MCAT Set 15

The rich analyses of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research. In a departure from traditional historical approaches, the Annales historians, assume (as do Marxists) that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, had originated this approach). Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic "events," such as battles, revolutions and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel's term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue duree, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel--for Braudel these things create "structures" which define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time. Braudel's concept of the longue duree extended the perspective of historical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had taken the juridical political unit the nation-state, duchy, or whatever as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a "structure" that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And so the reader is given such arcane information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought. Braudel has been faulted for the imprecision of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social investigation. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly-designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions which traditional historians had overlooked. The passage suggests that, compared with traditional historians, Annales historians are:

The rich analyses of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research. In a departure from traditional historical approaches, the Annales historians, assume (as do Marxists) that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, had originated this approach). Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic "events," such as battles, revolutions and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel's term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue duree, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel--for Braudel these things create "structures" which define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time. Braudel's concept of the longue duree extended the perspective of historical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had taken the juridical political unit the nation-state, duchy, or whatever as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a "structure" that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And so the reader is given such arcane information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought. Braudel has been faulted for the imprecision of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social investigation. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly-designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions which traditional historians had overlooked. Which of the following statements would be most likely to follow the last sentence of the passage?

The rich analyses of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research. In a departure from traditional historical approaches, the Annales historians, assume (as do Marxists) that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, had originated this approach). Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic "events," such as battles, revolutions and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel's term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue duree, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel--for Braudel these things create "structures" which define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time. Braudel's concept of the longue duree extended the perspective of historical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had taken the juridical political unit the nation-state, duchy, or whatever as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a "structure" that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And so the reader is given such arcane information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought. Braudel has been faulted for the imprecision of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social investigation. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly-designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions which traditional historians had overlooked. Some historians are critical of Braudel's perspective for which of the following reasons?

The rich analyses of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research. In a departure from traditional historical approaches, the Annales historians, assume (as do Marxists) that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, had originated this approach). Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic "events," such as battles, revolutions and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel's term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue duree, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel--for Braudel these things create "structures" which define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time. Braudel's concept of the longue duree extended the perspective of historical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had taken the juridical political unit the nation-state, duchy, or whatever as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a "structure" that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And so the reader is given such arcane information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought. Braudel has been faulted for the imprecision of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social investigation. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly-designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions which traditional historians had overlooked. The passage implies that Braudel would consider which of the following as exemplifying the longue duree?

The rich analyses of Fernand Braudel and his fellow Annales historians have made significant contributions to historical theory and research. In a departure from traditional historical approaches, the Annales historians, assume (as do Marxists) that history cannot be limited to a simple recounting of conscious human actions, but must be understood in the context of forces and material conditions that underlie human behavior. Braudel was the first Annales historian to gain widespread support of the idea that history should synthesize data from various social sciences, especially economics, in order to provide a broader view of human societies over time (although Febvre and Bloch, founders of the Annales school, had originated this approach). Braudel conceived of history as the dynamic interaction of three temporalities. The first of these, the evenementielle, involved short-lived dramatic "events," such as battles, revolutions and the actions of great men, which had preoccupied traditional historians like Carlyle. Conjonctures was Braudel's term for larger cyclical processes that might last up to half a century. The longue duree, a historical wave of great length, was for Braudel the most fascinating of the three temporalities. Here he focused on those aspects of everyday life that might remain relatively unchanged for centuries. What people ate, what they wore, their means and routes of travel--for Braudel these things create "structures" which define the limits of potential social change for hundreds of years at a time. Braudel's concept of the longue duree extended the perspective of historical space as well as time. Until the Annales school, historians had taken the juridical political unit the nation-state, duchy, or whatever as their starting point. Yet, when such enormous timespans are considered, geographical features may well have more significance for human populations than national borders. In his doctoral thesis, a seminal work on the Mediterranean during the reign of Philip II, Braudel treated the geohistory of the entire region as a "structure" that had exerted myriad influences on human lifeways since the first settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And so the reader is given such arcane information as the list of products that came to Spanish shores from North Africa, the seasonal routes followed by Mediterranean sheep and their shepherds, and the cities where the best ship timber could be bought. Braudel has been faulted for the imprecision of his approach. With his Rabelaisian delight in concrete detail, Braudel vastly extended the realm of relevant phenomena; but this very achievement made it difficult to delimit the boundaries of observation, a task necessary to beginning any social investigation. Further, Braudel and other Annales historians minimize the differences among the social sciences. Nevertheless, the many similarly-designed studies aimed at both professional and popular audiences indicate that Braudel asked significant questions which traditional historians had overlooked. Which of the following statements is most in keeping with the principles of Braudel's work as described in the passage?

