Homo heidelbergensis

Artist rendition of Homo heidelbergensis (Source: Smithsonian)

In this blog post you will learn about a hominid species known as Homo heidelbergensis.  This species existed about 600,000 to 500,000 years ago throughout Africa and Europe, as well as in small pockets of Asia and the Middle East.  Despite its initial discovery in 1907 outside of Heidelberg, Germany, where it received its namesake, and the numerous specimens discovered of this species there still remains various unknowns about this species.  This post will discuss what is currently known and what remains a mystery about this species.

 

The exact evolutionary origins of Homo heidelbergensis are unclear.  Some scholars believe that it was a descendent of Homo erectus, specifically the African varieties (also known as Homo ergaster), but other scholars believe heidelbergensis is a descendant of Homo antecessor.  Because its evolutionary origins are questioned so are its first geographical origins.  The earliest specimen of Homo heidelbergensis that has been discovered to date was from Ethiopia, suggesting an African origin, but its presence throughout Europe could mean it originated there and migrated to various other locations. 

 

There is a great deal of morphological variation within the species, which is attributed to sexual dimorphism or geographical and temporal distance among the specimens.  There are, however, some similar characteristics.  Males averaged in height at 5 foot 9 inches, whereas females were quite shorter at an average of 5 foot and 2 inches.  Weights were not too different as males weighed more (average 136 pounds) and females average 112 pounds.  They had a cranial capacity of 1100-1400 cc.  This is larger than Homo erectus species but smaller than modern humans’ cranial capacities.  There was a greater cranial breadth compared to previous species and the presence of an occipital bun.  The facial area had large, pronounced brow ridges, which may have been a sexually dimorphic feature; prognathism; large noses; swept back cheek bones; puffy faces due to enlarged frontal and maxillary sinuses; and a lack of a chin.  Their teeth were similar in shape and size to Homo neanderthalensis, which makes sense since heidelbergensis is cited as their ancestor, as well as to modern humans and potentially Denisovans.  Inner ear morphological traits suggest that this species had a similar level of hearing to that of modern humans.

 

Homo heidelbergensis developed various early cultural features that are present in subsequent hominid species.  They had controlled use of fire, created the Levallois stone tool tradition, were avid hunters and fishers, as well as constructed temporary structures made of stone and wood.  They also made use of rock shelters and caves for sheltering purposes.  At the site of Sima de los Huesos in Spain is sufficient evidence to support their use of mortuary traditions.  Several dozen specimens appear to have been intentionally placed into a pit, along with the potential intentional depositing of geological specimens that may have acted as burial goods.  Interestingly enough, this species is also the first to inhabit colder climates despite not necessarily having the physical characteristics that would have benefited them, which are seen among Neanderthals.

 

As continued collection of new specimens occurs there will hopefully be a clearer understanding about this specific species.  Currently, the wealth of information available about Homo heidelbergensis provides us a great deal into their morphological and cultural characteristics, but more information about them only helps us better understand what specifically makes humans unique and how specifically we came to be who and what we are today.

 

References

Haviland, W. A. (2005). Human Evolution and Prehistory. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.

No Author. (2001). Origins of Humankind: Homo heidelbergensis. Retrieved from PBS: Evolution: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/m.html

Smithsonian Institution. (2022, July 1). Homo heidelbergensis. Retrieved from Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis

Welker, B. H. (n.d.). The History of Our Tribe: Homini. Open Educational Resource.

 

Yanomami Politics: Conflict, Feasts, and Chest Pounding Duels

Screenshot of a Yanomami feast as provided in a documentary film (Source: Alexander Street)

 

 The Yanomami people of the Amazonian rain forests of Brazil and Venezuela are a widely discussed group within the field of anthropology.  This is in part due to the work of Napoleon Chagnon who studied them, followed by various other works by other anthropologists (some of whom agreed with Chagnon's assessments and others who did not).  There is a great deal of debate about what is true and untrue about Yanomami way of life, but today's blog post is going to address some aspects of their political systems that help maintain alliances among Yanomami villages.

 

The Yanomami are primarily horticulturalists who supplement their diet through hunting and foraging activities.  Yanomami villages are made up of anywhere between 40 to 300 people.  The size of the village is not based on the ability of the villagers and their leader, the headsman, to sustain the village population.  It is actually based on the ability on the headsman's ability to sustain his people and any guests they may host.  As such the headsman must maintain larger and more productive horticultural endeavors as it is his responsibility to host guests.  

