistics

6. Thought and Art

Ethnography is the main field of Social Anthropology, it studies the

human races. Its scope also includes the study of cultures of different races.

Familial Anthropology takes up a comparative study of the families of

different cultures and societies. It studies the different forms of family along

with its progress. Family is the basic institution of society. Social

Anthropology, therefore, studies the family also. A family is based on

marriage. So Familial Anthropology includes a study of different forms of

marriage. It includes other blood relations along with marriage. Economic

 80

Anthropology is the branch of Social Anthropology. Economic rules play an

important part in social organization. Some radical changes take place in social

structure along with a change in economic administration. Social

Anthropology, minutely studies the economic administration of primitive and

civilized human societies and of different levels of evolution in them. Political

Anthropology has also an important place in social structure along with

economic administration. Social Anthropology, studies all types of political

administration, laws, governments and rules of punishment, etc. Symbology

and linguistics study the different symbols of human behaviour which are

current in languages of different societies, supplies many important facts for

the study of society. So Social Anthropology, studies all these also. The whole

linguistic field falls within this branch of Social Anthropology. The main

branches of Linguistics are

(i) Descriptive Linguistics: It studies the individual and regional

languages.

(ii) Historical Linguistics : It is historical study of languages.

(iii) Comparative Linguistics: It studies the comparative facts about

language.
 81

(iv) Common Linguistics : It studies the difference between the

minimum and maximum roots of some

languages.

Thought and Art is the study of thoughts in theoretical study is very

important. Thought includes religion, magic science and even legends. Social

Anthropology is a comparative study of all these things in ancient human

societies. Art is an important part of culture and culture depicts the interior of a

society. Social Anthropology studies sculpture, metallurgy, and dancing and

instrumental and vocal music.

V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a is a literary source. It depicts different culture, social

structure, political administration, thought and art, history of ancient society

(R¡m¡ya¸ic era), the different forms of family and their culture and society,

different marriage forms, economic rules for social organization and economic

administration in different races such as Asura, R¡kÀasa, and V¡nara. So

Social Anthropology should help to the study of races mentioned in

V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a. The branches of Social Anthropology help to analyse the

different social life style, family systems, and political systems of different
 82

races in V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a. V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a is k¡vya, or literary work or

contain some myth or creating imagination or mental reflection by the poet. In

every society many imaginary stories circulate in connection with the famous

and great persons of particular areas or of the society as a whole. These stories

do not do much in the way of providing any useful knowledge about the

persons whom they concern but they do, to a considerable extent, reflect the

beliefs and values of the people concerning them. In this way, myths do not

present factual knowledge but they rather represent the fundamental beliefs of

a particular group. So Myth has some social functions, it represents the

fundamental beliefs, convictions and values of group. Myth is not identical

with legends. They possess greater degree of truth than the legends. Legends

are a form of social Myths that are related to some heroes and incidents. Both

are part of the cultural heritage, and both help to maintain the community of

the cultural life of society. But Social Anthropology as a Science, it helps to

know the fact. Science is the way of investigation. Scientific method is a

systematic study of subject matter within a limited scope. Science is a study of

facts. It discovers real truths. Its subject matter is not ideal but factual. It

discovers the relations of cause and effect in its subject matter and presents a
 83

universal and verified rule in the same connection. Science can predict on the

subject of cause- effect relationship on the basis of universal and verified rule.

It is on this belief in cause-effect that the foundation of science stands.

Scientist knows that ‗what will be‘ can be decided on the basis of ‗what

is‘because the law of cause- effect is universal and unchanging52. So the

Science, Myth and literary source are interconnected and they are joined

together to create or find new things.

Social Anthropology as a Science

Social Anthropology possesses all the essential elements of Science.

1. Social Anthropology Makes Use of Scientific Method: All methods

of Social Anthropology are scientific. They make use of scientific techniques

like schedule, participant observation, historical procedure and case history,

they gather facts through observation. Then they are recorded in an orderly

form, common principles are made on the basis of accepted facts. The validity

of these principles is examined.

52
Sharma R.N.,op.cit, PP. 8, 9.
 84

2. Social Anthropology is Factual: Social Anthropology is a

comparative study of the facts about social events, relations and reactions.

Participant observation is its main method. In this method an Anthropologist

goes to live among those people whom he has to study. Thus this study is in

accordance with facts.

3. The Principles of Social Anthropology are Universal: The rules of

Social Anthropology are proved in all countries so long as the circumstances

are the same; there is no chance of an exception in them.

4. The Principles of Social Anthropology are Veridical: the principles

of Social Anthropology always prove true on verification and even on re-

verification. Their validity can be verified by anybody and at any time.

5. Social Anthropology Defines Cause- Effect Relations: Social

Anthropology discovers cause-effect relations in social facts, events and

relations, etc. the comparative study of various cultures tells about life study to

be found in a particular culture and the extent to which the life styles undergo a

change with culture changes. Thus, Social Anthropology answers ‗what‘ along

with ‗how‘.
 85

6. Social Anthropology can Predict: on the basis of cause-effect

relationship, Social Anthropologist can guess the future and can predict about

social relations and events, an Anthropologist can decide ‗what will be‘ on the

basis of ‗what is‘ after knowing the cause-effect relations.

Observing cultural change, Scientist predict about a change of life

pattern. It is clear from the discussion that Social Anthropology is a Science. It

contains an abstract form of thoughts. Scientific study is possible only through

abstract forms. The rules of these abstract forms decide the reactions of

concrete things. The rules of Social Anthropology are universal and veridical

in practical shape. Social Anthropology has brought revolutionary changes in

the notions of Psychologists, Sociologists, Politicians and Social reformers. It

has given a hope for organization of human society in future and has presented

useful suggestions to decide pattern of its organization.

Aim of Social Anthropology

The primary aim of Social Anthropology is to gather information about

human nature. Social Anthropology is the study of the process and results of

cultural contacts. Most of the primitive societies are gradually coming in

 86

contact of more developed cultures. This contact is gradually creating social,

religious, economic and political problems and disorganization. The

administration and the social planners require the help of Social

Anthropologists in the understanding of process and consequences of cultural

contacts. The aim of Social Anthropology is the study of primitive culture in

its present form, cultural contact and specific process, reconstruction of Social

History, search for universally valid social laws. Thus the chief aim of Social

Anthropology is to study human society, social institutions, culture, and

kinship bonds in their most elementary form. Besides being useful for the

understanding of present day human societies, it aids to our knowledge of

human history as well as the nature of social institutions. It is hence that Social

Anthropology is closely related to History and Archaeology.

UTILITY OF THE STUDY OF PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

The primary object of Social Anthropology is to understand primitive

people, the cultures they have created and the social systems in which they live

and act. Thus Social Anthropology primarily concentrates on the study of

primitive societies. Characteristics of primitive societies are (1) The primary

 87

trait of primitive societies is illiteracy and the absence of writing or literature.

(2) The primitive societies have social organization based upon small groups

such as clans, tribes or totems, etc. (3) The technological level of development

is very low. (4) The social relationships based upon locality and blood

relationships are the most important. (5) There is generally an absence of

economic specialization and too much division of labour. Another important

reason for the study of primitive societies is their utility in the understanding of

more civilized societies. Firstly, this is due to the primary nature of primitive

societies and secondly, due to the simple and small human societies led to the

understanding of more complex societies. The primitive societies are fast

changing in the present day world, due to culture contact. Their originality is

disappearing rapidly. So the study of social institutions like family and

marriage in primitive societies give us a better insight into their complex form

in civilized societies.

CONCEPTS OF SOCEITY AND CULTURE

Social Anthropology has the various relative mechanisms of social

system, their structure, their organization, function, etc. The social systems are
 88

the interdependent activities and institutions. Various theories and concepts

have been developed of Social Anthropology to the trichotomatic viewpoints

of the social structure, the social organization and the social function. The

elements of social structures include the patterns of kinship, descent, and

affiliation, techno- economic system and the politico- legal system. A.R.

Racliffe Brown (1881-1955) pointed out that the components of social

structure are human beings, the structure itself being an arrangement of

persons in relationships institutionally defined and regulated. Social structure

is empirical reality. It is dealt with by description, by analysis and by

comparative studies in Social Anthropology.53

SOCIAL ORGANISATION

The term social organization is often used as synonym for social

structure. Human social organization is a process that brings about the ordering

of social activities as a result of ongoing decisions-making by the members of

a society. Human beings are not the only social animals, they are also the

people whose social life pervasively depends on share, learned cultural

53
Makhanjha, op.cit.P.19.
 89

traditions. It is the study of arrangement of activities of humanbeings of a

given society at a specific time and period. Social structure and social

organization are, as a matter of fact, the two sides of the same coin.

Community and Society

In Social Anthropology the study of community is very important. It is

said that the community is as the pillars of ancient society. People were

divided into different communities and share joint responsibilities. The term

‗community‘ is however, used with much freedom by Sociologists to

characterize a wide range of groups whose members share a sense of identity,

specific interest, values and a role of definitions with respect to others.

Communities have their distinct territorial boundaries. These physical

boundaries express their social boundedness as well. In such community the

people share a common economic resource base. Equality of wealth is

expected and inequality is viewed with fear and suspicion as a threat to the

equilibrium of the community.

 90

Society

The term society like many other terms used by Anthropologists derives

from common usage and consequently is variously defined by different

scholars. Zinsberg says a society is a collected works of folks combined by

certain relation or modes of the behaviour which mark them from others who

do not come into these associations or who do not enter these relations or who

differ from them in behaviour. W.Green says that a society is the largest group

to which any individual belongs. A society is made up of a population,

organization, time, and place and interest. According to Maciver, society is

system of usages and procedures, power and mutual support of numerous

groupings and divisions, and the control of human behaviour and of liberties.

This ever-changing complex system is called society. It is the web of social

relationship.

Characteristics of Society

a) Society is a net work relationship

b) It is based on social- interactions

 91

c) There is a sense of mutual awareness among the members of the

society.

d) Society exists only there where social beings behave.

e) Finally, society is a complex form of individuals in which both are

interdependent on each other. Without individuals are cannot imagine a

society or vice versa.

