An Anthropological Perspective on Race and Intelligence - Brace

7/27/2019 An Anthropological Perspective on Race and Intelligence - Brace

1/21

An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human

Cognitive CapabilitiesAuthor(s): C. Loring BraceSource: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures(Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264Published by: University of New MexicoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631210Accessed: 02/12/2008 14:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631210?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unmhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3631210?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/21

AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ERSPECTIVEON "RACE"AND INTELLIGENCE:THE NON-CLINALNATUREOFHUMAN COGNITIVECAPABILITIES1C.LoringBrace

MuseumofAnthropology,niversity fMichigan,AnnArbor,MI48109Traits that are clinallydistributedare under the controlof selectiveorces thatare distrib-uted in graded ashion. Traits that cluster n certainregionsaresimplytheresultsof relat-edness and are not adaptively mportant.Traits that are of equal survival valuefor allhumanpopulations hould hownoaveragedifferencefromnepopulation oanother.Humancognitivecapacity, oundedon theabilityto learn a language, s ofequalsurvival value toallhuman groups, and cons4uently there is no valid reason to expectthat there should beaverage differences n intellectualabilityamong living humanpopulations.The archaeo-logicalrecordshows that,at any one time during thePleistocene,survivalstrategieswereessentiallythesame throughouthe entirerangeof human occupation.Botharchaeologicaland biologicaldata contribute o thepictureof theslow emergenceof human linguistic be-havior and its subsequentmaturation. The similarities in'human capabilitywere not theresultofa sudden,recent,and localizedcommonorigin.Instead,thewidelysharedcommonhuman condition was the consequenceof a long-termadaptationto common conditionsduring whichspecificunity was maintainedbylow but nontrivial ratesof genetic exchangeamong groups. The differences n human lifeways that have arisen since the end of thePleistocene-and in most instancesmuch morerecently-have had too little time to havehad any measurableeffecton thegeneration of inheriteddifferences n intellectualability.Whenaveragegroupdifferences n "intelligence"est scores are encountered,he irst con-clusion to bedrawnis thatthecircumstancesunder which intellectual apabilitiesare nur-turedand developedare not the samefor thegroups in question. Where uch tests showdifferent"racial" verages n testscores,this should betaken as an indexof thecontinuingeffectsof "race" rejudiceand not of inherentdifferences n capability.ALMOSTOUR ECADESGO, rankLivingstone generatedthe aphorism hat "thereare no races, there are only dines" (Livingstone 1962:279). This was followedten years later by RichardLewontin's demonstrationthat, genetically speak-ing, the differences within any given human group were far greater than theaverage differences between such groups (Lewontin 1973). Yet another de-cade more recently, the late Allan Wilson and his proteges showed that thehaplotype diversity data in mitochondrial DNA provided confirmationof theconclusions reachedby comparativeprimatebiology, paleontology,and archae-ology that the humanline had arisen in Africaand subsequently dispersed tothe rest of the Old World(Cann,Stoneking, and Wilson 1987). Most recentlystill, this conclusion has been given added support by the work on nuclearDNA haplotypes emanatingfrom, among other places, Ken Kidd's lab at Yale(Tishkoff et al. 1996). In spite of some premature attempts to draw conclu-sions, the question of when that Africanexodus took place still remains to be

Journal f Anthropologicalesearch,ol. 55, 1999Copyright? by The University of New Mexico245


3/21

JOURNAL F ANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHresolved. As those in the business are well aware, this will require the recon-ciliationof the apparentdiscrepancies in the dates yielded by archaeology,hu-man paleontology, and genetics.

Addinganotherdegree of complexityto our alreadymuddled situation is thepictureprovidedby the worldwidesurvey of craniometricdata nitiated hree de-cadesagobyW.W.Howells (Howells 1973, 1989,1995).Myown efforts o simplifyhis measurementset andtherefore ncreasethe numberof the samplesto whichitcouldeasily be appliedhave only served to confirm he utilityof his approach ndthe factthat its results areofgreater reliabilitywhen more rather hanfewermea-surementsare employed(BraceandHunt 1990;Braceand Tracer1992;Braceetal. 1993). That conclusion,of course, was clearlyunderstoodby Buffon and hiscontemporariesn the eighteenthcentury.There is acurious rony n the fact thatit has takenover two hundredyears and the accumulation f vast andcomputer-manipulated atabases to demonstrate he validityof that realization.Like the haplogrouppatterns generated by genetic analysis, the picturepro-vided by craniofacialmeasurements enables us to identifypatterns of regionaldistinctions and discoverable local variants. Some might say that this could becalled a "multiregional"picture of humanvariation;but the two-syllable prefixaddsnothingto ourunderstanding,andtherefore it onlyqualifiesas noise ratherthansignal in the transmissionof the message. In like fashion,our understand-ing of the nature of locally identifiablepatterns of morphology gains nothing ifthey are gratuitouslycalled "multilocal."Others have claimed that the identifi-cation of regional and subregional configurations is just a somewhat under-handedway of sneaking "races"back into the pictureby renamingthem "clus-ters" (Bowersock 1996). That charge, however, comes from those who havenot recognized the contrast between the patterns of distribution of traits thatare under selective force control as opposed to those that are not.The confusion surroundingthe claims and counterclaims associated withthese various efforts derives from what could be called figurativelythe com-parisonof apples andoranges. In a species such as Homosapiens where repro-ductive continuity is unbroken between its contiguous populations,traits thatare under selective force control will show gradationsthat are distributedinproportionto the graded intensity of the forces in question. Even where ge-netic interchangeis lower across populationboundaries than within each of itsconstituent entities, the degree to which each trait is observablymanifest willbe controlledby the intensity of the selective force in question and not the rateof gene flow. This is demonstrably llustratedby the distributionsof skin color.The distributionof hemoglobinvariants shows the same thing in independentand unrelated fashionalthoughwe do not perceive this directly.

