The Evolution of Culture in Hominids

One of the most fundamental albeit contentious questions in the discipline of anthropology is on the evolution of culture. Through the evolutionary history of hominids there have been biological changes and behavioural changes and these adaptations have developed the capacity for culture and it is therefore important to identity where and what in the evolution led to the capacity of culture. Thus certain definitions and criteria should be established in order to set the parameters for such identification. Culture shall herein be defined as the systemic, non-utilitarian, applied and cognitive process of the acquisition, innovation, sharing and transitioning of common symbolisms, beliefs and physical practices in a group that goes beyond basic survival utility. Thus, symbolic art and tool specialisation are key examples of this definition of culture and will be used as the basis for the study of the capacity of culture. This sense of culture can be seen as similar to the definition of human behavioural modernity with some exceptions and thus the periods of the Palaeolithic will be a primary focus. Moreover, as qualification it is important to make the distinction between non-human primate culture and what this essay will consider culture. Chimpanzees and other non-human primates may indeed possess various characteristics that allow for culture, but this essay argues for a more narrow definition of culture. In order to establish the period in hominid evolution where the capacity of culture was developed this essay will focus on two umbrella aspects of hominid evolution: biological characteristics of bipedalism, larynx position and cranial capacity; and behavioural characteristics of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation. The primary chronological period this essay will focus on is during the late Lower Palaeolithic to the early Upper Palaeolithic where the aforementioned characteristics can be seen to be most prominent. These aspects provide a biosocial and complementary account of hominid evolution and holistically cover the important and relevant characteristics needed to establish the capacity for culture in hominids.

Culture is ultimately constrained by biology and therefore it is important to study the physiological and anatomical aspects of hominids and the evolutionary implications for culture. Biological adaptation is the foundation for cultural adaptation and the cognitive basis for behaviour. Thus from this umbrella aspect of biological characteristics the identification of whence in the hominid evolution the capacity for culture was attained. The fundamental aspects of human anatomy intrinsic in the relation to the capacity of culture can be established as bipedalism, cranial capacity and larynx position and these three criteria will be addressed. Bipedalism is the foundational step in hominid evolution for the capacity for culture. It is a clear exemplification of the morphological difference in humans and non-human primates and has the capability for cultural change. Bipedalism firstly freed the hands of hominids and allowed them to further experiment with tool creation. As Diamonds states, “The upright posture freed our ancestors’ forelimbs to do other things, among which toolmaking proves the most important” (2006: 34). This form of locomotion holds the foundations for cultural adaptation because it allows mobility and flexibility. Since Australopithecus afarensis descended from the trees bipedalism has the foundational defining biological characteristic of hominids. Therefore it is important to study other aspects of hominid biology as to better develop the identification for the capacity for culture. The hominid larynx position is an important biological necessity in the capacity of culture because it is the primary criterion for the capacity of verbal language. Moreover, the capacity for vocal communication is one of the most fundamental and obvious distinctions that separates Homo sapiens and the rest of the primates. Language and communication play central roles in culture and the ability for such is defined by the position and structure of the larynx, tongue and associated muscle physiologies. This “...anatomical basis for spoken complex language... [and] modification of the protohuman vocal tract to give us finer control and permit formation of a much greater variety of sounds” (Diamond 2006: 54-55) and is the tiny change in human genes that allows for culture. The evolution of the larynx position reflected the shape of the flexed basicranium and as cranial capacity increased the anatomy of the larynx began to descend into neck as is seen with Homo erectus. As Diamond posits, “Without language, two protohumans could not brainstorm together about how to devise a better tool, or about what a cave painting might mean.” (2006: 55) Thus the evolution of the position of the larynx can been seen as a survival mechanism to increase complex cooperative foraging, but language also turned into a verbal form of cultural expression. The position of the larynx in human anatomy is the fundamental criteria for complex vocalised language and thus allows for cultural expression and behavioural adaptation. Cranial capacity is one of the most important and relevant characteristics for hominid culture. Cognition and mental ability are directed linked with cranial capacity and brain size and cognition is the foundation for culture. Moreover, throughout the archaeological records are skulls from the evolutionary history of hominids and inferences of cognition and cultural ability can be made through the analysis of brain size. There has been a steady progression in hominid cranium size from the early Australopithecus africanus around three million years ago with the cranial capacity of four hundred to Homo habilis around two million years ago with the cranial capacity of five hundred to Cro-Magnon in the Upper Palaeolithic Age with the cranial capacity of sixteen hundred has coincided with technological change and cultural expressions. Moreover, with the increases in cranial capacity came with basicranial flexion and the change of the shape of the brain. Anatomically modern humanlike brains have parietal and temporal lobes predominating with the convolution of frontal lobes and these are neurologically important for social organisation and information transmission and therefore the maintenance of a cultural capacity. Nonetheless, “the extra brain size of early Homo sapiens had not dramatic immediate effect on their way of life. [Indeed], the whole long tenure of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens outside of Africa was a period of infinitesimally slow cultural change.” (Diamond 2006: 37) Therefore it is important to look at cognition along with other factors such as behavioural and ecological considerations. Overall, cranial capacity is fundamental in the capacity for culture it is argued that this relationship was not fully established until early Homo sapiens in the Upper Palaeolithic.