All known human societies have standard ways of doing things which

consist of three major components; norms serving as goals and as guidelines

for behaviour, roles constituted norms, and pattern behaviour attached to the

norms and roles. Behaviour, which is standardized in this manner, is called

institutionalized behaviour, and the whole system of standardization of a

behavioural pattern, is called an institution. These concepts appeared to require

multiplicities of persons to be engaged in the standard ways of doing things;

that the actions involved are determined by inter-dependent norms linked

together and embedded in roles; and that there occur different roles or role sets

in complimentary relationships.54

54
ibid, ,P.26
 92

ANTHROPOLOGY OF CASTE

According to Sarat Chandra Roy, the father of Indian Ethnography

(1871-1942), Indian Ethnograpger, the First Indian Anthropologist opinion

that ancient books namely the Pur¡¸as, Samhitas, Dharma¿¡stras, and G¤hya

s£tras as well as the great Epics held a rich treasure house of data for Social

Anthropology. According to Roy, the Pur¡¸as combine in them History,

Cultural Anthropology and ethics. The Samhitas and g¤hya s£tras describe the

various social regulations and customs prevalent in various localities and

communities in India and by arranging, classifying and correlating them,

delineated contemporaneous Hindu society as it was governed by a system of

socio- religious and religio- legal rules suited to different levels of culture in

the land. The Pur¡¸ic literature has been styled on Ithih¡sa, Pur¡¸as or History

and tradition. The tradition is in ltself an important subject matter for

Anthropologists and as such it could not be neglected by them. Roy‘s days

dealt with the activities of kings and courts, but it could not reveal a complete

picture of life of the society. The style of daily life of men and women

organized in society and their economic and social aspirations and activities

from the real life of community are the aspect that the Anthropologists seek to
 93

understand. Roy realized that Anthropology is not only a study of the quaint

and exotic manners and customs of the primitive tribes. Anthropology did not

study only primitive man, but the broad subject matter of Anthropology of the

entire life of mankind. Primitive society exhibits the ground plan on which the

more complex structure, which calls civilization, has been built up. Caste

system, as it operates in India, is unique, and although certain elements of

caste may be seen outside the Indian sub-continent, the complexity is a

peculiarly Indian phenomenon. The constant interaction between people

belonging to diverse ethnic elements and culture areas must have had a bearing

on the making of the caste system in India.55

Caste and Race

Caste is a different social institution. Its membership is determined by

birth. One, who is born as a Brahmin, belongs to the Brahmin caste. In the

same way, one who is born as a Negroid is a member of the Negro race. So,

birth determines membership of race and caste. But then, the difference

emerges about the physical characteristics. When a person is born as a

Caucasian, have some genetic traits such as stature or bodily height, nasal
55
Upadhyay.V.S., Gaya Pandey, History of Anthropological Thought, Concept Publishing Company, Newdelhi, P. 405.
 94

index, etc. on the other hand, when a person is born in the Brahmin caste, does

not inherit any caste or racial traits like the whites. There is no physical

difference between a Brahmin, a Rajput and for that matter a Chamar. So the

caste and race, therefore, though determined by birth, belong to different

categories. Most of the castes in India trace their origin to the primary stock of

Caucasoid or its sub- species. The differences among the castes are thus not

racial ones. They are ethnic and socio- cultural. Despite the fundamental

differences between race and caste, these two groups have created a war- like

situation in the world.56

MYTH AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Myth owes their origin to the beliefs and ideals that are associated with

leaders, patriots, national heroes, institutions and individuals. The cultural

heritage includes all those elements of culture that a man receives from

tradition. The Myth is handed down from one generation to another and the

examples set by them guide the people in their day-to-day business of life.

Hence, despite their admittedly imaginative and unrealistic character Myths

are very important. Every particular society evolves in a definite and unique
56
Doshi.S.L., Jain P.C., Social Anthropology, P.105.
 95

geographic environment. And the people tend easily to generalize upon the

experience that they acquire when they come into contact with nature. In every

society all kinds of proverbs are also circulating, having originated in the

observations of the behaviour of various kinds of individuals, animals, and

races. This is also equally true of India, just as much as it is true of any society

in the world. In India many of the proverbs and Myths originate in the peculiar

social system that prevailed here some hundreds of years ago.

In every society many imaginary stories circulate in connection with the

famous and great persons of particular areas or of the society as a whole. These

stories do not much in the way of providing any useful knowledge about the

persons whom they concern but they do, to a considerable extent, reflect the

beliefs and values of the people concerning them. In this way, Myths do not

present factual knowledge but they rather present the fundamental beliefs of a

particular group. Myths represent the fundamental beliefs, convictions and

values of group. Evidently then, Myths are very important part of the social

and cultural heritage. These Myths pass to the individual from his family and

society. In the family, the older members communicate these Myths to their

younger generation in the form of stories. And in times of crises the people
 96

have recourse to these Myths which guide their conduct. In their passage

through time the form of the Myths is modified considerably. The fact is that

various Myths arise out of different social conditions and express the religious

and cultural beliefs of the society.

Myths are not identical with legends. They possess greater degree of

truth than the legends. Legends are a social form of social Myths that the

related to some heroes and incidents. Both are part of the cultural heritage, and

both help to maintain the continuity of the cultural life of society. Myths are

unique, interesting and even shocking. According to Malinowski, in his book,

Myths in Primitive Psychology, the famous Anthologist says they directly

express the object to which they relate. Because these Myths pass from one

generation to another they are only too likely to be distorted and modified

during this transition. According C. Kluckhohn‘ has written, Myths and rituals

jointly provide systematic protection against supernatural dangers, the threats

of ill health and of the physical environment, anti- social tensions and the

pressure of a powerful society.57

57
Sharma R.N., op.cit. P. 257.
 97

Social Functions of Myth

Myth makes social- cultural reality stable, predictable and capable of

being endured. The Myth performs the further function of maintaining the

relationship between the past, present and the future. Myths also help to

achieve a certain degree of synthesis in the social environment. They induce

the feeling of security and ascertain one‘s beliefs. They are also good

introduction to culture. They determine the social values that serve to maintain

the social control. They also serve to boost one‘s morale at times in one‘s life

that tries the soul to the utmost. As these Myths are often related to the great

people in one‘s society they are also an additional source of knowledge

concerning these great figures. Through the influence that they wield upon the

children, they maintain the necessary degree of social control. And these

children upon growing up do not experience any burden in bearing the control

that the society exercises upon them.

 98

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETIES

Marriage may be defined as a publicly recognized and culturally

sanctioned union between a male and female. Definitions of marriage that

depend on a specific social function such as the legitimating of children cannot

hold universally, because for any given function at last a few societies can be

found that do not include it in marriage. Child rearing, economic partnership

between husband and wife, and the formation of alliances between kin groups,

are characteristic of marriage in many societies. A number of Anthropologists

have struggled to formulate a definition of marriage that would apply to all

human societies. The definitions of marriage throw light on various criteria

that are required to constitute a marriage. The evolutionists emphasized that

marriage is a ritually recognized union between a man and a woman, that the

spouses live together and that the couple have clearly recognized mutual

sexual rights. This definition cannot be applied to all societies because there is

some society‘s in which the couples do not live under the same roof and there

are several societies in which the spouses are permitted to have extra- marital

relations.
 99

Murdock, an Anthropologist, defines marriage as a universal institution

that involves residential, co-habitation, economic co-operation and formation

of the nuclear family. Modern definitions of marriage have undergone a great

deal of re-thinking. William N. Stephens defines marriage as a socially

legitimate sexual union, begun with public pronouncement, undertaken with

the idea of permanence, assumed with more economic obligations between

spouses, and their future children. This definition also falls short of many facts

occurring in several human societies. In many societies here high divorce rate

exists, the idea of permanent relationship between woman and her husband

does not exist. In a few societies the union of man and a woman does not

involve any marriage contract. Thus the above definition is hard to match

against all human societies. It is difficult to arrive at a definition of marriage

that will satisfy all situations in all societies.

R¡m¡ya¸a has many types of marriage systems occurring and that are

R¡ma and S¢t¡ in KÀatriya, LakÀma¸a and Írmil¡ etc. Similarly in the V¡nara

and R¡kÀasa race have many types of marriage systems and family life and

social set up. This will help to realize the social and family life of primitive

society.
 100

Kinship System

Kinship system is a part of social structure. It includes definite social

groups in which the most important is the domestic family. The domestic

families may be of different forms, sizes, and observing different manners of

life. Besides the domestic family the kinship systems include unilinear groups

of kindered- lineage groups, clans and moieties. The domestic families may be

of different forms, sizes, and observing most fundamental characteristics of

kinship system, which is the dyadic relation between person and person in

community. An important part of kinship system is the ancestor worship. It

effects the relations of living persons to one another. Kinship system includes

the term used in the society in addressing or referring to relatives. It also

includes the ideas of the people about kinship system.

Anthropology is comparatively young discipline. The idea that it is

impossible to account for human behaviour scientifically, either because our

actions and beliefs are too individualistic and complex or because human

beings are understandable only in other worldly terms is a self-fulfilling

notion. Anthropology is useful, then, to the degree that it contributes to our

 101

understanding of human beings everywhere. Anthropology realizes that many

differences between peoples are products of physical and cultural adaptations

to different environments. Physical differences, too, may be seen as result of

adaptations to the environment. For example, in our society admire people who

are tall and slim. If these same individuals were forced to live above the Arctic

Circle, however, they might wish they could trade their tall, slim bodies for

short, compact ones, because stocky physiques conserve body heat more

effectively and may therefore be more adaptive in cold climates. Exposure to

Anthropology might help to alleviate some of the misunderstandings that arise

between people of different cultures have different conceptions of the gestures

and interpersonal distances that are appropriate under various circumstances.

Knowing something about our evolutionary past may help us to understand

and accept our place in the biological world. Just as for any other form of life,

there is no guarantee that any particular human population, or even the entire

human species, will perpetuate itself indefinitely. The earth changes, the

environment changes, and humanity itself changes. What survives and

flourishes in the present might not do in the future.