Guests may come to the village on a short term or long term basis.  Typically long term guests are the result of warfare that requires a village to permanently move to a new space, and they rely on the generosity of their allies to host them as they rebuild the village structures but also their horticultural gardens.  Maintaining allies with neighboring villages is key to this relationship, which is dependent on a series of favors and debts maintained by all parties.  One way to secure a favor and pay debts is to host a feast.

 

Feasts are initiated by the headsman, who will direct his villagers to perform the preparatory duties for the impending feast.  This can take several weeks of preparatory work.  Men are responsible for hunting, gathering, and cooking the meals that will be served for the feast, while women are responsible for cleaning and taking care of guests.  Part of the cleaning requires them to weed and clear an area within the center of the village for dancing and celebration.  Men go out and procure enough meat resources to sustain the feast and ensure no one is left hungry.

 

The day of the feast is when the neighboring village receives their invitation to the feast.  All parties, hosts and guests, don elaborate costumes and paint their faces and bodies to show their appreciation and lack of hostility in the festivities. The visiting village marches in a parade to the host village, and the leader of the parade wears the most elaborate decorations.  His role is also to engage in a series of song and chants with the host headsman to signify the visiting village's appreciation and acceptance of the invitation.  Once the opening festivities, which are demarcated by the singing and chanting between the parade leader and host headsman, end the host villager families invite a specific visiting village family into their home to eat the foods that was cooked for the feast.

 

As the evening goes on the host villagers and the visiting villagers exchange a series of gifts.  The visiting villagers can request specific gifts from the host villagers, but they must make an unequal trade for that gift. This means that the visiting villagers provide a less valuable gift for trade for the more valuable gift the host villagers provide.  The purpose of such an exchange is to create debt that will be repaid in the future, be it through a different feast or through the temporary housing in the event of a conflict.

 

Unfortunately, conflict may break out at the feast.  If and when this occurs the conflicting parties engage in a chest pounding duel.  Both individuals must agree to the duel, which involves the hitting, slapping, and punching between both parties.  Each party can inflict no more than four blows to the other, and each blow is expected to be with the striker's full force.  No weapons are supposed to be used unless they are used in nonlethal ways and on the sides, not the front, of the body.  The duel ends when either or both parties are unable to continue with strikes due to mortal wounding or death.

References Cited

Peters-Golden, H.  (2011).  Culture Sketches: Case Studies in Anthropology. 6th Edition.  Mc-Graw Hill Education.

 

Love Is Love: A Review of Ancient Greek Homosexuality

Figure 1: Athenian Amphora dated to 540 BC

 

There is a great deal of scholarship concerning ancient Greek culture and society.  This in part due to their prolific written and material cultural record, as well as their influence on contemporary cultures and arts.  Despite this there were aspects of Greek history and culture that were willfully ignored or reinterpreted to meet current and dominate values.  It was not until 1978 when K.J. Dover published his monumental work on Greek homosexuality that attentions slowly shifted, and the topic eventually became more acceptable to address.  Today’s blog post will provide a review of what is currently known about Greek homosexuality.

 

Before an in-depth discussion is begun, however, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of much of the current scholarship.  There has been an over emphasis on Greek elites, particularly men, in the study of homosexuality.  There is limited information and study on Greek women and their perceptions or activities in terms of their sexualities, and there is not much concerning nonelite Greek’s values or activities concerning sexuality. 

 

Much of the current scholarship has been widely influenced by the interpretations made by Dover, who studied Greek material culture and literature in reaching his conclusions.  He believed that Greek homosexuality was embedded in the fabric of Greek elite society, and it was a rite of passage that was institutionalized in many ways into the elite Greek educations.  Older men would engage in sexual relationships with adolescent males.  The adolescents would receive educations in arts, philosophy, and politics, while the adult men would secure and reaffirm their masculine identities as the dominator.  This is reaffirmed in Homer’s Iliad, wherein two Greek heroes, Achilles and Patroclus, were engaged in a mixed age sexual relationship, as well as in various vases that show an adult male engaging in sexual acts with a younger, submissive male (Figure 1).  Adult men would end their relationships with their adolescent partners when they reached adult ages, in which case the newly adult partners would engage in their own relationships with younger partners.