NON-CLINAL ADAPTATIONSThe picture of humanvariationpresented by independentandcross-cuttingdines involves only those traits that are of adaptive significance for humansurvival. However, not all traits that are of adaptivevalue are clinally distrib-

246


4/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN"RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 247uted. There are manyfeatures that are of equalvalue to allhumanpopulations.Manyalso are of equalvalue to other genera, orders, and even classes of livinganimals, although the number of such traits shared in common decreases asrelationships become more remote.As practicingphysicians know, what is normal for salinity, iron content, andpressure of the blood does not differ from one human populationto another,althoughthere is a considerablerange of individualvariationwithin each. Thisis true for a great many of the biochemicaland physiologicalfeatures that arenecessary for humanexistence, andthese, in a sense, can serve as a measureof the common nature of the human condition. Clearly, the reason why theaverage state in each such trait is the same fromgroupto groupthroughoutthehuman species is because the nature of the specific selective force to whicheach represents a response is identical. As one of the fundamental nsights ofevolutionary biology, this at bottom is simply a manifestation of the under-standingthat Charles Darwinwas the first to develop andarticulate.Incontrast,the situation will be otherwise for traits thatare not underselec-tive force control. Of course, there is always the argumentofferedby some ofthe ideologically committed representatives of the neo-Darwinian synthesisthat all discernible traits have to be regardedas under selective force controleven if we have no idea concerningwhat that controlmight be. This stance hasbeen brilliantlysatirizedby GouldandLewontin as the "Panglossianparadigm"(Gould and Lewontin 1979). The hyperselectionists targeted in that critiqueare comparedto the pious Enlightenment figures who believed that, since Godis all-wise, all-powerful,and all-good,His created world had to be a reflectionof His own perfection. This was expressed in the phrase "all is for the best inthis best of all possible worlds," as Voltaire had the foolish Dr. Pangloss de-clare to his gullible pupil, Candide(Jerrold1930:xiii).In a remarkableparallelto that eighteenth-century declarationof faith,someof the proponents of the neo-Darwiniansynthesis simply replaced their trustin the omnipotent Christian God of their Enlightenment predecessors with acomparableunquestioning belief in the ubiquitous and all-controllingrole ofnatural selection (Fisher 1930; Houghton 1996). It takes nothing away fromthe paramount mportanceofnatural election forshaping he cumulativecourseof organic evolution to recognize that it is not an unchangingand plenipotentphenomenon. In spite of the lifelong oppositionof Sir RonaldA. Fisher, SewallWright managed to make an accepted case for the effects of chance alone-genetic drift-in determining the presence or absence of traits whose preciseform is not completely dictated by selection. Wrightnoted that chance couldhave such consequences in small, isolated populations,whether the isolationwas accomplishedby geographicbarriersor simplybecause of distance (Wright1932, 1943, 1946, 1948). As he and others realized, since Homo sapiens wasdistributed n small and semi-isolatedgroups throughoutmost of its Pleistoceneexistence, genetic driftmay well have played a role in generating some of thedifferences apparent between its regional-multiregional?-representativesin the worldtoday.If this is a reasonableexpectation, it is also true that low but


5/21

JOURNAL F ANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHcontinuous levels of gene flow have served to maintainspecific unity and alsoto circulate adaptivelyimportantgenetic elements whose prominence is thenproducedand maintainedby selection (Templeton 1996).

This situationsuggests that if those traits of adaptivesignificancethat differfromone population o another do so in gradedand unrelatedfashion,then theconverse can actually serve as a demonstrationof traits that are not of para-mount survival value. That is, traits that clump together to produce identifi-able configurationsin differentregions will do so because of genetic relation-ship alone-"family resemblance writ large" (Brace 1996:136). A region byitself is rarely if ever coterminous with the extent of a given selective forceand never marksthe boundaryof two or more unrelated selective force dimen-sions. The biologicaltraits that cluster together in a given region then allow usto identify the related people who live there or whose ancestors came fromthere, but they cannot indicate whether that configuration s better or worsethanany other such configuration.All we can say is that the configurationsaredifferent, that those differences are inherited, and that there is no way to ar-range them in any kindof hierarchicalranking.The very fact that traits clusterin a given region is reason enough to suggest that they have no particulardifferentialadaptivevalue.

CognitiveCapacityNow, if some adaptively mportantaspects of humanbiology are universallydistributedand have no averagedifferences from one population o another,andothers are distributed n gradedand unrelatedfashion,while traits that clusterinto regionalconfigurationshave no significantadaptivevalue, where would weexpect the inheritedaspects of human intellectualabilityto fall?First of all, wecan reject the possibility that human intelligence-or "cognitivecapacity," ouse the latest polysyllabicbuzzword-is of trivialadaptivevalue. Witha brainthat s more thantwicethe size ofanyother animalofcomparableorallometricallyadjusted) body bulk, and a capacityfor learned behavior as illustratedby lan-guage that is an orderof magnitudebeyondthatof any other creature,it is clearthat humanintelligence is of the utmost adaptivevalue. If we can accept thatasthe case, then we can dismiss the idea that human intellectualcapability s ofsuch trivialadaptivevalue that it can differin patternedfashionfromregion toregion in the mannerof the nonadaptiveregionalconfigurationsof craniofacialshape and other aspects of soft-partvariation.The suggestion that human intellectual capabilities might vary in gradedfashion from one region to another requires a bit more consideration,but, aswe shall see from a survey of the anthropological vidence, the reasons fortherejection of such a possibility are relatively clear and straightforward.Despitethe declarationsof several generations of outspoken bigots such as EllsworthHuntington (1924), Arthur Jensen (1980), the authors of The Bell Curve(Herrnstein and Murray 1994), J. Philippe Rushton (1995), and widespreadcommonly held assumptions to that effect, there is no reason to expect thatthere shouldbe any average difference at allbetween the various humanpopu-

248


6/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN "RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 249lations of the world. That is because the selective forces to which the develop-ment of human levels of intelligence represent the response have been uni-formly distributedthroughoutthe entire span of time duringwhich the genusHomo emerged by transformation rom its predecessor, Australopithecus, ndsubsequently when Homo's single living species-sapiens-emerged from itsspecific ancestor, erectus.To be sure, there are those who have picturedHomo erectusas aneastern OldWorldremnantof an earlier hominidspreadthat was subsequentlyreplacedbyHomo sapiens who emerged more recently in Africa for reasons unknown(Andrews 1984; Groves 1989). The ancestors of that sapiens are suggested tohave been eitherH. "heidelbergensis"rH. "ergaster,each characterized ysubtlecranial eaturesthat aredifferent romthose saidto be characteristic f H. erectus.There are several problemswith this position.One is the fact that both of those putative species-"heidelbergensis" and"ergaster"-were originallybased upon finds of isolated mandibles (Rightmire1990:229; Groves and Mazak 1975). The main role of the mandible is to sup-port the teeth whose principalfunction is in the processing of food, and theevidence shows that the same foods were being used throughoutmuch of thePleistocene. Since we do not thinkwith our teeth or chew with ourbrains,it isnot a productiveexercise to try to infer the status of either such morphologicalcomplex from the form of the other. The inference of cranial features fromheadless mandibles can only be accomplishedby the use of a magician'scrystalball and cannot count as science. At that, the cranial eatures attributed o thesequestionable species are of the trivial and nonadaptivesort that characterizeregional variants of the single living species of the genus Homo. As far as theadaptive features such as brain size and skull-wall thickness are concerned,there is no discernible difference between the craniaof the first-described andwell-documented species, Homoerectus,and those said to belong to the highlyquestionable and ill-justifiedentities labeled "ergaster" nd "heidelbergensis."OdontometricComparisonsThen if one compares the actual mandibular vidence on which those head-less entities were established, the same problem is encountered as that usedto justify specific distinctions in the attributedcrania.The nuances of formsaidto justify specific distinction are all of a nonadaptivenature. None are actuallycompared with the variation in these features visible in either H. erectus orlivingH. sapiens, anda considerationof the actualadaptive aspects-i.e., mea-surable tooth dimensions-is simply omitted. If tooth-size profiles are plottedfrom the cross-sectional areas of the teeth of what was offeredas the holotypeof Homo "ergaster"-ER-992 from Ileret in the East Rudolfarea,with additionof the missing I1measurements supplied by Ileret specimen ER-820 (Leakeyand Wood 1973:358)-from the means of the Middle Pleistocene mandibularteeth from Zhoukoudian Weidenreich1937), and from the Heidelberg (Mauer)mandible (Schoetensack 1908:49-53), we can construct the picture shown inFigure 1. There are enough overlaps and reversals so that the profiles are not