 102

Anthropology is literally the study of human beings. It differs from

other disciplines concerned with people in that it is broader in scope. It is

concerned with humans in all places of the world, and it traces human

evolution and cultural development from millions of years ago to the present

day. The distinguishing feature of Anthropology is its holistic approach to the

study of human beings. Anthropologists study not only all varieties of people

but also all aspects of those people‘s experiences. They are concerned with

identifying and explaining typical characteristics such as traits, customs of

particular human populations. People apply anthropological knowledge to

achieve more practical goals, usually in the service of an agency outside the

traditional academic settings. Anthropology may help people to be more

tolerant. Anthropological studies can show us why other people are the way

they are, both culturally and physically. Customs or actions that appear

improper or offensive to us may be other people‘s adaptations to particular

environmental and social conditions. Human beings and their cultures have

changed considerably over the course of history. Human populations have

often been able to adapt to changing circumstances. Anthropology is also

valuable in that knowledge of our past may bring us both a feeling of humility
 103

and a sense of accomplishment. The knowledge of our achievements in the

past may give us confidence in our ability to solve the problems of the future.58

HUMAN ANCESTORS

Genetics, Biochemistry, and Anatomy studies confirm that

Chimpanzees and Gorillas are the closest living relatives. At the genetic level,

humans and Chimpanzees are at least 98% identical, so it is estimated that the

evolutionary lines must have separated from a common ancestral stock some

where between 5.5 - 8 mya. In addition fossils tell humans were going their

separate evolutionary way by at least 4.4 mya.

The Hominines

Fossils of hominids
Hominine is a sub family of primates that includes humans and near
hominids
humans. They are represented by fossils from East Africa that go back 5.6 to

58
Carol. R., Ember, Melvin Ember, Peter.N., Peregrine, Anthropology 10th edition, Person Education Asia, 2002.
 104

5.8 million years. The modern Chimpanzee, it is more like Chimpanzee and its

features than any other hominines, it walked in a fully human manner, that is,

bipedally. Unlike other early hominines, Ardipithecus lived in a woodland

environment, so it may represent an aberrant side branch of human evolution.

All others inhabited more open country and are assigned to one or another

species of the genus Australopithecus. Australopithecus are the earliest well-

known hominine, which lived between 1million and 4.2 million, if not 5.6

million, years ago and includes several species. None of these early Hominines

were as large as most modern people, although all were more muscular for

their size. The structure and size of the teeth are more like those of modern

people than those of Apes, and the condition of the molars indicates food was

chewed in hominine fashion: that is, with a grinding motion, rather than simple

up and down movement of the jaws. Unlike the Apes, no gap exists between

the canines and the teeth next to them on the lower jaw, except in some of the

earliest Hominines. These retain some other Ape like features, but otherwise

Australopithecine jaws are very similar to those of early Homo. The brain

body ratio, which permits a rough estimate of Australopithecine intelligence,

suggests this was comparable to that of modern Chimpanzees or Gorillas.

Moreover, the outside appearance of the brain is more Ape like than human,

suggesting that cerebral organization toward a human condition had not yet
 105

occurred. Australopithecine fossils also have provided Anthropology with two

striking facts. First, by at least 4.4 mya, this Hominine was fully bipedal,

walking erect. Second, Hominines acquired their erect bipedal posture long

before they acquired their highly developed and enlarge brain. Bipedalism was

an important adaptive feature in the savanna environment.

Homo Habilis

Homo habilis means handy man, were evolving in a more human

direction. It is significant that the earliest fossils to exhibit this trend appeared

by 2.4 mya, after the earliest evidence of stone tool making and increased meat

consumption. The significance of stone tool making and meat eating for future

human evolution was enormous. Eating meat in addition to vegetable foods

ensured that a reliable source of high- quality nutrition would be available to

support a more highly developed brain. From fossils found in South Africa,
 106

Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia, it is clear Homo habilis was widespread in

eastern Africa. Fossils almost as old have been found in south central China

and on the Island of Java that do not differ greatly from H. habilis, indicating

that it was not long before the genus Homo spread widely throughout the Old

World Tropics. This spread correlates with the appearance of a new species.

Homo Erectus

Homo erectus is the species of Homo preceding and ancestral to Homo

sapiens. Fossils of H.erectus reveal no more significant physical variations

than seen in modern human populations. These fossils indicate that H. erectus

had a body much like our own, though with heavier musculature and a smaller

birth canal. The brain size was significantly larger than of H. habilis and well

within the lower range of modern brain size. The dentition was fully human,
 107

though relatively large by modern standards. As one might expect, given its

larger brain, H.erectus outstripped its predecessors in cultural development.

The improved technological efficiency of H.erectus is also evident in the

selection of raw materials. Instead of making a few large tools out of large

pieces of stone, these hominines placed a new emphasis on smaller tools that

were more economical with raw materials and new techniques were developed

to produce thinner, straighter, and sharper tools. H. erectus was capable of at

least some planning implied by the existence of populations in temperate

climates, where the ability to anticipate needs for the winter season by

preparing in advance to protect against the cold would have been crucial for

survival. They became technologically more proficient, hunting began to

replace scavenging as the means of procuring meat, animal hides, and sinew.

H.erectus has a clearer manifestation than ever before of the inter play among

cultural, physical, and environmental factors. Social organization and

technology developed along with an increase in brain size and complexity.

Cultural adaptations such as cooking and more complex tool kits facilitated

dental reduction; and dental reduction in turn encouraged an even heavier

reliance upon tool development and facililated language development. The

 108

improvements in communication and social organization language brought

undoubtedly contributed to improved methods for food gathering and hunting,

to a population increase, and to territorial expansion. Evidence from tools and

fossils indicates that just as H.erectus was able to move into areas previously

uninhabited by hominines.

Homo Sapiens

Homo sapiens are the modern human species. The representative group

of archaic Homo sapiens living in Europe, the Middle East, and SouthC Asia

from about 120,000 years ago to about 35,000 years ago. They are better

known than the Neanderthals, which are represented by numerous fossils these

extremely muscular people, while having brains of modern size, possessed

faces distinctively different from those of modern humans. Mid-facial

projection of their noses and teeth formed a kind of prow, at least in part to

sustain the large size of their front teeth. Over the eyes were prominent brow

ridges, and on the back of the skull a bony mass provided for attachment of

powerful neck muscles. H. sapiens lacked extreme mid-facial projection and

massive muscle attachments on the back of the skull similar to the

 109

characteristic of the Neanderthals. Adaptations to the environment by archaic

Homo sapiens were, of course, both physical and cultural, but the capacity for

cultural adaptation was predictably superior to what it had been. The

Neanderthal‘s extensive use of fire, and they are essential to survival in an

arctic climate such as that of Europe at the time. They lived in small bands or

single- family units, both in the open and in caves, and undoubtedly

communicated by speech. Evidence of deliberate burials seems to reflect

complex ritual behaviour. H. sapiens, improved cultural adaptation is no doubt

related to the fact that the brain of archaic H. sapiens had achieved modern

size. Such a brain made possible not only sophisticated technology but also

conceptual thought of considerable complexity. Evidence of this is provided by

objects of apparently symbolic significance. H. sapiens evolved into modern

humans. The basic difference between the two types of H. sapiens is that the

modern face is less massive, as is the bony architecture at the rear of the skull

that provided the attachment needed for the neck musculature to compensate

for the weight of a massive face. The new technological developments had

contributed to the increasing complexity of the brain by the time of archaic H.

sapiens, and this complexity now enabled people to create a still more
 110

sophisticated technology. Conceptual thought and symbolic behaviour seem to

have developed beyond those of archaic H.sapiens. More than ever,

intelligence hence forth provides the key to humanity‘s increased reliance on

cultural rather than physical adaptation.

Anthropology includes the study of primates other than humans to

explain why and how humans developed as they did. As the early primates

became tree dwellers, various modifications occurred in dental characteristics,

sense organs, the brain, and skeletal structure that helped them to adapt to their

environment. By studding the behaviour of present-day primates,

Anthropologists seek clues for reconstructing behavioural patterns that may

have characterized the Ape like primates ancestral to both humans and present-

day apes. Like all Monkeys and Apes, Chimpanzees live in structured social

groups and express their sociability through communication by visual and

vocal signals. They also exhibit learning, but unlike most other primates, they

can make and use tools. The Australopithecines were well equipped for food

gathering in a Savanna environment. They had a fully human dentition with

many features derivable from earlier Ape like primates. Some of these latter

lived under conditions that forced them to spend considerable time on the
 111

ground, and they appear to have had the capacity for at least occasional bipedal

locomotion. Tool making enabled H.habilis to process meat so that it could be

eaten; because making tools from stone depended on fine manipulation of the

hands, it put a premium on more developed brains. So, too, did the analytic

and planning abilities required to scavenge meat from the carcasses of dead

animals, to process it, and to gather the surplus of other wild foods for sharing.