The essential and evolutionary precursor to a systemic form of culture is general behaviours and social organisations. Cultural capacity is bio-cognitively based; however it is correlated and in many caused by manifestations in the areas of phylogeny and social organisation, symbolic and non-utilitarian expression and patterns of various activities. Such behavioural characteristics can be established with the criteria of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation in order to identify where in hominid evolution the capacity of culture was formed. Cooperation for any species is fundamental to survival, but it can be seen to play an important role in culture, especially human culture. Because culture requires the sharing and transitioning of beliefs and practices, cooperation and its consequent effects of sociality and altruism are foundational criteria for the identification of a cultural capacity. “Co-operation is also the architect of creativity throughout evolution and without co-operation, there can be neither construction nor complexity nor culture.” (Nowak 2011:1) The generational transmission of information is another fundamental aspect of culture and is largely achieved through grandparenting and can been seen as a branch of cooperation. From the archaeological records it can be established through skeletal analysis that Neanderthals had a life expectancy of around thirty to forty. Unlike the Homo sapiens in the Palaeolithic ages with general life expectancy of sixty, “the ability to accumulate and transmit information suffered” for Neanderthals. Therefore, Neanderthals lacked the effective capability in cultural transmission and therefore lacked in the capacity for culture which Homo sapiens did not. The behavioural characteristics of sociality and mutual aid inevitably accompany cooperation and these are also essential for cultural progression. Such behavioural traits can be considered as life histories and these “Unique life histories late in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic coincide with modern humanlike brain size” (Macho 2007: 507) The behavioural characteristic of cooking can be associated with the control of fire and the diversification of diet. Cooking is a fundamental act of expression that has both survival utility and symbolism and acts as a cultural practice which is learned and transmitted through generations. A major advance in human evolution was the control of fire. (Diamond 2006) The exploitation of fire is an overtly human trait and evidence for it can be found in the archaeological records for Homo erectus in China. From then, the utilisation of fire has been a defining behaviour which leads onto the diversification of diet. As diet is a foundational factor of evolution it can be seen that “changes in dietary adaptations underline the evolution of large brains” (Macho 2007: 507). With the criteria of cooking alone, it is difficult to pinpoint where in the evolutionary history of hominids the cultural capacity was first developed. However, the period has been narrowed down between Homo erectus to Neanderthals to later with the Upper Palaeolithic. The utilisation of materials is a fundamental behavioural aspect of culture and hominid evolution. An immensity of inferences can be made by the archaeological evidence of various stone tools ranging from the cognitive capacity and age of the maker to the environmental and chronological factors of the tool in question. Tool use is not an uncommon behaviour and the “regular use of stone tools is a hallmark in human culture with clear animal precedents that evolved independently to employ tools in capturing or processing food, though none are as heavily dependent on implements as we now are.” (Diamond 2006: 59) Many other species employ tools for gathering food, such as various birds, and for building habitats, such as various mammals. Moreover, non-human primates are indeed effective tool makers and users. These forms of tool use can be seen as culture. To add to this debate, the dimension of symbolic art will be added to order to better identify what constitutes culture in hominid evolution. As has already been expounded the identification of the capacity of culture in hominid evolution essentially comes down to whether Neanderthals had such a capacity. Through looking at material utilisation, technological change and the symbolism of art, this essay argues that Neanderthals did not have what has been considered the capacity of culture and it was only at the early Homo sapiens of Cro-Magnons did this capacity fully and comprehensively evolve. Moreover, the tools found in the archaeological records for the early Stone Age too lacked the traits required to be called a cultural expression. Diamond argues that the early tools of the Stone Ages did not have “... sufficiently consistent or distinctive shape to suggest any specific function...” (2006: 38) and therefore were not culturally innovative. “Common chimpanzees also use tools, occasionally of stone, but not in numbers sufficient to litter the landscape” (Diamond 2006: 36) and therefore, akin to the Neanderthals uninformed utilisation of technology it can be argued that this does not constitute culture. Although Neanderthals did indeed have large craniums, create tools, bury the dead and perhaps had some symbolic forms of art; their tools remained unchanged and simple and lacked distinct types with unique functions. Neanderthal tools had no variation in either time or space and therefore lacked in innovation which is a key aspect in culture. Moreover, they “left no unequivocal art objects” (Diamond 2006: 43). There is archaeological evidence of some Neanderthal ornamentation, but it is an overtly small and heterogeneous collection of drilled animal teeth, incised bone, ochre with use facets, engraved rock. As this essay’s definition of culture mandates a more standardised and systemic expression of culture, Neanderthals do not conform to such. Comparatively with non-human primates, Neanderthal material culture lacks the innovation and complexity warranted to be defined culture. This argument can also be made against Middle Stone Age humans in Africa because “...they still lacked standardised bone tools, non-utilitarian art and cultural variation in tools from place to place” (Diamond 2006: 45) Diamond proposes that “...human art is non-utilitarian, that it is for aesthetic pleasure, and that it is transmitted by leaning rather than through a genetic basis.” (2006: 170) Progress in Cro-Magnons art is a key example of symbolic and non-utilitarian material culture. Rock paintings, polychrome depictions, bas reliefs, necklaces, ceramics and musical instruments are examples to the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution in which behavioural modernity was fully expressed by Homo sapiens. “These variations of culture in time and space are totally unlike the unchanging monolithic Neanderthal culture. They constitute the most important innovation that came with our rise to humanity: namely, the capacity for innovation itself.” (Diamond 2006: 50) Innovation in material utilisation is a key behavioural aspect in the capacity of culture and it can only been seen to have fully and systematically developed in the Upper Palaeolithic Age with the Cro-Magnons.