7/21

JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ESEARCH

;-aI -

L.~I' /

/ /I--PL ~~U-- -- - - Zhoukoudiar

--6- Heidelberg..... .. ER 992

I I I I I I I I11 12 C P1 P2 M1 M2 M3

ToothCategoryFigure 1. Cross-Sectional Area (MD x BL) Tooth-Size Profiles for the Mandibular

Teeth from ER-992 (plus ER-820), Heidelberg (Mauer),and the Mean Figures fromthe Middle Pleistocene Sample fromZhoukoudian200 -

.-A

- Afarensis- - - - Zhoukoudian---- Heidelberg....A... ER992---- England

0 I I I I I I I I11 12 C P1 P2 M1 M2 M3ToothCategory

Figure 2. MandibularTooth-Size Profile Comparisonsbetween a Sampleof theSpecies Australopithecus farensis from Hadar,Living Representatives of Homosapiens (England),and the SeparatePurported"Species"Compared n Figure 1

250200 -

150 -

-E2)cn:3CD

100 -

50 -

A150 -

e)E

c)03

100 -

50 -

U I.I.."


8/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN"RACE"ND NTELLIGENCE51300 -

I \250 - '.

U')? /IfAg~ I N ^ MurrayBasinE 200- -- Walbiri~ ~Jr&-a/---=-- NorthQueensland?U I/ -- -- Thailandr 150-CD / .-. -O- HongKong

100

50 I I I I I I I I11 12 C P1 P2 M1 M2 M3ToothCategory

Figure3. Mandibularooth-SizeProfiles or FiveSamplesofLivingHomo apiens

significantlydifferentwhen assessed bya simple sign test, even thoughsome ofthe individual ooth size differenceswill be significantwhen assessed bythe useof variancefigures derivedfromlarge populations.As can be seen in Figure 2, however, the teeth in those three samples are allsignificantly maller than the Australopithecine eeth at Hadar White,Johanson,and Kimbel 1983) and significantlylarger than the teeth in a sample of livingHomosapiens (Brace 1979). Ifthe same criteria used to establish the existenceof specific distinctions between "ergaster,""heidelbergensis,"nd erectus wereappliedto present-dayhumanbeings, we would have to recognize at least threeandperhapsas manyas half a dozen living humanspecies. As demonstratedinFigure 3, mandibular ooth size in Homosapiens today shows differences thatare of at least an equal magnitude and more consistent distinction than theLower to Middle Pleistocene comparison shown in Figure 1 (based on datapresented in Brace 1979 and the files in the University of MichiganMuseum ofAnthropology).

THE LUPINE ANALOGYAnotherproblemis the fact that the archaeologicalrecordprovides evidencefor only a single lifeway throughoutthe entire geographic extent occupied bythese supposedly separate species. The best evidence we have for the natureof that universally distributedand equally appliedset of selective forces is inthe archaeologicalmaterialdocumentingthe spreadof early Pleistocene Homofrom its Africanarea of origin throughoutthe tropics of the OldWorld.This is


9/21

JOURNAL F ANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHschematicallydepictedin Figure4. Whatthis shows is that tool-assisted huntingof plains-living ungulates was being practicedfromthe western to the easternextent of the tropical-to-temperategrasslandsof the OldWorldstartingclose totwomillionyears ago.Despite its unlikelybiological quipment,atropicalPrimatehad become a member of what AlanWalkerhas referred to as the "largecarni-vore guild"(Walker 1984:144).Constrainedby its primate heritage, our unlikely predator,being relativelynight-blind,could hardlychallenge the true Carnivora or the dusk and pre-dawnparts of the hunting ecological niche. However, the middayportionwasunoccupied.Hominidbipedalismoffered little in the way of a threat to poten-tial prey from sheer speed of foot, but the relatively low levels of energy re-quired to keep up a prolonged trot opened up the possibility of persistencehunting(Carrier1984). This was a technique thathumansin such widely sepa-ratedplaces as Australia,SouthAfrica,and northwest Mexico were using evenas recently as the first decades of the twentieth century. Almost certainlythisrepresented the exploitationof capabilitiesthat hadsurvived from the time oftheir earliest development when hominids became members of the large car-nivore guild as diurnal hunters on the savannas of Plio-Pleistocene Africa.Whetherthe prey is the graykangaroo Macropus),he bushbuck Tragelaphus),or the mule deer (Odocoileus), he physical, physiological, and tracking capa-bilities required of the hunter are identical,and this had to have been true asfar back as there is evidence for hominidhuntingactivities.

Figure4. A SchematicDepiction ftheSpread, ndicated ytheArrows, fEarlyHomooutofAfricaustunderTwo MillionYearsAgoThe solidarrowsdepict ntrance ntoareasofpermanentontinued ccupation,nd hearrowsat the ends of the broken ines indicate emporaryncursionsnto the NorthTemperateZone.