COMPARATIVE TABLE OF HOMO SPECIES

Discovery /
Temporal Adult Adult Cranial
Species Habitat Fossil record publication
range Mya height mass capacity(cm³)
of name

H. habilis 2.1- 1.5[130] Africa 150 cm 33– 510–660 Many 1960/1964

(4 ft 11 55 kg
in) (73-
121 lb)

H. erectus 1.9 – 0.07 Africa, 180 cm 60 kg 850 (early) – Many[132] 1891/1892

[131] Eurasia (5 ft 11 (130 lb) 1,100 (late)
(Java, China, in)
India,
Caucasus)

H. rudolfensismembership 1.9 Kenya 700 2 sites 1972/1986

in Homouncertain

H. gautengensis 1.9 – 0.6 South Africa 100 cm 3 2010/2010

also classified as H. (3 ft 3 individuals[133]
habilis in)

H. ergaster 1.8 – Eastern and 700–850 Many 1975

also classified as H. 1.3[134] Southern
erectus Africa

H. antecessor 1.2 – 0.8 Spain 175 cm 90 kg 1,000 2 sites 1997

also classified as H. (5 ft 9 (200 lb)
heidelbergensis in)
 112

H. cepranensisa single 0.9 – 0.35 Italy 1,000 1 skull cap 1994/2003

fossil, possibly H. erectus

H. heidelbergensis 0.6 – Europe, 180 cm 90 kg 1,100–1,400 Many 1908

0.35[135] Africa, China (5 ft 11 (200 lb)
in)

H. neanderthalensis 0.35 – Europe, 170 cm 55-70 kg 1,200–1,900 Many (1829)/1864

possibly a subspecies of 0.04[136] Western Asia (5 ft 7 121-
H. sapiens in) 154lb
(heavily
built)

H. rhodesiensis 0.3 – 0.12 Zambia 1,300 Very few 1921

also classified as H.
heidelbergensis

H. tsaichangensis 0.25 – 0.2 Taiwan 1 individual pre-

possibly H. erectus 2008/2015

H. sapiens 0.2[137] Worldwide 150 - 50– 950–1,800 (extant) —/1758

(modern humans) 190 cm 100 kg
– present (4 ft 7 in (110–
- 6 ft 3 220 lb)
in)

H. floresiensis 0.10 – 0.012 Indonesia 100 cm 25 kg 400 7 individuals 2003/2004

classification uncertain (3 ft 3 (55 lb)
in)

Denisova hominin 0.04 Russia 1 site 2010

possible H.
sapienssubspecies or
hybrid

Red Deer Cave people 0.0145– China Very few 2012

possible H. 0.0115
sapienssubspecies or
hybrid
 113

THE TRANSITION FROM PRE-HUMAN TO GENUINE HUMAN

BEINGS

The behaviour of anthropoid Apes and man was a tricky subject to

tackle. The similarity between the chromosomes and those of Chimpanzees

and Pygmy Chimpanzees is conspicuous, and suggests a common ancestry. A

comparison of the facial muscles of man and the Chimpanzee is revealing a

very considerable difference. In V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a, the races of V¡nara show

some close resemblance of man. They show same culture, behaviour, and the

social set up is very similar to that of the human beings. As a story R¡m¡ya¸a

is very interesting. People considered them as Monkey. Otherwise it is Myth.

Seriously anthropological evidence shows that the races of V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a

are the transitional form of the genuine human beings such as Ramapithecus,

Australopithecus, and Neanderthal species.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS

The ‗Austral‘ in Australopithecus refers not to Australia but to the

south. As Australia is the Southern continent. They have one genus,

Australopithecus and two species, Australopithecus africanus and

Australopithecus robustus. A. Robustus was still largely a vegetarian, but he

 114

had achieved uprightness. Africanus shared the upright trait, but in addition to

being a seed eater, and had become a carnivore with hominid dental and

cranial features. It was evolving rapidly in the direction taken by man and also

become a bone-tool user, if not maker of stone tools. They definitely had

acquired culture. Both robustus and africanus had made the critical

evolutionary adaptation of bipedalism. They had fully freed their hands for

potential tool using. But only africanus, through his more varied response to

the potentialities of Savanna life, made the shift to include fairly extensive

meat eating in his diet.59 Three million years ago, there were primates which

now call Australopithecines. The Australopithecines had brains no bigger than

Chimpanzees, they were shorter than humans, with very long arms, quite

probably they were covered in fur, but they were bipedal, as humans. Scientists

have even discovered their footprints and they look like human footprints.

They are now finding more and more Australopithecine remains all over

Sub-Saharan Africa. They appear to have been one of nature's success stories,

diversifying into at least two species, including a relatively heavy weight

animal with very powerful jaw muscles, adapted to eating tough vegetation

59
Adamson Hoebel E., Anthropology: The Study of Man, 4th ed., cdsl, Tvm, 1972, P.125.
 115

and a ‗gracile‘, more lightweight species. But various as they were, all the

Australopithecines differed from their primate predecessors in two ways. They

walked on two legs, and their canine teeth became progressively smaller. Their

bipedalism is an obvious point of difference from their Ape predecessors; their

smaller canine teeth are a less obvious difference, but a very significant one.

Long sharp canine teeth are weapons. Without those weapons, the

Australopithecines will have needed - must have had - other means of defence.

Animals must be equipped to defend themselves and (particularly) their

young against predators. So nature provides them with weapons. Male

mammals often have particularly well-developed weapons, which they also use

in competing for females and territory, but females too are usually armed for

defense against predators. Most mammals which lack horns or antlers rely

mainly on biting. They often have canine teeth specially adapted for use as

weapons (this even applies to some deer which lack antlers. Quadrupedal

primates (including Chimpanzees) typically have well-developed canines. But

bipedal primates, including the Australopithecines, the Homo predecessors and

humans, do not have canine weapons.

 116

The reduction in the size of the canines would not have surprised Darwin:

―The free use of the arms and hands, partly the cause and partly the

result of man's erect position, appears to have led in an indirect manner to

other modifications of structure. The early male forefathers of man were, as

previously stated, probably furnished with great canine teeth; but as they

gradually acquired the habit of using stones, clubs, or other weapons, for

fighting with their enemies or rivals, they would use their jaws less and less.‖

(Darwin: The Descent of Man)

The human throwing action is a complex one in which great power and

accuracy is achieved by co-ordinating all the muscles of the arm, wrist, fingers

and back - even of the legs. They do not know whether the Australopithecines

could throw missiles as well as can. But if, as it seems, the ability to throw

missiles effectively was a fundamental factor in bipedal survival, then the

evolution of those muscles (and of the brain which controlled them) must have

been influenced by the need to develop that ability. Human bipeds are perhaps

(among many other things) animals evolutionarily designed to survive by

throwing missiles. The evidence suggests that the long struggle for bipedal
 117

survival and ultimately human dominance over all other species began when

the Australopithecines differentiated themselves as animals which walked, ran

and fought on their back legs only, and could use their hands and arms to wield

weapons and to throw missiles, thus uniquely becoming able to drive away

predators and competitors whilst avoiding combat at close quarters.

Animals in the wild have learned from hundreds of thousands of years

of experience of us and of our bipedal predecessors that our missiles - first

stones, later spears, arrows and bullets - can kill or maim quite unexpectedly

from a distance without harm to ourselves. They have learned that even to be

seen, at a distance, by a biped, can be dangerous or even fatal. It is best to keep

out of our way, at least during daylight. That is they can often walk through a

wood which is full of wild animals of all kinds and yet hear and see almost

nothing. Modern animals have learned the need to keep out of our way and

have passed the knowledge on genetically or by example to their offspring.

Those who failed to learn this essential lesson have left no descendants. The

Australopithecines were certainly not people, by any reckoning. They were

bipedal Apes.
 118

Australopithecus africanus

In 1924, Raymond A. Dart, 60reported the finding of a nearly perfect

juvenile primate skull in the quarries near Taung, South Africa. Its association

with numerous extinct Pleistocene fossils, including Monkeys, made its

antiquity apparent. The anatomical characters of the first known

Australopthecus as a type were difficult to determine with certainty because

diagnostic characteristics are some what indefinite in the young; much surer

comparisons can be made with adult skeletons. The skulls of Australopithecus

africanus present generally hominid quality, with small brain cases and

protruding, chinless jaws. Within the small cranium of Australopithecus

africanus, the brain assumes moderate proportions, varying from about

450cc.to a maximum of 700cc. Gorilla brains run from around 300cc. to a

60
Professor of Anatomy, Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
 119

recorded maximum of 685 cc., while the Chimpanzee but similar to that of

Gorillas. Relative to body size, however, the brain of Australopithecus is

distinctly larger than that of the massive Gorilla and somewhat larger than

those of the Chimpanzee and Orangutan. In 1925, Raymond Dart described

Austtralopithecus africanus.61 This type specimen was the Taung Child, an

Australopithecine infant which was discovered in a cave. The child's remains

were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the

brain.

Although the brain was small (410 cm3), its shape was rounded, unlike

that of Chimpanzees and Gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also,

the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen

magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced

Dart that the Taung Child was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form

between Apes and humans.

Life and culture of Australopithecus africanus is not enough to know

from the skeleton that it had raised to the potential of early manhood.

61
Dart, Raymond, Australopithecus africanus: The Man-Ape of South Africa (PDF). Nature, London: Nature Publishing
Group, February 7, 1925.PP.195-199
 120

Africanus environment was that of the moderately well- watered Savanna, a

country of scattered shrubs and trees among lush grasses. It was prime grazing

country and was well stocked with game, but it had little to attract a large tree-

dwelling primate. They were not a tree dweller- his hands were freed by

upright posture, he could run quickly, and his teeth, like those of Homo

sapiens, were those of a meat eater. Africanus seems to have been a wily

predator. They had crossed the Rubicon from pre-hominid herbivorous to

hominid carnivorousness.

Australopithecus afarensis

Nickname : Lucy's species

Where Lived : Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, $Tanzania)

When Lived : about 3.85 and 2.95 mya

 121

Time of Discovery : 1974

History of Discovery: The genus was officially named in

1978 subsequent a signal of fossil discoveries by the side of Hadar, Ethiopia,

and Laetoli, Tanzania. Consequently, fossils found as early as the 1930s have

been incorporated into this taxon.

Height: - Males: average 4 ft 11 in (151 cm); Females: average 3 ft 5 in (105

cm)

Weight: - Males: average 92 lbs (42 kg); Females: average 64 lbs (29 kg)

A. afarensis had mainly a plant-based diet, including leaves, fruit, seeds,

roots, nuts, and insects and probably the occasional small vertebrates, like

lizards. Paleo Anthropologists are able to inform what Au. afarensis ate from

looking at the remains of their teeth. Dental micro wear studies signify they ate

soft, sugar-rich fruits, but their incisor size and form imply that they could

have also eaten hard, fragile foods too –maybe as ‘fallback’ foods during

seasons when fruits were not obtainable.

 122

Evolutionary Tree in order: This class may be a direct descendant of

Au.anamensis and may be ancestral to later species of Paranthropus,

Australopithecus, and Homo.