 

This idea was widely held for an extended period and remains steadfast among various current Greek scholars.  It is one, however, that is being reanalyzed more recently based on a review of the evidence.  First, Achilles was younger but he was the dominator of the relationship, which calls into the notion that these relationships were about power.  Additionally, there are various vases that show similarly aged males engaging in sexual relationships, or younger adolescent males being the aggressors or enjoying the sexual attentions of their older male partners. 

 

Furthermore, there is no specific written evidence within Greek records to definitively support the notion of sexual relationships being about power.  In fact, there is actually the opposite available.  The ancient Greeks believed love was love, be it with a same sex or opposite sex partner.  This is supported by one of their origins stories that claims early humans existed with multiple arms, legs, and double the internal organs of modern humans.  These humans angered the paramount god, Zeus, who split them in two, creating modern humans with two legs, two arms, and a single set of organs.  The search for a loving partner was about finding one’s original other half from when humans had multiple limbs and organs, meaning same sex relationships were acceptable and, in many ways, expected.  Additionally, the ancient Greeks never had terms or designations for homosexual or heterosexual relationships.  In fact the term homosexual did not exist until 1869 when it was coined by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert.  This means the notions of sexuality as we understand them today is a modern invention and such notions about sexuality did not exist in the past.

 

As previously noted the scholarship on female sexuality and the sexual relationships of nonelites is limited, but it is ongoing.  There is evidence that suggests that female same sex relationships did exist (based on the poetry by Sappho who wrote about her love for various women), as well as laws among various ancient Greek city states that privileged same sex relationships.  As this area of study is no longer considered taboo more and more information concerning sexuality among ancient Greeks, and other societies around the world, should become available and illuminate our understanding of love and sexual relations both in the past and today.

 

Bibliography

Cartlidge, B. (2019, February 27). LGBT History Month - Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Retrieved from University of Liverpool Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/archaeology-classics-and-egyptology/blog/2019posts/homosexuality-in-ancient-greece/

Flynn, J. (2021, June 22). Lovers and Soldiers. Retrieved from National Endowment for the Humanities: https://www.neh.gov/article/lovers-and-soldiers

Livius. (2020, July 29). Greek Homosexuality. Retrieved from Livius.org: https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/

No Author. (n.d.). Homosexuality. Retrieved from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/19a_p1.html

Percy, W. A. (2008). Reconsiderations About Greek Homosexualities. Journal of Homosexuality, 13-61.

 

Lavender Linguistics

Continuing with the theme of this month this post addresses how linguistic anthropologists have addressed LGBTQI identities and issues.  The study of language and society finds its roots within sociolinguistics, but this field of study allows for more specific investigations.  This is where lavender linguistics comes into play.

 

Lavender linguistics is the study of language use among LGBTQI identifying individuals.  The lavender portion of the name comes from the long history of this color being associated with LGBTQI populations, and the addition of linguistics simply demonstrates the focus on language.  It covers a variety of topics, including the use of language within specific social contexts (e.g., how LGBTQI individuals communicate among others within their group versus outsiders), focal language, phonetics, language and power (as well as discrimination), and more.  The field has expanded to include intersectional study of language as it relates to socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and historical contexts, specifically recognizing culturally specific uses of language by geographical area.

 

This area of linguistics came about in the early 1990s as a result of conversations that occurred at the Berkeley Women and Language Conference.  Shortly thereafter, in 1993, a group of linguists from North America, Europe, and parts of Asia and Africa came together for the inaugural Lavender Linguistics conference.  This niche area of study has evolved over time in large part due to the fission of linguists who studied what they called queer linguistics.  This field of study that came about in the early 2000s encourages macrolevel analysis of language use, specifically looking at how power impacts language use and similarities among LGBTQI focal languages across the world.  It also calls for researchers/scholars to examine how their views affect their research into queer identities and language use.  Over time, however, the fields have begun to complement each other, rather than existing in opposition, and many scholars borrow from both theoretical perspectives to better understand language use among LGBTQI individuals.

 

References

Leap, William L. "Lavender Language." Whelehan, Patricia and Anne Bolin. The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015. Print.

—. "This Month in Linguistics History: Lavender Language/Linguistics." 2019. Linguistic Society of America. Electronic. 5 June 2023.

Moratto, Em. "Lavender Linguistics: An Introduction." 2 August 2021. The Center on Colfax. Electronic. 5 June 2023.