252


10/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN"RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 253For a periodofapproximately wo millionyears, members of the genus Homowere tropical-to-temperate-regiondiurnalpredators.The likelihood that morethan one hominidspecies succeeded in such an improbableventure is vanish-

inglysmall. The archaeologicaldemonstrationthatthere was onlya single hunt-ing lifeway spreading from Africa across the meridional latitudes of the OldWorld should constitute evidence for the spread of a single species of the ge-nus Homo. To be sure, a number of distinguished students of evolution, albeitnon-Darwinianones, upon turningtheir attentions to the humanfossil record,have arguedin favor of the expectation that there shouldhave been a multiplic-ity of hominidspecies at any given time (Tattersall 1986, 1997; Stanley 1996)and that the current situation of singularity s the exception (Gould1997).Thereare indeed valuable insights to be gained by applyingwhat we have learnedfrom the evidence for evolution in nonhuman animalsto an attempt to under-stand the humanpicture,but there are also reasons to suspect that the dynam-ics of the survival strategies of bivalves from the intertidal zone or of Carib-bean island landsnails may not be fully comparable o those of a wide-rangingspecies such as Homo sapiens. The same skepticism may also be warrantedwhere the groups from which insights are sought are arboreal rainforest le-murs. Even though the latter are Primates, the constraints imposed on theirbreeding behavior by periodic forest patch isolation followed by subsequentrecoalescence may mean that they are not a lot better as models on which tobase hominidexpectations than are tropicalisland or mudflat mollusks.More than one observer has suggested that a better source of insight mightbe that wide-rangingnorth-temperate-to-subarcticmember of the genus Ca-nis-the wolf-which, since the early Pliocene, has been largely representedby a single species-lupus-distributed across the northern extent of bothhemispheres (Matthew 1930). The size of the breeding groupand the amountof territoryneeded to sustain a humanhunting"band" r a wolf "pack,"as wellas the time and distance involved in the hunt,are remarkably imilar(Steinhart1995). So is the sometimes lethal conflictover disputed territory,andso also isthe averagematingdistance between adjacentgroups(Mech 1988;Jerison1991;Chadwick1998).Just as the dynamicsof their situation has maintaineda singlespecies of the wolf genus over the last several millionyears (Macdonald1992),one wouldexpect that the strikinglysimilardynamicsassociated with the long-term subsistence strategy associated with the genus Homo should have hadparallelconsequences in the matterof maintaining pecific unity.In the hominidexample, the first species associated with a systematic hunt-ing way of life was Homo erectus,and there is no valid reason to justify therecognitionofanyother specificname. The policyof employingthe term erectusfor all hominid remains of the Lower-to-MiddlePleistocene priorto the emer-gence of sapiens is both most parsimoniousand most convenient. The singleanatomical ndicatorof the transitionof erectus o sapiens is the achievement ofanaverage cranialcapacityof 1,200 cc or more. Obviouslya brain size of doublethe Australopithecineaverage has to indicate the presence of an intellect thatis well beyond pongid levels, but size alone does not tell us anything about


11/21

JOURNAL F ANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHneurologicalreorganization.The single most significantdifference between theintellectualcapacitiesof anapeand ahumanbeingis the linguisticcapabilitiesofthe latter.

THE EVIDENCE FOR LANGUAGELanguage,however, does not fossilize, andwe are forced to turn to auxiliaryevidence to search for the indications of its emergence. At the beginningof thecentury, claims were advanced that such mandibular eatures as the presenceofan externalchinorthe bonyspicules forthe attachmentof the tongue muscleson its inner surface were indicators of the presence of articularspeech. The

validityof these claims was convincinglydisprovenin 1904 in an initialpublica-tion by a figure who was to become one of the giants of paleoanthropology,none other than FranzWeidenreich(Weidenreich1904). Similarly,attempts toinfer the nature of the vocal tract of earlier hominids by assessing the bumpson the bottom of the skull (P. Lieberman1975, 1998) have been shown to be asuntenable as the phrenology recalled by such claims (Houghton 1993).The abilityto producearticular peech andthe abilityto comprehend t, how-ever, are localized in separateidentifiablepartsof the cerebralcortex, and thesedo leave tantalizing, f inconclusive,evidence on the inner surfaceof the skull.An enlargementof the areainvolvedin speech production-Broca's area,or thethirdinferiorfrontalconvolution-is not identifiable n anthropoidapes, but anincrease in that part of the cortex does begin to become apparenton the en-docasts of Australopithecusfricanus(Tobias1998:74).Subsequently,the wholebrain expands as Australopithecusevolves into Homo and further as sapiensemerges from erectus.At the same time, the speech comprehensioncortex-Wernicke'sarea,or the posterior temporallobe and the angulargyrus-showsan identifiableenlargementin parallel o the increase in Broca'sarea.Althoughthese developments suggest that the evolution of those cerebralaspects associ-ated with the presence of speech were proceeding nparallelas the braindoubledin size and Homoemerged fromits Australopithecineancestry, they cannot tellus just when languageas we know it canproperlybe said to have begun.Justrecently, anotherpromisingindicatorofarticulatespeech has been iden-tified. The twelfth cranialnerve runs from the hypoglossal nucleus of the dor-sal medulla of the brainstem, and it innervates all the intrinsic and all but oneof the extrinsic muscles of the tongue. The path taken by this nerve to reachthe tongue is by way of the hypoglossal canal starting inside and above theantero-lateraledge of the foramenmagnumat the base of the skull. In propor-tion to the size of the oral cavity, the cross-section area of the human hypo-glossal canal is 1.8 times as large as that of an anthropoidape-or that of anAustralopithecine(Kay,Cartmill,and Balow 1998). The same study has shownthat the four-hundred-thousand-year-oldKabwe ("Rhodesia")specimen fromAfrica and a "classic"Neandertal from La Ferrassie in France both have thehuman rather than the anthropoidape condition.Evidently, by the time brainsize had reached modern levels in the Middle Pleistocene, both the compre-

254


12/21

AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ERSPECTIVEON "RACE"AND INTELLIGENCE 255hension and motor portions of the cerebral cortex associated with linguisticcapability,as well as the innervationof the tongue to govern the vocal controlaspects of the oral cavity, had all evolved to approximate the human ratherthan the prehumancondition.Although doubts have subsequently been raisedaboutthe distinctiveness of these findings(DeGusta, Gilbert,and Turner 1999),they do suggest that the selective pressures that eventually did produce fulllinguisticcapabilitieshadalreadyproduced he neuroanatomicalbackground hatmadetheir finalemergence possible.Anotherpromisingsource for such indicatorsis in the archaeologicalrecord,even though that also can provide only indirect evidence at best prior to theactual appearanceof writing no earlier than the Bronze Age just a few thou-sand years B.C.E.At just the time when the Lower Paleolithic gives way to theMiddle Stone Age in Africa and its equivalents elsewhere, human brain sizehadattainedmodern levels and ceased to expand.At that time, approximatelytwo hundredthousandyears ago, subregionaldistinctionsbeganto appear n theMiddleStone Age industriesthroughout he inhabitedworld(Clark1988).Justasthe Middle Stone Age itself is regardedby the archaeologistsin each of the majorregions of the world as an in situ development out of the preceding Lower Pale-olithic(Misra 1977;Clark1988;Qiu1992), these subregionaldistinctionsappearto be principally tylistic and not of major unctionalsignificance.A hypotheticalrenditionof this conditionis suggested by the shadedcircles displayedin Figure5. The size and distributionof those areasofsharedstylistic elements bear a mostprovocativeresemblance to the size and distributionof areas of sharedlinguisticfeatures in more recent humanpopulations,and, althoughthis can be nothingmorethanananalogy, t is impossibleto resist the suspicionthat verbalcommuni-