Lucy

‗Lucy‘ (AL 288-1) is an adult female, 3.2 myo. Skeleton ofA.afarensis

found at Hadar, Ethiopia and they could walk upright on the ground and climb
trees, and other members of their species were able to use resources from
woodlands, grasslands, and other different environments.

Laetoli Footprint Trails

 123

The Laetoli footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus

afarensis, an early human whose fossils were found in the same sediment

layer. The entire hoof marks trail is almost 27 m (88 ft) long and includes

imitation of about 70 early human footsteps.

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known

early human species-Paleo Aanthropologists have exposed remains from more

than 300 persons establish between 3.85 and 2.95 mya in Eastern Africa

(Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this genus survived for more than 900,000 years,

which is more than four times as extended as our own species has been

around. It is identified from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‗Lucy‘, AL 288-

1 and the 'First Family', AL 333), Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‗child‘ skeleton),

and Laetoli. Comparable to Chimpanzees, children of Au.afarensis grew

quickly after birth and reached old age earlier than modern humans. This

meant Au.afarensis had a shorter period of emergent up than modern humans

have today, leaving them less time for parental control and socialization during

childhood.
 124

Au.afarensis had together Ape and human characteristics: members of

this species had Ape like face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting

lower jaw) and brain case (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic

centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong

arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small

canine teeth like all other early on humans and a body that stood on two legs

and frequently walked on two legs. Their adaptations for living both in the

trees and on the ground helped them stay alive for almost a million years as

situation and environments distorted.

Australopithecus deyiremeda

In July 2015 a new species Australopithecus deyiremeda was

discovered. A.deyiremeda is the new fossil of human species, founded in the

Affar region of Ethyopiya. The meaning of this species is ‗close relatives‘. It

has 35 Lakhs- year-old and their caniness is very smaller than that of the all

human fossils. So the evolutionary scientists described that A.deyiremeda has

very close resemblance of modern humans. It has not the direct change and the

scientist says that the Australopithecus is transformed as the genus Homo and
 125

Homo habilis is very closely related to the Australopithecus. The scientific

name of modern humans is known as Homo sapiens sapiens62.

The Australopithecines were definitely not people, by any reckoning.

They were bipedal Apes. But in one respect at least they were a step in the

direction of people. Unlike other animals, people have learned to transcend the

limitations of their own bodies. What they cannot achieve with our own bodily

apparatus, they have learned to achieve with the aid of external tools,

equipment and weapons. Without wings, they have nevertheless learned to fly.

Without sharp teeth, horns or hooves, first the Australopithecines and then

people learned to defend ourselves with missiles and to keep our enemies at a

distance. The stone missiles of those bipedal Apes were the first step in the

direction of the more sophisticated missiles of the twenty-first century. And

the long story of pre-human and human development which started with those

bipedal Apes - a story in which human bipeds gradually became complete

masters of our environment (if not of ourselves) - began with them.

62
, Arunkumar N.S., Desabhimani, Special edition, June 11, Thursday, 2015, P.`1.
 126

Genus Homo

The chronological and geographical distribution of genus Homo63and

Other interpretations is different mostly in the classification and geographical

distribution of hominin species.

Skulls

Gorilla

1. Australopithecus

2. Homo erectus

3. Neanderthal (La Chapelle aux Saints)

63
Fig.,Temporal and Geographical Distribution of Hominid Populations Red rawn from Stringer, ed., Reed, David L., Smith,
Vincent S., Hammond, Shaless L. et al. Genetic Analysis of Lice Supports Direct Contact between Modern and Archaic
Humans.2003.
 127

4. Steinheim Skull

5. Modern Homo sapiens

See the declining prognathism and thickness of the brow ridge, and the

increasing dimension of the forehead.

Homo sapiens are the only existing species of its genus, Homo. While

some extinct Homo species might have been ancestors of Homo sapiens,

many, possibly the majority, were to be expected ‗cousins,‘ having speciated

away from the ancestral hominin line. There is until now no agreement as to

which of these groups had inferred as a detach species and which as

subspecies, this may be due to the lack of fossils or to the small differences

used to classify species in the Homo genus. The Sahara pump theory

(describing an occasionally passable ‗wet‘ Sahara desert) provides one

possible clarificationof the early variation in the genus Homo. Based on

Archaeological and Paleontological facts, it has been likely to deduce, to some

degree, the ancient dietetic practices of various Homo species and to study the

role of diet in physical and behavioural evolution within

 128

Homo.64Anthropologists and Archaeologists give to to the Toba Catastrophe

Theory, which posits that the super eruption of Lake Toba on Sumatra Island

in Indonesia some 70,000 years ago caused global consequences,65killing

nearly all humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck that affected

the hereditary legacy of all humans today.66

H. habilis and H. gautengensis

Homo habilis lived from about 2.867 to 1.4 Ma. The species evolved in

South and East Africa in the Late Pliocene or Early Pleistocene, 2.5–2 Ma,

when it diverged from the Australopithecines. Homo habilis had smaller

molars and larger brains than the Australopithecines, and made tools from

stone and perhaps animal bones. One of the first known hominins, it was nick

named 'handy man' by discoverer Louis Leakey due to its association with

stone tools. Some scientists have proposed moving this species out of Homo

and Australopithecus due to the morphology of its skeleton being more

adapted to living on trees rather than to moving on two legs like Homo

64
Barnicot, Nigel A., Human nutrition: Evolutionary perspectives, Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science ,New
York, 2005, PP.114-117.
65
The new batch - 150,000 years ago, BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man ,London
66
Whitehouse, David, When Humans Faced Extinction, BBC News, London, June 9, 2003.
67
Ghosh, Pallab. First Human' Discovered in Ethiopia, BBC News, London, March 4, 2015.
 129

sapiens.68In May 2010, a new species, Homo gautengensis was discovered in

South Africa69.

H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus

These are projected genus names for fossils from about 1.9–1.6 Ma,

whose relation to Homo habilis is not yet clear. Homo rudolfensis refers to a

single, partial skull from Kenya. Scientists have recommended that this was

another Homo habilis, but this has not been confirmed.

 Homo georgicus, from Georgia, may be a transitional form between

Homo habilis and Homo erectus, or a sub-species of Homo erectus70.

68
Wood, Bernard; Collard, Mark, The changing face of Genus Homo, Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, 1999,PP.195–207
69
Viegas, Jennifer, Toothy Tree-Swinger May Be Earliest Human, Discovery News, Silver Spring, MD: Discovery
Communications, LLC. , May 21, 2010.
70
Lordkipanidze, David; Vekua, Abesalom; Ferring, Reid et. al, A fourth Hominin Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, The
Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, November 2006.
 130

H. ergaster and H. erectus

The first fossils of Homo erectus were discovered by Dutch physician

Eugene Dubois in 1891 on the Indonesian Island of Java. He originally named

the material Pithecanthropus erectus based on its morphology, which he

considered being transitional between that of humans and Apes.71Homo

erectus lived from about 1.8 Ma to about 70,000 years ago-which would point

to that they were possibly wiped out by the Toba catastrophe, however, nearby

Homo floresiensis survived it. The early stage of Homo erectus, from 1.8 to

1.25 Ma, is considered by some to be a separate species, Homo ergaster, or as

Homo erectus ergaster, a subspecies of Homo erectus.

71
Turner, William , On M. Dubois' Description of Remains Rrecently found in Java, Named by him Pithecanthropus erectus
With Remarks on so-called Transitional Forms between Apes and Man, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology29, April
1895,195–207.
 131

In Africa in the Early Pleistocene, 1.5-1 Ma, in some populations of

Homo habilis are thought to have evolved larger brains and to have made more

detailed stone tools; these differences and others are sufficient for

Anthropologists to categorize them as a new species, Homoerectus in Africa.72

The evolution of locking knees and the movement of the foramen magnum

(the hole in the skull where the spine enters) are thought to be likely drivers of

the larger population changes. This genus also may have used flames to cook

meat. This also shows that the control of fire by early humans.

Another example of Homo erectus is Peking man, others were found in

Asia (notably in Indonesia), Africa, and Europe. Many Paleo Anthropologists

now make use of the term Homo ergaster for the non-Asian forms of this

group, and set aside Homo erectus only for those fossils that are originate in

Asia and convene certain skeletal and dental requirements which change

slightly from H. ergaster.

72
Spoor, Fred. Wood, Bernard A. Zonneveld, Frans, Implications of Early HominidLlabyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of
Human Bipedal Locomotion, Nature Publishing Group, London, 369, June 23, 1994.PP. 645–648.
 132

H. cepranensis and H. antecessor

These are proposed as species that may be intermediate between H.

erectus and H. heidelbergensis.

 H. antecessor is known from fossils from Spain and England that are

dated 1.2 Ma–500 ka73.

 H. cepranensis refers to a single skull cap from Italy, estimated to be

about 800,000 years old74

Homo heidelbergensis

73
Carbonell, Eudald, Bermúdez de Castro, JosÅ MarÉa; ParÅs, Josep M. et, al, The first Hominin of Europe, Nature
Publishing Group, London: 452(7186), March 27, 2008,PP.465–469
74
Manzi, Giorgio‘,Mallegni, Francesco: Ascenzi, Antonio ,A Cranium for the Earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic Position of the
Hominid from Ceprano, Italy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., National Academy of Sciences, 98, Washington, D.C, August 14,
2001.
 133

Reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis which may be the direct

ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. H.heidelbergensis

(‗Heidelberg Man‘) lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago and

also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo sapiens

paleohungaricus75.

H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium

 H. rhodesiensis, probable to be 300,000–125,000 years old. Most

current researchers place Rhodesian man within the group of Homo

heidelbergensis, though other designations such as archaic Homo sapiens and

Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have been proposed.