The capacity of culture is a unique aspect of animal existence and the identification of it in the evolution of hominids has been and is a contentious and complex task in anthropology. By looking at the most important and most relevant characteristics, both biological and behavioural, a more accurate identification can be established. Moreover, the outcome of any such task is dependent on the definition of culture and this essay has set the parameters to allow the most effective process to select where in hominid evolution the capacity of culture was developed. The biological characteristics of bipedalism, larynx position and cranial capacity were looked at and it was established that these were fundamental in allowing culture. Moreover, the behavioural characteristics of cooking, cooperation and material utilisation were examined and it was found the behaviour is the essential precursor to culture. It is important to note that explanations from both the biological and behavioural aspects were needed and they provided complementary identifications. Overall, it can be seen that within the definitions of this essay, the capacity of culture was developed in late Lower Palaeolithic to the early Upper Palaeolithic with the emergence of Cro-Magnon.

References

Diamond, J.
2006 The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal, 2nd Ed. New York: Harper Pernnial.

Hill, K., M. Barton, and A. M. Hurtado
2009 The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behavioural modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18: 187-200.

Flinn, M. V., and R. D. Alexander
1989 Culture theory: The developing synthesis from biology. Human Ecology 10(3): 383-400.

Janson, C. H. and E. A. Smith
2003 The evolution of culture: New perspectives and evidence. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12: 57–60.

Johanson, D.C., and B. Edgar
2006 Lucy: the beginnings of humankind, rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Klein, R.G.
1989 The human career: human biological and cultural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klein, R. G., and B. Edgar
2002 The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: Wiley Publishing.

Rindos, D.
1986 The Evolution of the Capacity for Culture: Sociobiology, Structuralism, and Cultural Selectionism. Current Anthropology 27(4): 315-332.

Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten, and K. N. Laland
2006 Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 29: 329-383.

Macho, G.
2007 Human Evolution. BioEssays 29(5): 500-508.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd
2005 The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd
2005 Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Straus, L. G.
1989 On early hominid use of fire. Current Anthropology 30(4): 488-491.

Ward, C.
2003 The Evolution of Human Origins. American Anthropologist 105(1): 77-88.