.. y'^">Is. . ... ..... .. , .:,\

- p " j.. ,, i.............e. ip\

Figure5. A HypotheticalRendering f Areasof SharedStylisticElementsEmergingLate nthe MiddlePleistoceneStartingApproximately00,000YearsAgo


13/21

JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHcation was responsible fortheirmaintenance.It is the combinationof these vari-ous pieces ofevidence suggesting the emergence of languageas we know it thatshouldjustifyourapplicationof the designationofsapiensto the hominids of thelate MiddlePleistocene.While most of these stylistic manifestations have no direct relation to theuses to which the tools are put, it is at this same point in time that regionaldifferences of a functionalnature begin to appearin the technological record.The Levallois points of the African Middle Stone Age show clear evidence ofhaving been hafted and used as the tips of thrown spears (Shea 1988, 1992).Similarly,the barbedharpoon points found at the Katandasite in Zaire-cel-ebrated as "state of the art" andmisattributedto the Cro-Magnonsas a Euro-pean invention (Diamond 1989:60)-are argued to predate their counterpartsin the EuropeanMagdalenianby approximately eventy thousandyears (Brookset al. 1995).

Conversely,the profusionof Mousterianscrapersin the northsuggests a con-cern with hide preparation hat is only to be expected on the partof those whohad to cope witha periglacialclimate andwho wouldhardlyhave confinedthem-selves to the fur-lined oinclothmodestly attributedto them by recent artisticconvention.Furthermore,while evidence for the control and use of fire occursthroughout he AfricanMiddle Stone Age, its consistent applicationorpurposesof foodpreparations principally vident in the north.The distributionof Mous-terian hearths from the MiddleEast to the ChannelIslandsoff the Atlanticcoastof Europebackto over two hundred housandyears ago suggests thatthe appli-cationof heat to food,if for no otherpurposesthan to thaw the frozenremaindersof yesterday's haunch,made an importantcontribution o survivalat the north-ern edges of humanoccupation Brace 1979;Straus 1989). The manymeters ofsuperimposedash layersat Kebara estify to generationsof whatI have referredto as "obligatorycooking" (Bar-Yosefet al. 1992; Brace 1995:228). Amongstother things, I have suggested that it was this aspect of regional technologicaldifferencethat led to the differentialdegree of dentalreduction hat is stillvisiblewhen one compares Europeanand African tooth size to the ancestral MiddlePleistocene condition(Brace,Smith,andHunt 1991).The use of fire for purposes of food preparation, hen, was pioneered by theNeandertalpopulationsdistributed from the Atlantic coast of Europe throughthe MiddleEast, althoughthis is denied by some of the most prominentcom-mentators who have simplyasserted that "substantialhearths are absent" andthat "'site' therefore becomes an inappropriate erm to describe such unstruc-tured locations" (Stringer and Gamble 1993:155-56). Such a judgment mightapply to the Middle Stone Age of Africa, sometimes asserted to have beenproduced by "anatomicallymodern Homosapiens,"but it is oddly at variancewith what is visible in the Mousterian at Combe Grenalin France and Kebarain Israel.The advantagesconferredby the technologicalrefinements thatinitiallywereidentifiedwith separate regions eventually became evident to the inhabitantsof neighboring areas and ultimately spread beyond the regions of origin.

256


14/21

AN ANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN "RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 257Levallois points and barbed harpoonheads became widely distributed to thenorth of the area of their origin, in part by actual migration, if Qafzeh is anindication (D.E. Lieberman and Shea 1994; Brace 1996), and in part by diffu-sion and adoption by in situ populations such as in Upper Paleolithic Europeand all the way across the northern edge of the Old World to Siberia and toHeilongjiangin northeast China(Tanaka,Sasaki, and Sagawa 1995:2).If indeed the subregional stylistic features observable in the Middle StoneAge/Mousterianarchaeologicalmaterialof aroundtwo hundredthousandyearsago do indicate that languageas we know it was at least in its beginningphase,it is apparent,first of all, that it was not the result of a single Chomskian muta-tion (Chomsky 1972:97) or an equivalent of the "flick of a switch" as othershave suggested (Stringer and Gamble 1993:204). The emergence of sapienswas not a sudden and miraculous event such as the birth of Athena from thebrow of Zeus. For one thing, the slow increase in brainsize had been going onfor the previous 1.5 million years, and almost certainly this had to have beenthe result of the neurologicaldevelopmental process that ultimately made lan-guage possible.Subsequently the archaeological record shows a slow progressive refine-ment of tool-makingtechniques andan increase in the numberand a decreasein the diameter of the local regions of shared style elements as the Mousterianbecomes transformed nto the UpperPaleolithicin Europeand the MiddleStoneAge becomes transformed into the Late Stone Age in Africa and elsewhere(see Figure 6). This may be an indicationof a proliferationof languagecommu-

N

. . . . . . . .

Figure6. A Hypothetical endering f the Increase nNumberand he Decrease nAreaofSharedStylisticElementsas the MiddleStoneAge/MousterianictureofCulturalElaboration ttainsLateStoneAge/UpperPaleolithicLevelsulturalElaboration ttainsLateStoneAge/UpperPaleolithicLevels


15/21

JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHnities and local dialects.Finally,if this is indeed evidence forthe rise andrefine-ment of linguisticcapabilities, hen it is clear thatthis is somethingthatoccurredthroughoutthe entire range occupiedby members of the genus Homo andnotjust in one geographicalsegment of the inhabited world-Africa for instance.Takingthis suggestion further,a fullcomparisonof the degree of technologicalsophisticationand resource exploitationevident in the archaeologicalremainsavailable orthe MiddleStone Age in Africaand the Mousterian of the westernpartof the OldWorld emperatezone shouldputtorest the claim hatNeandertalslackedlanguage"becausethey did not need it"(Stringerand Gamble1993:217).The depictionofNeandertalas the "unspeakable"eaves one to wonderjust howaphysiologically ropicalhominidcould have survivedthroughtwo glaciations nEuropeandthe MiddleEastwithout the benefit ofverbally ransmitted raditionsand nformation.As it didduringthe Lower Paleolithic,the archaeologicalevidence of humansurvivalactivities suggests that there was no majorbarrier between one partof the human worldand another. Innovations that occurredin one place even-tually spreadto the rest of the world, althoughthat eventuality often has to bemeasured in thousandsor even tens of thousandsof years. Ifthose subregionalstylistic entities do coincide with areas withinwhichverbal communicationwasmaintained, hen the selective forcespromoting inguisticcapabilitiesmust havebeen the same throughoutthe entire extent of humanhabitation.As a conse-quence, the basic nature of human behavioralcapabilitiesas revealed by thearchaeological ecord had to have been essentially the same from one partoftheworld to another.Where the vicariousexperience of others canbe passed on byverbalmeans, the learningofpreviousgenerations,as well as the uniqueexperi-ences of contemporaries,becomes partof the understandingof all members ofany given group.TheCulturalEcologicalNiche