 In February 2006 a fossil, the Gawis cranium, was found which might

possibly be a species intermediate between H. erectus and H. sapiens or one of

many evolutionary dead ends. The skull from Gawis, Ethiopia, is believed to

be 500,000–250,000 years old. Only summary details are known, and the

finders have not yet released a peer-reviewed study. Gawis man's facial

75
Czarnetzki, Alfred; Jakob, Tina: Pusch, Carsten M, Palaeopathological and Variant Conditions of the Homo heidelbergensis
type Specimen, Journal of Human Evolution, Amsterdam, and the Netherlands: Elsevier, Mauer, Germany. 44 (4), April 2003,
PP. 479–495.
 134

features suggest its being either an intermediate species or an example of

a‗Bodo man‘female76.

NEANDERTHALENSIS

Dermoplastic reconstruction of a Neanderthalensis

Homo neanderthalensis, alternatively designated as Homo sapiens

neanderthalensis, lived in Europe and Asia from 400,00077 to about

30,000years ago. Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that

no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens,

and that the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about

660,000 years ago78. However, a sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in

2010 indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically

modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that
76
Semaw, Sileshi; Toth, Nicholas, Schick, Kathy et al, Scientists Discover Hominid Cranium in Ethiopia, IN: Indiana
University. Bloomington, March 27, 2006.
Herrera, K. J., Somarelli, J. A., Lowery, R. K., Herrera, R. J., To what Extent did Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Interact?, Biological Reviews, 2009, PP.245–257.
78
Krings, Matthias, Stone, Anne, Schmitz, Ralf, W., et al, Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,
Cell Press, Cambridge, July 11, 1997.
 135

modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into

Europe, Asia and elsewhere)79.

Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA

derived from Neanderthal DNA, and this finding is consistent with recent

studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma,

although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned. Neanderthals

and Homo sapiens could have co-existed in Europe for as long as 10,000 years,

during which human populations exploded vastly out numbering Neanderthals,

possibly out competing them by sheer numerical strength.80

In 2008, Archaeologists working at the site of Denisova Cave in the

Altai Mountains of Siberia uncovered a small bone fragment from the fifth

finger of a juvenile member of Denisovans81. Artifacts, including a bracelet,

excavated in the cave at the same level were carbon dated to around 40,000

BP. As DNA had survived in the fossil fragment due to the cool climate of the

Denisova Cave, both mt DNA and nuclear genomic DNA were sequenced.

79
Viegas, Jennifer, Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves, Discovery News, Discovery Communications, Silver
Spring, May 6, 2010.
80
Paul; French, Jennifer C., Tenfold Population Increase in Western Europe at the Neandertal to Modern Human Transition
Paul, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, July 29, 2011, PP.623–627.
81
Brown, Terence, A Human evolution: Stranger from Siberia, Nature Publishing Group, London, April 8, 2010, PP.838–839.
 136

While the divergence point of the mt DNA was unexpectedly deep in

time, the full genomic sequence suggested the Denisovans belonged to the

same lineage as Neanderthals, with the two diverging shortly after their line

split from that lineage giving rise to modern humans82.Modern humans are

known to have overlapped with Neanderthals in Europe for more than 10,000

years, and the discovery raises the possibility that Neanderthals, modern

humans and the Denisova hominin may have co-existed. The existence of this

distant branch creates a much more complex picture of humankind during the

Late Pleistocene than previously thought83. Evidence has also been found that

as much as 6% of the genomes of some modern Melanesians derive from

Denisovans, indicating limited interbreeding in Southeast Asia.

Alleles thought to have originated in Neanderthal and the Denisova

hominin have been identified at several genetic loci in the genomes of modern

humans outside of Africa. HLA haplotypes from Denisovans and Neanderthal

82
Reich, David, Green, Richard E. Kircher, Martin et al, Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in
Siberia,Nature, Nature Publishing Group, London, December 23, 2010,PP.1053–1060.
83
Bokma, Folmer, Van den brink, Valentijn, Stadler, Tanja, Unexpectedly many Extinct Hominins, .Evolution, Hoboken, NJ
John Wiley and Sons, 66 (9), 2012, PP.2969–2974.
 137

represent more than half the HLA alleles of modern Eurasians84, indicating

strong positive selection for these introgressed alleles.

H. floresiensis

Restoration model of Homo floresiensis

H. floresiensis, which lived from about 100,000 to 12,000 years before here,

has been nicknamed hobbit for its small size, possibly a result of insular

dwarfism.85In other terms, H. floresiensis shares a common ancestor with

modern humans, but split from the modern human lineage and followed a

distinct evolutionary path. The main discover was a skeleton supposed to be a

woman of about 30 years of age. Found in 2003 it has been dated to around

84
Abi-Rached, Laurent Jobin, Matthew J.Kulkarni,et,al., The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional
Admixture with Archaic Humans, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, October 7, 2011,
PP.89-94.
85
Brown, Peter,Sutikna, Thomas, Morwood, Michael J., Soejono, Raden Panji, A New Small-bodied Hominin from the Late
Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia, Nature Publishing Group, London, October 28, 2004,PP.1055-1061.
 138

18,000 years old. The living woman was estimated to be one meter in height,

with a brain volume of just 380 cm3 (considered small for a Chimpanzee and

less than a third of the H. sapiens average of 1400 cm3).

However, there is an enduring discuss over whether H. floresiensis is

indeed a separate species.86Some scientists embrace that H. floresiensis was a

modern H. sapiens with pathological dwarfism. This theory is supported in

part, because some modern humans who live on Flores, the Indonesian Island

where the skeleton was found, are pygmies. This, coupled with pathological

dwarfism, could possibly create a hobbit-like human. The other major attack

on H. floresiensis as a separate species is that it was originate with utensils

only connected with H. sapiens.87

The hypothesis of pathological dwarfism, however, fails to make

clearother anatomical features that are unlike those of modern humans

(diseased or not) but much like those of ancient members of our genus. Aside

from cranial features, these features include the form of bones in the wrist,

86
Argue, Debbie, Donlon, Denise, Groves, Colin, Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?
Journal of Human Evolution, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 51 (4), October 2006, ISSN 0047-2484,PP. 360-374.
87
Martin, Robert D., Maclarnon, Ann M., Phillips, James L, Flores Hominid: New species or Microcephalic dwarf, The
Anatomical Record Part, A Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, Wiley-Liss, New York, November
2006, PP.1123-1145.
 139

forearm, shoulder, knees, and feet. In addition, this hypothesis fails to give

details the find of multiple examples of individuals with this similar

individuality, suggesting they were general to a large inhabitant, and not

incomplete to one entity.

H. sapiens, archaic humans or the adjective sapiens is Latin for ‗wise‘

or ‗intelligent‘ have lived from on 250,000 ya to here. Between 400,000 ya

and the next inter glacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 ya,

the trend in skull growth and the expansion of stone tool technologies

developed, given that verification for a evolution from H. erectus to H.

sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there were a migration of H. erectus out

of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. A

subsequent migration (both within and out of Africa) ultimately replaced the

previous detached H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually

referred to as the ‗modern single-origin hypothesis‘ or ‗out of Africa‘ theory.

Present evidence does not prevent some multiregional evolution or some

admixture of the migrant H. sapiens with obtainable Homo populations. This is

a stormily debated area of PaleoAnthropology.

 140

Modern investigate has recognized that humans are heritably very

homogenous, that is, the DNA of individuals is more identical than normal for

the majority species, which may have resulted from their comparatively hot

evolution or the chance of a population bottleneck follow-on as of cataclysmic

natural actions such as the Toba catastrophe.88 Distinctive genetic uniqueness

has arisen, conversely, mostly as the result of small groups of inhabitants

moving into new environmental situation. These modified characters are

especially small part of the Homo sapiens genome, but contain diverse

characteristics such as skin colour and nose form, in addition to internal

characteristics such as the capability to inhale more powerfully at high

altitudes.

H. sapiens idaltu,

From Ethiopia, is an extinct sub-species from about 160,000 years

ago.The facts on which logical accounts of human development is based

comes from many fields of Natural Science. The major sources of information

concerning the evolutionary progression has habitually been the fossil record,

88
Ambrose, Stanley H., Late Pleistocene Human Population Bottlenecks, Volcanic winter, and Differentiation of Modern
Humans, Journal of Human Evolution, Amsterdam, and the Netherlands: Elsevier, 34 (6), June 1998PP. 623-651.
 141

but seeing as the progress of genetics beginning in the 1970s, DNA

examination has come to dwell in a place of equivalent significance. The

studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental

ecology of both Vertebrates and Invertebrates suggest great imminent into the

evolution of all life, together with how humans evolved. The detailed lessons

of the source and time of humans is Anthropology, mostly PaleoAnthropology

which focuses on the study of living thing prehistory.

EVIDENCE FROM MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Ancestors hierarchy presentation the existing hominoids: humans

(genus Homo), Chimpanzees and Bonobos (genus Pan), Gorillas (genus

Gorilla), Orangutans (genus Pongo), and Gibbons (four genera of the family

Hylobatidae: Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus, and Symphalangus). All apart

from Gibbons are hominids.

 142

The adjacent living relations of humans are Bonobos and Chimpanzees

(both genus Pan) and Gorillas (genus Gorilla). Among the sequencing of in

cooperation the human and Chimpanzee genome, present estimates of the

resemblance between their DNA sequences range involving 95% and 99%.89

By using the method called the molecular clock which estimates the era

required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two

lineages, the estimated date for the split connecting lineages can be intended.

The Gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and then Orangutans (genus Pongo)

were the first groups to split from the line leading to the hominins, including

humans-followed by Gorillas, and, ultimately, by the Chimpanzees (genus

Pan). The splitting date between hominin and Chimpanzee lineages is placed

by between some 4 to 8million years ago, that is, during the late

Miocene.90Speciation, however, appears to have been unusually drawn-out and

initial divergence is occura little bitlinking7 to 13 million years ago, but

enduring hybridization blurred the division and deferred entire separation

89
Ajit, Varki, Nelson, David L., Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees (PDF), Annual Review of Anthropology,
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 36, October 2007, PP. 191-209.
90
Ruvolo, Maryellen, Genetic Diversity in Hominoid Primates, Annual Review of Anthropology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews, 26 October 1997, PP. 515-540.
 143

inquite a few millions of years. Patterson (2006) dated the concluding

deviation next to5 to 6million years ago.91

Inherent facts has also been employed to determine the inquiry of

whether here was any genetic material flow between early on modern humans

and Neanderthals, and to develop our perceptive of the timely human

migration patterns and splitting dates. In comparing the parts of the genome to

facilitate are not under natural assortment and which consequently mount up

mutations at a rather stable rate, it is likely to rebuild a hereditary tree

incorporating the whole human species seeing as the preceding common

precursor.