Australian Nationalism and Refugees as the "Other"

A national government maintains a set of assumptions, especially in immigration and refugee policy, that are primarily based in the nuances of identity. Such responses to refugees and asylum seekers by various governments of nation-states around the world are fundamentally underlined by interactions of national, ethnic and social identities and mentalities (Herzog 2009). From a sociological point of view, Australia is a very interesting case for the interplay of nationalist identity and refugee policy. In Australian national discourse and governmental policy there appears an intrinsic dichotomy of “us”, Australian citizens of Anglo-Western European Christian heritage, and “them”, Immigrants, refugees, Asians, Muslims (Said 2003). In the Australian context of nationalistic discourse those that constitute “them” or the “Other” are expressed as “Un-Australian” (Mummery 2007). This phenomenon of the “Un-Australian” transcends all nominal identities, such as class, gender and politics, except those identities of nationality and ethnicity. Such a sociological phenomenon of national identity discourse is at the forefront of border protection politics and refugee treatment policy and has been rooted in Australia government since the White Australia Policy. Since the termination of the White Australia Policy in the later middle of the twentieth century, nothing has been as contentious as the introduction of the policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing of refugees and asylum seekers in 1992 (Waxmana 2002). This set of policies was formulated by the Labor Government of the time and expanded by the Coalition Government of Prime Minister John Howard as the “Pacific Solution”. Such have coincided with a rise in nationalism, exemplified by conservative former Prime Minister John Howard statement in 2001; the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party by Pauline Hanson in 1998; and the excessive and derogative use of the term “boat people” in the media. This essay response will seek to expound the intrinsic dichotomy in national identity by looking at the three aforementioned exemplifications of nationalistic and populist rhetoric in reference to refugee policy as to explain and critique the assumptions and interplay of identity that are founded in the Australia’s policy of the treatment of refugees and reaction to asylum seekers.

The famous statement and piece of nationalist sentiment by Prime Minister John Howard of “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” during the Federal Coalition election campaign of 2001 was a hallmark in the discourse of nationalist identity and in government policy towards immigration and refugees (Marr 2005). It epitomises the dichotomy of “us” and “them”, began a phenomenon of populist rhetoric, and coincided with a step up in harsh policymaking for refugee arrivals by boat. Within the backdrop of an already well established system mandatory detention and offshore processing, the “Tampa affair” in 2001 was a stark exemplification of the consequences of Howard’s statement. The Norwegian freight ship MV Tampa rescued a number of Afghani refugees but was refused to enter Australian waters and Australian military forces were ordered to board the ship to prevent such actions. The “children overboard affair”, also of 2001, is another fundamental instance of populist rhetoric and the consequences of exclusive national identity (Piper 2004). Federal ministers made inaccurate statements to mislead the public about how refugees were inhumane enough to throw their children from their boats in order to secure asylum. The primary and underlying assumption that allowed and accepted the harsh, unethical and debatably illegal actions of the Howard government are based in the exclusivist concept of the “Other” and propagated by overt national pride and populist rhetoric. An extreme manifestation of Australian nationalism culminated with the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party in 1998. With the election into federal parliament of Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation Party, was a wave of xenophobic and racist rhetoric (Jupp 1999). Hanson saying in her maiden address in parliament: “I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” Such rhetoric fundamentally underlies the phenomenon of the “Other” and clearly displays the nationalistic sentiment present in Australian policymaking thought (Waxmana 2002). The term and concept of “boat people” plague Australia’s national discourse on refugees through its continual perpetuation and propagation in the media and in politics. Be it on the airwaves of talk back radio, on the television screens of commercial channel current affairs programs or in the speeches of the federal opposition in parliamentary debates, “boat people” maintains a niche in the discourse of national identity (Mummery 2007). Espoused predominately by the leader of the opposition Tony Abbott as a populist rally call, the rhetorical terminology of “boat people” represents a fundamental response supported by, arguably, the mainstream demographic of Australians to illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers (Piper 2004). By labelling legitimate refugees that attempt to seek asylum in Australia that come by means of boat transportation as “boat people”, it becomes much easier and acceptable to dehumanise such refugees and distort Australia’s legal and moral obligations. Moreover, the continual focus on so called “boat people”, who in reality represent a small percentage of refugees, enables an easily identifiable scapegoat for the perceived decrease in the “Australian way of life” due to the increase in foreign migration and multiculturalism.

The effects and implications of the intrinsic dichotomy in Australia national discourse on immigration and refugees are profound. As Said (2003) propounded, the perpetuation of the “Other” in the case of refugees stems from the crux of national identity and, in Australia, has led to inhumane and unethical policies for and portrayals of refugees. The assumptions by the Australian government are underlined by the nuances of nationalism and national identity and these are the causation for the bigoted discourse in society.