Prince? Princess? of Vix

Figure 1: Reproduction of the Vix burial

 

In January 1953 a remarkable discovery was made in the Burgundy region of France: the first complete Iron Age (800-250 BC) burial (Figure 1).  The excavation took place quickly but haphazardly, and it yielded various more amazing discoveries, including a burial full of lavish and foreign grave goods.  It also led to a continued controversy: who is buried in the tomb? Is it an elite female or a transgender male? Today’s blog post will address the controversy concerning the individual buried in the Vix tumuli.

 

Large tumuli (burial mounds) were constructed throughout the Iron Age Europe.  They are most often located near prominent hillforts, and they are a holdover from previous periods wherein large burial mounds were also constructed.  At the site of Vix there are several tumuli, but the one that receives the most attention is the more recent, Iron Age one.  It contained at the time the most intact burial, dated tow 500-480 BC.  The burial contained one individual who was buried within a wooden wagon.  They were adorned with various gold, slate, and amber personal adornments, including two bracelets on each wrist, an anklet, gold plated brooch pins, leather and bronze belt, and a large and ornately decorated breast plate.  The breast plate was constructed of gold and molded with various images, including a Pegasus (winged horse), predatory cat paws, and poppies.  The interred individual was also accompanied by fantastic artifacts made of bronze, silver, and ceramics.  The most prominent, however, was the largest bronze krater to be discovered (even to this day), which had been filled with mead (Figure 2).  All together the burial goods suggested that this was a high-ranking individual who had the power and/or wealth to import elaborate goods from the Mediterranean. 

 

Figure 2: Vix Krater

 

Initial osteological analyses of the individual determined that this was a female aged between 30-35 years of age.  The archaeologists at that time were hard pressed to believe that this was, indeed, a woman.  It is believed that their ethnocentric biases would not allow them to accept the presence of elite women being treated so well in their deaths, so they ultimately concluded that this was a “transvestite male priest” (note, that was the acceptable term at that time).

 

Some 30 years later a reanalysis of the remains took place.  Unfortunately, it is unclear if the remains were poorly stored or in poor condition at the time of discovery (as archaeological methods were not the same as modern day methods).  The reanalysis acknowledged that the osteological remains were incomplete, with various elements missing or partially in-tact.  The reanalysis led to a different conclusion on sex, however.  The definitive sex determination was thrown out and replaced with the assessment that this was an indeterminate individual.  The partial cranium and pelvic bones demonstrated both masculine and feminine traits. 

 

The anomalous sex determinations, however, were not brought to light for another ten years when Bettina Arnold presented her research on the Vix burial at the University of Calgary.  She asserted that based on comparative analysis of various other Iron Age burials, which included samples of male and female tombs, that the Vix individual was a female based on the specific types and placements of the personal adornments associated with the body, as well as the lack of weapons found within the tomb itself.  This, however, was not without question as there were some definitive male burials that were also discovered without weapons.  Additionally, Arnold noted that the osteological assessment was partially inconclusive due to a lack of population specific sex assessment standards.  She noted that this individual could be classified as either a robust Nordic female or a gracile Mediterranean male.

 

Ultimately, no definitive conclusions about the sex or gender of the Vix burial has been reached.  Some contemporary scholars are calling for a reanalysis of the burial and remains.  They request that the burial and remains be reevaluated without prejudice or bias, noting that gender roles and identities may have been vastly different from today.  This means that there is a potential for elite females to have been lavishly treated in death, while also allowing for the possibility of transgendered identities to have existed in the past, as well.  Hopefully with greater awareness, a more culturally relativistic approach, and modern analytical methods a more definitive answer can be reached.

 

Bibliography

Arnold, B. (1991). The Deposed Princess of Vix: the Need for An Engendered European Prehistory. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary (pp. 366-374). Calgary: The University of Calgary.

Knüsel, C. J. (2002). More Circe Than Cassandra: The Princess of Vix in Ritualized Social Context. European Journal of Archaeology, 275–308.

Lewis, C. (2022, September 25). Impact on Gender Roles in Archaeology. Retrieved from Real Archaeology: https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2022/09/25/impact-on-gender-roles-in-archaeology/

Weismantel, M. (2013). Towards a Transgender Archaeology: A Queer Rampage through Prehistory. In S. Stryker, & A. Z. Aizura, The Transgender Studies Reader 2 (pp. 319-334). New York: Routledge.