Language,then, reinforces andtransmits values andcustoms in a verbalizedwhole that constitutes "culture"as E.B. Tylor defined it over a century ago(Tylor 1871:1). The survivalvalue of being able to take advantageof what cul-ture can provide is obvious. The penalties that follow the failure to do so areequally evident. This is why, despite claims to the contrary(Foley 1987:3-5),culture can be usefully regardedas an ecological niche in itself andwhy thereis strong selection forthe abilityto take advantageof what it has to offer(Brace1995:Chapter9). The essential key is the abilityto learn a language,andselec-tion forthat capacitydoes not differ n intensity fromone region of the worldtoanotheror from one identifiable ocalculture to another. To this day,allhumanchildren learn their language during the same age span, and each is equallycapableof learningany of the languages represented in the speech communi-ties throughoutthe world.However much the details may differ,syntax performsthe same tasks in alllanguages. All are equally capable of specifying time, place, and action. Thesize of the workingvocabularyemployed by the average speaker does not dif-

258


16/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVE N "RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 259fer fromone languageto another. The disadvantagesto those who cannot mas-ter the rudiments of linguistic communication and the benefits to those whocan are identical throughoutthe entire humanworld at the present time, andthis obviously had to have been the case right back to the time when the firstrudimentary inguistic capabilitybegan to evolve.

Recently, Chris Stringer has argued that the reason for the essential simi-larity in human intellectual capabilities from one portion of the world to an-other is the recency of an Africanancestry for all the humanpopulationsof theworld. "[U]nderour skins, we are all Africans,"as he phrased it (StringerandMcKie 1997:16). It is a path of argument paved with good intentions, but itowes more to wishfulthinkingthan to science. Fromthe natureof the archaeo-logical and paleontologicalevidence surveyed above, it should be evident thatthe reason human intellectual capacityis essentially the same throughouttheworld has nothing to do with the recency of humanorigins. Rather, it is a con-sequence of the great antiquityandprolongeddurationof the operationof thecrucial selective forces that shaped the emergence of the common and wide-spreadancestral humanspecies throughoutthe span of the Lower and MiddlePleistocene. The obvious differences in lifeways now visible in the world havearisen so recently from the perspective of evolutionaryhistory that there hasbeen no time for any differentialadaptive response to have occurred.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRENT ISSUESAll of this has implications or the way we should be thinkingabouta vexingand much-discussed current sociopoliticalissue-affirmative action. If the an-

thropological vidence treated above leads us to the conclusionthat the averageintellectualcapabilityn alllivinghumangroupsshould be exactlythe same, thenit followsthat there is somethingseriously wrongwhen tests purportingo mea-sure these capabilitiesproducedifferentaverage figures when administeredtodifferentgroups.Averagedifferences n test scores, ratherthanindicating nher-ent differences in intellectual capacity,actuallycan serve as indicatorsof theeffects of the different earningexperiences that are the consequences of socialinequality.Since social inequality, n America at least, is largely the productofpreviously enforced "racial"policies, such tests then can serve as measures ofthe lingering effects of the impact of racism. Those who would use such testresults as "color-blind"ndicatorsof suitability or access to joband school posi-tions, far from proposinga "race-neutral" pproach,are actuallydefendingthegroupentitlements-which turnout to be the "racial" references-that are thelegacy of the social policies that were responsible for the group differences intest scores in the firstplace (Bronner 1998).Despite professionsof denial,sucha stance serves primarily o perpetuate preexisting positions of privilege, and,given the course anddynamicsof Western history, this represents nothinglessthan a subtle survivalof abelief in "whitesupremacy."As one respected philoso-pher has put it, "the neoconservative race-neutralphilosophy... can more ac-curatelybe calledthe 'new racism"'(Ladd1997:213).


17/21

JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHWhetherthe oppositionto affirmativeactionis arguedfromthe perspective ofthose who defend the positionof specialprivilegethatis so often associatedwiththe possession of more thanaverage amounts of money (Bolick 1996) or froma

narrowlyconstrued use of the term "fairness"(Cohen 1998), the spectrum ofthose who havearguedfor a "color-blind"ndex forhandingout the rewardsthatsociety has to offerhave completely overlooked the fact that those Americanswho have inheritedanappreciableamount of Africanquantitiesofmelanin n theskin have all been raised undercircumstances that have prevented them fromacquiring he knowledgeand outlookthatwouldgive them anintellectualfootingequalwith those whose families were not so constrained.It is sheer hypocrisytooverlook the effects of more than two centuries ofimposedsocialconditionsthatinevitablystunted the intellectualpotentialof those who were raised under theimpactof its legacy-circumstances which havecontinuedto limitthe prospectsof their childrenandgrandchildren.On the other hand,others have arguedthat it can only lead to crushing dis-appointmentto put minority group representatives into situations where therequirements for success will be too difficultfor them to meet. In this view,affirmativeaction is unfairsince it will only increase the number of minoritygroup members who will be forced to recognize the inevitable nature of theirintellectual inferiority (Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997). There is an as-sumption in this that chosen minority group members will fail in higher pro-portions than others and that this is an expectable productof their "race"andnot of the unequalbackgroundwhich was the legacy accordedto them becauseof their "racial" ncestry. Proponents of such a positionwarrantLadd's abel of"respectableracists" (Ladd1997:213).It is beyond the scope of my treatment-and indeed of my competence-tosuggest a possible remedy. Such matters belong in the domain of ethics andmorality,and,ultimately,their implementation s governed by the politicalpro-cess. In any case, none of this is covered within the realm of science. For themoment, it is sufficient to show that,froma collation of the findingsassembledby the various components of the science of anthropology,we have sufficientevidence to sustain an understandingof the circumstances that have shapedthe evolution of humanbrainpower. A full considerationof what anthropologyhas to offer leads us to the realizationthat all humangroups should have thesame average spectrum of intellectual capabilities and therefore should beequally represented in all of the roles andpositions in any social system. Theextent to which this is not the case, then, is a measure of the unfairness of thesystem and not of the lack of inherent qualificationson the part of the groupswhose lives are enmeshed in the structure of the system in question.

NOTE1. Earlier ersionsof thispaperwerepresented rally ttheInvited ession,"IfRaceDoesn'tExist... A Conversationmong heSubdisciplines"YolandaMoses,Chair), ttheNinety-sixth nnualMeetingoftheAmerican nthropologicalssociation,Washing-

260


18/21

AN ANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN "RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 261ton,D.C.,November 0, 1997;asacontributedapero thesession,"PaleoanthropologyVI:Hominid volution,"ttheSeventy-sixth nnualMeeting ftheAmerican ssociationofPhysicalAnthropologists,altLakeCity,April , 1998;andasan invitedectureattheDepartmentf Anthropology,niversity f CaliforniaantaBarbara, pril16, 1998.Ashorter, ontechnicalersions beingpublisheds"TheAnthropologicalase ora Com-monHumanCognitiveCondition"nGeneral nthropology1998).