References

Herzog, Ben. (2009). Between nationalism and humanitarianism. Nations and Nationalism. 15(2): 185-205.
Jupp, James. (1999). The Politics of Australian Immigration. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.
Marr, David and Marian Wilkinson. (2005). Dark Victory, 2nd Ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Mummery, Jane and Debbie Rodan. (2007). Discursive Australia: Refugees, Australianness, and the Australian Public Sphere. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. 21(3): 347-360.
Piper, Margaret. (2004). Australia’s refugee policy. The Sydney Papers. 12(2): 78-88.
Said, Edward. (2003). Orientalism, 3rd Ed. London: Penguin Books.
Waxmana, Peter. (2002). The shaping of Australia’s immigration and refugee policy. Journal of Immigrants and Minorities. 19(1): 53-78.

Multiculturalism is dead? How about right-wing politics is alive and well?

Australia is a nation of diversity. This diversity covers all aspects of life, from sexuality, to political preference, to disability and to ethnical and national background. Australia has always had a diverse demography, and it inevitably always will.

Australia is not a Western Judaeo-Christian nation-state; it is not a theocratic white country. Indeed, the majority of its citizens are of the Christian European demographic, but this does not make our democratic system or civil society the bastion for this demographic.

Australia is a nation-state based on the ideals that are universal to humanity, and no culture or religion can have a monopoly on them. Our society is based on the ideals of egalitarianism and liberty, of sacrifice and altruism. Our political system is based in the ideals of secularism and the separation of church and state, free speech and human rights. These ideals are the only way of maintaining a just and fair civil society. This is all fact – social, historical and legal fact.

Moreover, multiculturalism is not a policy. It is an undeniable practical fact. Australia is a country in the Asia-pacific, with an Aboriginal peoples and a European majority. Yet the Asia-pacific region is home to the majority of humans on this earth. What do we think should happen? Do we really think that migrants living in poverty and from overcrowding homes would not flock to this nation? Were we thinking that refugees do not see Australia as a safe, tolerant and prosperous place? Is Australia going to be morally degraded by Asians? Were we thinking that we would dodge the issue of immigration and asylum altogether? Do we think that there is a global Islamic conspiracy to take over our homeland? Is Australia going to become the Islamic Asian Republic of Australia by 2050?

No? Then why do we persistent in our narrow nationalist mind frame of fear? Why does Australia still base our government and political policies in unrealistic terms? Why do we not see reality? If you truly see tolerance and acceptance of multiculturalism a bad thing, I ask you to prove it with qualitative and or quantitative data. Make some evidence-based evaluations before you start to sprout bigotry on your local radio or propagate distorted information about Australia’s legal basis for asylum seekers in your newspaper. I ask you, I ask Australia, why is a multicultural society a bad thing?

The conservative commentators and right-wing politicians are fearful. Why are they fearful? Indeed everyone has a mandate to voice their views in a democracy about the future of this nation, but surely fear and the distortion and spin of fact has no place in our contemporary democratic society?

Now, I don’t mind if the Coalition and conservative commentators live with wool over their eyes and sprout archaic nationalism and claim a clash of civilisations in this nation of threatened and helpless White-Western-European-Christian purebloods; but the fact is that this is an untenable view.

What I personally fear is that politicisation and spin of immigration and culture and nationalism is a symptom of the utter degradation of our democratic system. When the few zealots can manipulate the views of a population, we, as a civil society, must realise that something is wrong.

Australia is in two wars and many other military and humanitarian operations. Therefore we have moral and legal obligations for why we must give refuge to asylum seekers, whether or not they come by boat or plane. This is fact. Moreover, what is also fact is that “boat people” has become the buzzword of the fear and smear campaign of modern Australian politics. It is a diversion from the basis of immigration policy and a populist rally for support for right-wing politicians. Tactical policymaking is being based on polling results and nothing of any sort of substance or quality is being formulated. Our politicians are not doing the duties mandated of them.

When our mainstream elected representatives decide that negative and stereotypical images of immigrants and refugees are accurate, we must realise that something is wrong. When populist nationalism and bigotry become part of the normal political business, our democratic and diverse civil society becomes much the lesser. We cannot force people into moulds. Human rights are not a political issue. We must accept our diversity, transcend our differences, realise our similarity and try to live the best we fortunately can in our democratic, free and prosperous Commonwealth.

I ask you all, why is a multicultural endorsed Australia bad?