Every instant a certain transmutation (Single-nucleotide polymorphism)

appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplo

group is formed including all of the offspring of the individual who will also

bear that mutation. In comparing mitochondrial DNA which is innate only

starting the mother, geneticists have fulfilled that the final feminine universal

antecedent whose genetic indicator is originate in every modern humans, the

self-styled mitochondrial Eve, must have lived about 200,000 years ago.

91
Patterson, N., Richter, D.J., Gnerre S, Lander, E.S., Reich, D., Genetic Evidence for Complex Speciation of Humans and
Chimpanzees, Nature, June 2006.
 144

Human Evolutionary Genetics and Human Genetic Variation

Evolutionary Genetics and human studies how one human genome

differs from the other, the evolutionary history that gave rise to it, and its

modern belongings. Differences between genomes have anthropological,

medicinal and forensic implications and applications. Genetic data can offer

essential insight addicted to human progression.

EVIDENCES FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD

Fossil skull of Homo habilis.

Fossil numbers KNM ER 1813,

start at Koobi Fora, Kenya.

Fossil skull of Homo ergaster

(African Homo erectus). Fossil
number Khm-Heu 3733 exposed in
1975 in Kenya.
 145

There is modest evidence for the deviation of the Gorilla, Chimpanzee

and hominin lineages.92 The first fossils that have been projected as members

of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating as of 7mya,

Orrorin tugenensis dating on or after 5.7 mya, and Ardipithecus kadabba

dating toward 5.6mya. All of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor

of later hominins but in every case, the claims have been contested. It is also

likely that one or more of these species are ancestors of one more branch of

African Apes, or that they stand for a common ancestor between hominins also

other Apes.

The issue then of the connection between these early fossil species and

the hominin lineage is still to be determined. Since these premature groups, the

australopithecines arose approximately 4mya and diverged into robust (also

called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi)

probably went on to become family of the genus Homo. The Australopithecine

species that is best represented in the fossil record is Australopithecus afarensis

with more than one hundred fossil individuals represented, found from

Northern Ethiopia (such as the famous ‗Lucy‘), to Kenya, and South Africa.

92
Begun, David R., Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans, .Annual Review of Anthropology
,Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews,39, October 2010, PP.67-84.
 146

Fossils of robust australopithecines such as A. robustus (again Paranthropus

robustus) and A. /P. boisei are generally copious in South Africa at sites such

as Kromdraai and Swartkrans, and around Lake Turkana in Kenya.

Homo habilisis the earliest member of the genus Homo is which

evolved more or less2.8 mya93. Homo habilis is the primary genus for which

has positive evidence of the use of stone tools. They developed the Oldowan

lithic technology, named after the Olduvai Gorge in which the original

specimens were found. Several scientists believe Homo rudolfensis, a larger

bodied group of fossils with related morphology to the original H. habilis

fossils, to be a detach species while others think about them to be part of H.

habilis-simply representing species interior deviation, or maybe even sexual

dimorphism. The brains of these early hominins were about the identical

dimension as of a Chimpanzee, and their major adaptation was bipedalism as

an adaptation to terrestrial source of revenue.

In the next million years, a method of encephalization began and, by the

entrance (about 1.9mya) of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial

capability had doubled. Homo erectus was the primary of the hominins to
93
Ghosh, Pallab, First Human Discovered in Ethiopia, BBC News, London, 2015.
 147

emigrate from Africa, and, as of1.8 to 1.3mya, this species extend through

Africa, Asia, and Europe. One inhabitant of H. erectus, also occasionally

classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved

into Homo sapiens. It is alleged that these species, H. erectus and H. ergaster,

were the first to apply fire and complex tools.

The first fossils between H. ergaster /erectus and archaic H. sapiens are

from Africa, such as Homo rhodesiensis, but apparently intermediary forms

were also originate by the side of Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of

African H. erectus increase throughout Eurasia from ca. 500,000 ya grow into

H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The most primitive

fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, on

200,000 ya such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia; later fossils from Es Skhul

cave in Israel and Southern Europe begin about 90,000 years ago (0.09 mya).

The same as modern humans extend out from Africa, they encountered

other hominins such as Homo neanderthalensis and the so-called Denisovans,

who may have evolved from populations of Homo erectus that had left Africa

about 2mya. The nature of relations between early humans and these sister
 148

species has been a venerable source of debate, the question being whether

humans replaced these former species or whether they were in fact similar

adequate to interbreed, in which case these earlier populations may have

contributed genetic substance to modern humans.94

This migration out of Africa is estimated to have begun about 70,000

years BP (Before Present) and modern humans subsequently spread globally,

replacing earlier hominins either through competition or hybridization. They

inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas by at

least 14,500 years BP95.

EARLY EVOLUTION OF PRIMATES

Evolutionary times gone by of the primates can be traced reverse 65

million years. The oldest known primate-like mammal species,96 the

Plesiadapis, came from North America, but they were broad extending in

Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.

94
Mitchell, Alanna, DNA Turning Human Story Into a Tell-All. The New York Times, 2012.
95
Ood, Bernard A., Human evolution, BioEssays , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons,18 (12),1996,PP. 945-954.
96
Rose, Kenneth D., The earliest primates”. Evolutionary Anthropology, Issues, News, and Reviews, Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons,3 (5), 1994,PP.159-173.
 149

Notharctus tenebrosus

Notharctus tenebrosus, American Museum of Natural

History, New York City, New York, USA.

David R. Begun97donethat premature primate flourished in Eurasia and

that a lineage leading to the African Apes and humans, including to

Dryopithecus, migrated South from Europe or Western Asia into Africa. The

current tropical residents of primates-which is seen nearly all totally in the

Upper Eocene and lower most Oligocene fossil beds of the Faiyum depression

SouthWest of Cairo-gave rise to all present primate species, with the lemurs of

Madagascar, lorises of Southeast Asia, galagos or ‗bush babies‘ of Africa, and

to the anthropoids, which are the Platyrrhines or New World Monkeys, the

Catarrhines or Old World Monkeys, and the great Apes, with humans and

other hominins.

97
Kordos, L¿szló, Begun, David R., Primates from Rudab¿nya: Allocation of Specimens to Individuals, Sex and Age
Categories, Journal of Human Evolution, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, 40(1), January 2001, PP. 17–39.
 150

The most primitive identified catarrhine is Kamoyapithecus from

highest Oligocene at Eragaleit in the Northern Great Rift Valley in Kenya,

dated toward 24 mya. Its lineage is consideration to be real species related to

Aegyptopithecus, Propliopithecus, and Parapithecus from the Faiyum, at

around 35 mya.98During 2010, Saadanius was described as a secure relation of

the preceding common antecedent of the crown catarrhines, and tentatively

dated to 29–28 mya, serving to fill an 11-million-year gap in the fossil

evidence.

Reconstructed Tailless Proconsul Skeleton

During the near the start Miocene, on 22 mya, the several kinds of arboreally

modified ancient catarrhines from East Africa imply a long history of prior

98
Zalmout, Iyad S., Sanders, William J., MacLatchy, Laura M., New Oligocene Primate from Saudi Arabia and the
Divergence of Apes and Old World Monkeys, Nature, Nature Publishing Group, London, 466 (7304),2010, PP. 360-364.
 151

diversification. Fossils on 20 mya include remains endorsed to

Victoriapithecus, the earliest Old World Monkey. Among the genera thought

to be in the Ape ancestry leading up to 13mya are Proconsul,

Rangwapithecus,Dendropithecus,Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius,

Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, all from

East Africa.

The occurrence of other common non-cercopithecids of Middle

Miocene from sites far distant-Otavipithecus from cave deposits in Namibia,

and Pierolapithecus and Dryopithecus from France, Spain and Austria-is

evidence of a large assortment of forms across Africa and the Mediterranean

basin in the moderately temperate and equable climatic regimes of the early

and middle Miocene. The youngest of the Miocene hominoids, Oreopithecus,

is from coal beds in Italy that have been dated near 9 mya.

Molecular indication shows that the extraction of gibbons (family

Hylobatidae) diverged from the line of great Apes some 18–12 mya, and that

of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) diverged as of the other great Apes at

concerning 12 million years; there are no fossils that evidently document the
 152

ancestry of Gibbons, which may have originated in a so-far-unknown South

East Asian hominoid population, except fossil proto-orangutans may be

represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey,

dated enroute for about 10 mya.

DIVERGENCE OF THE HUMAN CLADE FROM OTHER GREAT

APES

A reconstruction of "Lucy," a femaleAustralopithecus

afarensis on exhibit in the National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C., USA.

Species close to the preceding common ancestor of Gorillas,

Chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils

institute in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence

 153

suggests that between 8 and 4 myo. First the Gorillas, and then the

Chimpanzees split off from the line important to the humans. Acording to the

human evolutionary genetics human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to

that of Chimpanzees as comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms. The

fossil record, however, of Gorillas and Chimpanzees is restricted, both poor

conservation-rain forest soils have a tendency to be acidic and dissolve bone-

and sampling bias possibly donate to this trouble.

Other hominins perhaps adapted to the drier environments outer the

equatorial belt; and there they encountered Antelope, Hyenas, Dogs,

Elephants, and others. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 myo, and

there is incredibly slight fossil evidence for the split-thought to have occurred

around that time-of the hominin lineage from the lineages of Gorillas and

Chimpanzees. The most primitive fossils argued by some to go to the human

lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma),

followed by Ardipithecus (5.5-4.4 Ma), with species A. kadabba and A.

ramidus.
 154

USES OF TOOLS

"A sharp rock," an Oldowan pebble

tool, the most basic of human stone
tools.