REFERENCES CITEDAndrews,P., 1984,On the Charactershat DefineHomoerectus.Pp.167-75in TheEarlyEvolution f Man(ed.by P. AndrewsandJ.L.Franzen).Senckenberg:CourierForschungsinstitut.Bar-Yosef,O.,B. Vandermeersch, . Arensburg,A. Belfer-Cohen, . Goldberg,H.Laville,L.Meignen,Y.Rak, .D.Speth,E.Tcherov, A-M.Tillier,andS.Weiner,1992,The Excavationsn KebaraCave,Mt. Carmel.CurrentAnthropology3:497-550.Bolick,C., 1996,The Affirmative ctionFraud:CanWe Restore he AmericanCivilRightsVision?Washington, .C.:CatoInstitute.Bowersock,G., 1996, Rescuingthe Greeks.Review of Not OutofAfrica,by M.Lefkowitz,ndBlackAthenaRevisited,d.byM. Lefkowitz ndG.M.Rogers.New YorkTimes BookReview,Feb.25,pp.6-7.Brace,C.L.,1979,Krapina, Classic"Neanderthals,ndthe Evolution f the Euro-peanFace.Journal fHumanEvolution :527-50.Brace,C.L., 1995,The Stagesof HumanEvolution. th ed. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.:Prentice-Hall.Brace,C.L.,1996,A Four-LetterWordCalled"Race." p.106-41inRaceandOtherMisadventures:ssaysin HonorofAshleyMontagunhis NinetiethYear ed.byL.T.Reynolds ndL.Lieberman). ixHills,N.Y.:GeneralHallPublishers.Brace,C.L.,1998,TheAnthropologicalasefora CommonHumanCognitiveCondi-tion.GeneralAnthropology:1-4,8.Brace,C.L.,andK.D.Hunt,1990,A Non-Racial raniofacialerspectiveon HumanVariation: (ustralia)o Z(uni).Americanournal f PhysicalAnthropology2:341-60.Brace,C.L.,S.L.Smith,andK.D.Hunt,1991,WhatBigTeethYouHadGrandma:HumanToothSize,Past andPresent.Pp.33-57 in Advancesn DentalAnthropology(ed.byM.A.KelleyandC.S.Larsen).NewYork:Wiley-Liss.Brace, C.L.,and D.P. Tracer, 1992, CraniofacialContinuityand Change:A Compari-sonofLatePleistoceneandRecentEuropeandAsia.Pp.439-71 inThe Evolution ndDispersalof ModemHumans n Asia(ed. by T. Akazawa,K. Aoki,andT. Kimura).Tokyo:Hokusen-Sha.Brace,C.L.,D.P.Tracer,L.A.Yaroch, . Robb,K. Brandt, ndA.R.Nelson,1993,ClinesandClustersVersus"Race": Test inAncientEgyptand heCaseof a DeathontheNile.Yearbookf PhysicalAnthropology7:1-31.Bronner,E.,1998,StudyStrongly upportsAffirmative ctionnAdmissionso EliteColleges.NewYorkTimes,Sept.9, p.A24.Brooks, A., D.M. Helgren,J.S. Cramer,A. Franklin,W. Horyak, J.M.Keating, R.G.Klein, W.J.Rink,H. Schwarcz,J.N. Leith Smith, K. Stewart,N.E. Todd,J. Veriers, and

J.E.Yellen, 1995, Datingand Context ofThree Middle Stone Age Sites with Bone Pointsin the UpperSemlikiValley,Zaire.Science268:548-53.Cann,R.,M.Stoneking, ndA.C.Wilson,1987,MitochondrialNAandHumanEvo-lution.Nature325:31-36.


19/21

JOURNAL F ANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHCarrier,D.R., 1984, The Energetic Paradoxof HumanRunningand HominidEvolu-tion. CurrentAnthropology25:483-95.Chadwick,D.H., 1998,Returnofthe GrayWolf.NationalGeographicMagazine193:72-

99.Chomsky,N., 1972, Languageand Mind. New York:Harcourt,Brace andWorld.Clark,J.D., 1988, The Middle Stone Age in East Africa and the Beginnings of Re-gional Identity.Journalof WorldPrehistory 2:235-305.Cohen, C., 1998, Issue is Fairness. New YorkTimes, Sept. 13, p. WK20.DeGusta, D., W.H.Gilbert,andS.P. Turner, 1999, HypoglossalCanalSize and Homi-nid Speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 96:1800-1804.

Diamond,J., 1989, The GreatLeap Forward.Discover 10:50-60.Fisher, R.A., 1930, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford:ClarendonPress.Foley, R., 1987, Another Unique Species: Patterns in Evolutionary Ecology. NewYork:John Wiley and Sons.Gould,SJ., 1997, Unusual Unity. NaturalHistory 106:20-23, 69-71.Gould,S.J.,and R.C.Lewontin, 1979,The Spandrelsof SanMarcoand the PanglossianParadigm:A Critiqueof the AdaptationistProgramme.Proceedings of the RoyalSocietyof London,Series B, 205:581-98.

Groves, C.P., 1989, A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution. Oxford:ClarendonPress.Groves, C.P., and V. Mazak, 1975, An Approach o the Taxonomyof the Hominidae:GracileVillafranchianHominids of Africa.Casopis pro Mineralogiia Geologii 20:225-46. Prague.Herrnstein, R.J.,andC. Murray,1994, The Bell Curve:Intelligence and Class Struc-ture in America.New York:The Free Press.Houghton, P., 1993, Neandertal SupralaryngealVocal Tract. AmericanJournal of

Physical Anthropology90:139-46.Houghton, P., 1996, People of the Great Ocean: Aspects of Human Biology of theEarly Pacific. New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.Howells, W.W., 1973, CranialVariation n Man:A Study of MultivariateAnalysis of

Patterns of Difference among Recent HumanPopulations. Papers of the PeabodyMu-seum of ArchaeologyandEthnology67. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.Howells, W.W., 1989, Skull Shapes and the Map:CraniometricAnalyses in the Dis-persionofModernHomo.Papersofthe PeabodyMuseum ofArchaeologyandEthnology79. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.Howells, W.W.,1995, Who's Who in Skulls:EthnicIdentificationof Crania rom Mea-surements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 82. Cam-bridge,Mass: HarvardUniversity Press.Huntington, E., 1924, The Characterof Races, as Influencedby Physical Environ-ment, NaturalSelection and HistoricalDevelopment. New York:Scribner and Sons.Jensen, A.R., 1980, Bias in MentalTesting. New York:The Free Press.Jerison, HJ., 1991, Brain Size and the Evolution of Mind. Fifty-ninthJames ArthurLecture on the Evolution of the HumanBrain, 1989. New York:AmericanMuseum ofNaturalHistory.Jerrold,W., 1930, Introduction.Pp. xi-xviii in Candideor All for the Best (by F.M.A.Voltaire).New York:Tree andJacobs.Kay,R.F.,M. Cartmill,and M. Balow, 1998, The Hypoglossal Canaland the Originof

262


20/21

ANANTHROPOLOGICALERSPECTIVEN"RACE" NDINTELLIGENCE 263Human Vocal Behavior.Proceedings of the NationalAcademyof Sciences of the UnitedStates of America95:5417-19.

Ladd,J., 1997, PhilosophicalReflections on Race and Racism. AmericanBehavioralScientist 41:212-22.Leakey, R.E.F., and B.A. Wood, 1973, New Evidence of the Genus Homo from EastRudolf,Kenya, Part 2. AmericanJournalof Physical Anthropology39:355-68.Lewontin, R., 1973, The Apportionmentof Human Diversity. Evolutionary Biology6:381-97.

Lieberman, D.E., andJJ. Shea, 1994, Behavioral Differences between Archaic andModer Humans in the Levantine Mousterian. AmericanAnthropologist96:300-32.Lieberman,P., 1975, On the Originsof Language:An Introduction o the Evolution ofHumanSpeech. New York: Macmillan.Lieberman,P., 1998, Eve Spoke:HumanLanguageand HumanEvolution. New York:Norton.

Livingstone, F.B., 1962, On the Non-Existence of Human Races. CurrentAnthropol-ogy 3:279.Macdonald,D.W., 1992, The Velvet Claw:A NaturalHistory of the Carnivores. Lon-don: BBC Books.

Matthew, W.D., 1930, The Phylogeny of Dogs. Journalof Mammalogy11:117-38.Mech, L.D., 1988,The Arctic World:Livingwiththe Pack.Stillwater,Minn.:VoyageurPress.Misra, V.D., 1977. Some Aspects of IndianArchaeology. Allahabad,India: PrabhatPrakashan.Qiu, K., 1992, The Stone Industries of Homosapiens from China.Pp. 363-72 in TheEvolution andDispersal of Modem Humansin Asia (ed. by T. Akazawa,K. Aoki,andT.Kimura).Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.Rightmire,G.P., 1990,The Evolutionof Homoerectus:ComparativeAnatomicalStudiesof an Extinct HumanSpecies. Cambridge,Eng.: CambridgeUniversity Press.Rushton,J.P., 1995, Race, Evolution,and Behavior:A Life History Perspective. NewBrunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.Schoetensack, 0., 1908, Der Unterkiefer des Homo Heidelbergensis aus dem Sandenvon Mauerbei Heidelberg:EinBeitragzurPalaontologiedes Menschen.Leipzig:Wilhelm

Engelmann.Shea, JJ. 1988, Spear Points from the Middle Palaeolithic of the Levant.JournalofField Archaeology 15:441-50.Shea, JJ., 1992, Lithic MicrowearAnalysis in Archaeology.EvolutionaryAnthropol-

ogy 1:143-50.Stanley, S.M., 1996, Children of the Ice Age: How a Global Catastrophe AllowedHumans to Evolve. New York:W.H. Freeman.Steinhart, P., 1995, The Companyof Wolves. New York:AlfredA. Knopf.Straus, L.G., 1989, On EarlyHominid Use of Fire. CurrentAnthropology30:488-91.Stringer, C., and C. Gamble, 1993, In Search of the Neanderthals:Solving the Puzzleof HumanOrigins.London:Thames and Hudson.Stringer,C., andR. McKie, 1997, AfricanExodus: The Originsof ModernHumanity.New York:Henry Holt.Tanaka, M., K. Sasaki, and M. Sagawa, 1995, Japanese Archaeology.Pp. 1-30 in An

IntroductoryBibliography orJapanese Studies, vol. 9. Tokyo: The JapanFoundation.Tattersall, I., 1986, Species Recognition in Human Paleontology.Journalof HumanEvolution 15:165-75.


21/21

JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCHTattersall, I., 1997, OutofAfricaAgain... andAgain?ScientificAmerican276:60-67.Templeton, A.R., 1996, Gene Lineages and HumanEvolution. Science 272:1363.Thernstrom,S., and A. Thernstrom, 1997, Americain BlackandWhite:One Nation,

Indivisible. New York:Simon and Schuster.Tishkoff, S.A., E. Dietzsch, W. Speed, AJ. Pakstis, J.R. Kidd,K. Cheung, B. Bonne-Tamir,A.S. Santachiara-Benerecetti,P. Moral,M. Krings,S. Paibo, E. Watson,N. Risch,T. Jenkins, andK.K. Kidd,1996, GlobalPatterns of LinkageDisequilibriumat the CD4Locus and Modern HumanOrigins.Science 271:1380-87.Tobias, P.V., 1998, Evidence for the Early Beginnings of Spoken Language. Cam-bridge ArchaeologicalJournal8:72-78.Tylor, E.B., 1871, Primitive Culture:Researches into the Development of Mythol-ogy, Philosophy, Religion, Language,Art, and Custom. London:JohnMurray.Walker,A., 1984, Extinctionin HominidEvolutionPp. 119-52 in Extinctions (ed. byM.H. Nitecki). Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.Weidenreich, F., 1904, Die Bildungdes Kinnes undSeine Angebliche Beziehung zurSprache.AnatomischerAnzeiger 24:545-55.Weidenreich, F., 1937, The Dentition of Sinanthropuspekinensis: A ComparativeOdontographyof the Hominids. PalaeontologiaSinica 101:1-180.White, T.D., D.C. Johanson,and W.H. Kimbel, 1983, Australopithecus fricanus:ItsPhyletic Position Reconsidered. Pp. 721-80 in New Interpretationsof Ape and HumanAncestry (ed. by R.L. Ciochonand R.S. Corruccini).New York:Plenum.Wright,S., 1932, The Roles of Mutation,Inbreeding,CrossbreedingandSelection in

Evolution.Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationalCongress of Genetics 1:356-66.Wright,S., 1943, Isolationby Distance. Genetics 28:114-38.Wright,S., 1946, Isolationby Distance under Diverse Systems of Mating. Genetics31:39-59.Wright,S., 1948, On the Roles of Directed andRandomChanges in Gene Frequencyin the Genetics of Populations.Evolution2:279-94.

264

Documents

An Anthropological Perspective on Race and Intelligence - Brace