The harnessing of fire was a

pivotal milestone in human
history.

Acheulean hand-axes from Kent.Homo

erectusflint work. The types shown are
(clockwise from top) cordate, ficron
and ovate.

Venus of Willendorf, an example of

Paleolithic art, dated 24–26,000
years ago.

The use of tools has been interpreted as a symbol of intellect, and it has been

theorized that tool utilize may have stimulated positive aspects of human

evolution, specially the non stop growth of the human brain. Paleontology has
 155

however to explain the expansion of this organ over millions of years even

with being extremely challenging in terms of energy expenditure. The brain of

a modern human consumes about 13 watts (260 kilocalories per day), a fifth of

body's full power expenditure99. Increased tool use would let hunting for

energy-rich meat products, and would allow processing more energy-rich plant

products. Researchers have recommended that early hominins were thus under

evolutionary force to increase their ability to make and use tools100.

In particular as early on humans ongoing to use tools is hard to

determine, because the more ancient these tools are (sharp-edged stones) the

more difficult it is to decide whether they are natural things or human artifacts.

There is some evidence that the Australopithecines (4 Ma) may perhaps have

used broken bones as tools, but this is debated.

Many species formulate and apply tools, but it is the human genus that

dominates the areas of making and using more complex tools. The oldest tools

named ‗Oldowan‘stone tools from Ethiopia, 2.5-2.6 myo. A Homo fossil was

found near some Oldowan tools, and its age was noted on 2.3 myo, suggesting
99
Jabr, Ferris, Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories., Scientific American Stuttgart: Georg von Holtzbrinck
Publishing Group, 2012.
100
Gibbons, Ann, Solving the Brain's Energy Crisis, Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, D.C., 280 (5368), May 29, 1998, PP.1345–1347.
 156

that perhaps the Homo species did undeniably create and use these tools. It is a

possibility but does not however represent solid evidence. The third metacarpal

styloid method enables the hand bone to lock into the wrist bones, allowing for

greater amounts of pressure to be applied to the wrist and hand from a grasping

thumb and fingers. It allows humans the handiness and power to make and use

complex tools. This unique anatomical aspect separates humans from apes and

other nonhuman primates, and is not seen in human fossils older than 1.8 my101

Bernard Wood distinguished that Paranthropus co-existed with the

early Homo species in the area of the ‗Oldowan Industrial Complex‘ over

roughly the same period. Even though there is no direct evidence which

identifies Paranthropus as the tool makers, their anatomy lends to indirect

evidence of their capabilities in this area. Paleo Anthropologists are in

agreement that the early Homo species were definitely responsible for most of

the Oldowan tools found. They dispute that when most of the Oldowan tools

were found in alliance with human fossils, Homo was always present,

excluding Paranthropus.

101
Ward, Carol V., Tocheri, Mathew W., Plavcan, J., Michael. Early Pleistocene third Metacarpal from Kenya and the
Evolution of modern Human- like hand Morphology, National Academy of Science, Washington, 111(1), January7, 2014,
PP.121-124.
 157

According to Randall Susman used the anatomy of opposable thumbs as

the basis for his argument that both the Homo and Paranthropus species were

toolmakers. He compared bones and muscles of human and Chimpanzee

thumbs, finding that humans have three muscles which are missing in

Chimpanzees. Humans also enclose thicker metacarpals with broader heads,

allowing more accurate grasping than the Chimpanzee hand can perform. It is

realized that man and Apes are different species. Susman posited that modern

anatomy of the human opposable thumb is an evolutionary response to the

requirements linked with making and managing tools and that both species

were certainly toolmakers.

Stone tools

Stone tools are first attested approximately 2.6 mya, as H. habilis in

Eastern Africa used alleged pebble tools, choppers made out of round pebbles

that had been split by simple strikes.102This marks the founding of the

paleolithic or Old Stone Age, it is taken to be the end of the last ice age, about

10,000 ya. The paleolithic is subdivided into the lower paleolithic (early stone

102
Plummer, Thomas, Flaked stones and old bones, Biological and Cultural Evolution at the dawn of Technology, American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons for the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists, Supplement 39, Yearbook of Physical Anthropolog, 2004, PP.118–164.
 158

age), ending about 350,000-300,000 ya, the middle paleolithic (middle stone

age), until 50,000-30,000 ya, and the upper paleolithic, (late Stone Age),

50,000-10,000 ya.

Archaeologists working in the Great Rift Valley in Kenya claim to

have discovered the oldest known stone tools in the world. Dated about 3.3

mya, the implements is some 700,000 years adult than stone tools from

Ethiopia that is the past detained division.103

The period from 700,000–300,000 ya is also known as the Acheulean,

when H. ergaster (H.erectus) made large stone hand axes out of flint and

quartzite, at first quite rough (Early Acheulian), later ‗retouched‘ by

additional, more-subtle strikes at the sides of the flakes. After 350,000 BP the

more refined so-called Levallois technique was developed, a series of

consecutive strikes, by which scrapers, slicers, and flattened needles were

made. Lastly, after about 50,000 BP, forever more advanced and specialized

flint tools were made by the Neanderthals and the immigrant Cro-Magnons

103
Wong, Archaeologists Take Wrong Turn, Find World‘s Oldest Stone Tools, Scientific American, Stuttgart, Georg von
Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, Kate, April 15, 2015.
 159

(knives, blades, skimmers). During this period they also started to formulate

tools out of bone.

TRANSITION TO BEHAVIOURAL MODERNITY

The use of stone tools seems to have progressed on 50,000-40,000 years

ago. Each phase (H. habilis, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis) in progress

at a higher level than the earlier one, but after every stage in progress, further

growth was slow. Paleo Anthropologists are debating whether these Homo

species possessed some of the civilizing and behavioural traits connected with

modern humans such as language, complex emblematic thoughts, scientific

creativity etc. It shows that they were racially conventional maintaining easy

technologies and for aging patterns more than much extended periods.

Modern human cultures started to evolve more rapidly about 50,000 BP.

The transition of behavioural modernity has been characterized by some as a

Eurasian ‗Great Leap Forward,‘ or as the ‗Upper Paleolithic Revolution,‘104

due to the rapid emergence of unique signs of current behaviour in the

Archaeological evidence. Some scholar thinks the evolution to have been more

104
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, The Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Annual Review of Anthropology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews,31
October 2002, PP. 363-393.
 160

gradual, noting that some skin texture had already appeared among archaic

African Homo sapiens since 200,000 ya.105 Modern humans started burying

their dead, with animal hides to make clothing, hunting with more

sophisticated techniques (such as using trapping pits or driving animals off

cliffs), and attractive in cave painting.106When human culture highly

developed, different populations of humans introduced uniqueness to existing

technologies, artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles be

evidence for signs of deviation between different populations of humans,

something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50,000 BP.

Typically, H. neanderthalensis populations do not differ in their technologies.

In modern human behaviour, Anthropologists comprise specialization

of tools, use of jewellery and images (such as cave drawings), association of

living space, rituals (burials with grave gifts), specific hunting techniques,

study of less hospitable ecological areas, and barter trade networks. Argue

105
Nowell, April, Defining Behavioral Modernity in the Context of Neandertal and Anatomically Modern Human Populations,
Annual Review of Anthropology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 39, October 2010, PP. 437-452.
106
Ambrose, Stanley H., Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution, Science, Washington, D.C. American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 291 (5509), March 2, 2001, PP. 1748-1753.
 161

continues as to whether a ‗revolution‘ led to modern humans ‗the big bang of

human consciousness‘, otherwise the evolution was more regular.107

CURRENT HUMAN EVOLUTION

Natural selection still exerts its prehistoric methodologies on current

human populations. Intended for, the population at risk of the severe un

bearable disease kuru has important over-representation of a resistant variant

of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. The regularity of

this genetic variation is due to the endurance of immune persons. Other

reported trends show to comprise expansion of the human reproductive period

and reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure in some

populations.108

It seems that human evolution has accelerated since the progress of

cultivation and civilization some 10,000 ya, resulting, it is claimed, in large

genetic differences connecting different recent human beings. The

maintenance of lactase determination into adulthood is an instance of such

recent progression. Modern human evolution seems to have been basically

107
Mcbrearty, Sally; Brooks, Alison S., The Revolution that wasn't: a New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human
Behavior‖. Journal of Human Evolution, Amsterdam, and the Netherlands: Elsevier, 39 (5, November 2000,), PP. 453–563.
108
Byars, S. G. Ewbank, D. Govindaraju, D. R. Stearns, S. C. ―Natural Selection in a Contemporary Human
Population‖,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, PP.1787–1792, 2009.
 162

limited to genetic variance to infectious syndrome that has appeared in human

populations in crossing the species barrier from cultivated nature.

SPECIES LIST

Chronological A. sediba H. erectus

order of Kenyanthropus H. cepranensis
K. platyops H. antecessor
genus:- Paranthropus H. heidelbergensis
Sahelanthropus P. aethiopicus H. rhodesiensis
S. tchadensis P. boisei H. neanderthalensis
Orrorin P. robustus H. sapiens idaltu
O. tugenensis Homo H.sapiens(Cro-Magnon)
Ardipithecus H. gautengensis H. sapiens sapiens
A. kadabba H. habilis H. floresiensis
A. ramidus H. rudolfensis Denisova hominin
Australopithecus H. ergaster ReddeerCave people
A. anamensis H. georgicus
A. afarensis
A. bahrelghazali
A. africanus
A. garhi

Hence this chapter is concluded with the characteristics of the genus Homo

and the other species of Australopithecus and Neanderthalenisis. The

evidences of fossils, use of tools etc also show that they have some close

resemblance to that of the existing human beings. The scientific name of the

modern humans is Homo sapiens and the present research studies realized that

they have not the direct emergence from the ancestral ones. The first chapter is

already mentioned about the races of India. The characteristics and the figure

of these primates shows that they have some similarities of the races

mentioned in the V¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸a. The life forms and the epochs of each

species give some clear evidence and the detailed study of this is discussed in

the later chapters.