Although we know more about so-called Neanderthal men than about any other early population, their exact relation to present-day human beings remains unclear. Long considered sub-human, Neanderthals are now known to have been fully human. They walked erect, used fire, and made a variety of tools. They lived partly in the open and partly in caves. The Neanderthals are even thought to have been the first humans to bury their dead, a practice which has been interpreted as demonstrating the capacity for religious and abstract thought. The first monograph on Neanderthal anatomy, published by Marcelling Boule in 1913, presented a somewhat misleading picture. Boule took the Neanderthals' lowvaulted cranium and prominent brow ridges, their heavy musculature, and the apparent overdevelopment of certain joints as evidence of a prehuman physical appearance. In postulating for the Neanderthal such "primitive" characteristics as a stooping, bent-kneed posture, a rolling gait, and a forward-hanging head, Boule was a victim of the rudimentary state of anatomical science. Modern anthropologists recognize the Neanderthal bone structure as that of a creature whose bodily orientation and capacities were very similar to those of present-day human beings. The differences in the size and shape of the limbs, shoulder blades, and other body parts are simply adaptations which were necessary to handle the Neanderthal's far more massive musculature. Current taxonomy considers the Neanderthals to have been fully human and thus designates them not as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, but as a subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The rise of the Neanderthals occurred over some 100,000 years--a sufficient period to account for evolution of the specifically Neanderthal characteristics through free interbreeding over a broad geographical range. Fossil evidence suggests that the Neanderthals inhabited a vast area from Europe through the Middle East and into Central Asia from approximately 100,000 years ago until 35,000 years ago. Then, within a brief period of five to ten thousand years, they disappeared. Modern human, not found in Europe prior to about 33,000 years ago, thenceforth became the sole inhabitants of the region. Anthropologists do not believe that the Neanderthals evolved into modern human beings. Despite the similarities between Neanderthal and modern human anatomy, the differences are great enough that, among a population as broad-ranging as the Neanderthals, such an evolution could not have taken place in a period of only ten thousand years. Furthermore, no fossils of types intermediate between Neanderthals and moderns have been found. A major alternative hypothesis, advanced by E. Trinkaus and W.W. Howells, is that of localized evolution. Within a geographically concentrated population, free interbreeding could have produced far more pronounced genetic effects within a shorter time. Thus modern human could have evolved relatively quickly, either from Neanderthals or from some other ancestral type, in isolation from the main Neanderthal population. These humans may have migrated throughout the Neanderthal areas, where they displaced or absorbed the original inhabitants. One hypothesis suggests that these "modern" humans immigrated to Europe from the Middle East. No satisfactory explanation of why modern human beings replaced the Neanderthals has yet been found. Some have speculated that the modern humans wiped out the Neanderthals in warfare; however, there exists no archeological evidence of a hostile encounter. It has also been suggested that the Neanderthals failed to adapt to the onset of the last Ice Age; yet their thick bodies should have been heat-conserving and thus well-adapted to extreme cold. Finally, it is possible that the improved tools and hunting implements of the late Neanderthal period made the powerful Neanderthal physique less of an advantage than it had been previously. At the same time, the Neanderthals' need for a heavy diet to sustain this physique put them at a disadvantage compared to the less massive moderns. If this was the case, then it was improvements in human culture--including some introduced by the Neanderthals themselves--that made the Neanderthal obsolete. Boule considered all of the following to be evidence that Neanderthals were sub-human EXCEPT their:

Although we know more about so-called Neanderthal men than about any other early population, their exact relation to present-day human beings remains unclear. Long considered sub-human, Neanderthals are now known to have been fully human. They walked erect, used fire, and made a variety of tools. They lived partly in the open and partly in caves. The Neanderthals are even thought to have been the first humans to bury their dead, a practice which has been interpreted as demonstrating the capacity for religious and abstract thought. The first monograph on Neanderthal anatomy, published by Marcelling Boule in 1913, presented a somewhat misleading picture. Boule took the Neanderthals' lowvaulted cranium and prominent brow ridges, their heavy musculature, and the apparent overdevelopment of certain joints as evidence of a prehuman physical appearance. In postulating for the Neanderthal such "primitive" characteristics as a stooping, bent-kneed posture, a rolling gait, and a forward-hanging head, Boule was a victim of the rudimentary state of anatomical science. Modern anthropologists recognize the Neanderthal bone structure as that of a creature whose bodily orientation and capacities were very similar to those of present-day human beings. The differences in the size and shape of the limbs, shoulder blades, and other body parts are simply adaptations which were necessary to handle the Neanderthal's far more massive musculature. Current taxonomy considers the Neanderthals to have been fully human and thus designates them not as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, but as a subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The rise of the Neanderthals occurred over some 100,000 years--a sufficient period to account for evolution of the specifically Neanderthal characteristics through free interbreeding over a broad geographical range. Fossil evidence suggests that the Neanderthals inhabited a vast area from Europe through the Middle East and into Central Asia from approximately 100,000 years ago until 35,000 years ago. Then, within a brief period of five to ten thousand years, they disappeared. Modern human, not found in Europe prior to about 33,000 years ago, thenceforth became the sole inhabitants of the region. Anthropologists do not believe that the Neanderthals evolved into modern human beings. Despite the similarities between Neanderthal and modern human anatomy, the differences are great enough that, among a population as broad-ranging as the Neanderthals, such an evolution could not have taken place in a period of only ten thousand years. Furthermore, no fossils of types intermediate between Neanderthals and moderns have been found. A major alternative hypothesis, advanced by E. Trinkaus and W.W. Howells, is that of localized evolution. Within a geographically concentrated population, free interbreeding could have produced far more pronounced genetic effects within a shorter time. Thus modern human could have evolved relatively quickly, either from Neanderthals or from some other ancestral type, in isolation from the main Neanderthal population. These humans may have migrated throughout the Neanderthal areas, where they displaced or absorbed the original inhabitants. One hypothesis suggests that these "modern" humans immigrated to Europe from the Middle East. No satisfactory explanation of why modern human beings replaced the Neanderthals has yet been found. Some have speculated that the modern humans wiped out the Neanderthals in warfare; however, there exists no archeological evidence of a hostile encounter. It has also been suggested that the Neanderthals failed to adapt to the onset of the last Ice Age; yet their thick bodies should have been heat-conserving and thus well-adapted to extreme cold. Finally, it is possible that the improved tools and hunting implements of the late Neanderthal period made the powerful Neanderthal physique less of an advantage than it had been previously. At the same time, the Neanderthals' need for a heavy diet to sustain this physique put them at a disadvantage compared to the less massive moderns. If this was the case, then it was improvements in human culture--including some introduced by the Neanderthals themselves--that made the Neanderthal obsolete. The passage best supports which of the following conclusions?

Although we know more about so-called Neanderthal men than about any other early population, their exact relation to present-day human beings remains unclear. Long considered sub-human, Neanderthals are now known to have been fully human. They walked erect, used fire, and made a variety of tools. They lived partly in the open and partly in caves. The Neanderthals are even thought to have been the first humans to bury their dead, a practice which has been interpreted as demonstrating the capacity for religious and abstract thought. The first monograph on Neanderthal anatomy, published by Marcelling Boule in 1913, presented a somewhat misleading picture. Boule took the Neanderthals' lowvaulted cranium and prominent brow ridges, their heavy musculature, and the apparent overdevelopment of certain joints as evidence of a prehuman physical appearance. In postulating for the Neanderthal such "primitive" characteristics as a stooping, bent-kneed posture, a rolling gait, and a forward-hanging head, Boule was a victim of the rudimentary state of anatomical science. Modern anthropologists recognize the Neanderthal bone structure as that of a creature whose bodily orientation and capacities were very similar to those of present-day human beings. The differences in the size and shape of the limbs, shoulder blades, and other body parts are simply adaptations which were necessary to handle the Neanderthal's far more massive musculature. Current taxonomy considers the Neanderthals to have been fully human and thus designates them not as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, but as a subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The rise of the Neanderthals occurred over some 100,000 years--a sufficient period to account for evolution of the specifically Neanderthal characteristics through free interbreeding over a broad geographical range. Fossil evidence suggests that the Neanderthals inhabited a vast area from Europe through the Middle East and into Central Asia from approximately 100,000 years ago until 35,000 years ago. Then, within a brief period of five to ten thousand years, they disappeared. Modern human, not found in Europe prior to about 33,000 years ago, thenceforth became the sole inhabitants of the region. Anthropologists do not believe that the Neanderthals evolved into modern human beings. Despite the similarities between Neanderthal and modern human anatomy, the differences are great enough that, among a population as broad-ranging as the Neanderthals, such an evolution could not have taken place in a period of only ten thousand years. Furthermore, no fossils of types intermediate between Neanderthals and moderns have been found. A major alternative hypothesis, advanced by E. Trinkaus and W.W. Howells, is that of localized evolution. Within a geographically concentrated population, free interbreeding could have produced far more pronounced genetic effects within a shorter time. Thus modern human could have evolved relatively quickly, either from Neanderthals or from some other ancestral type, in isolation from the main Neanderthal population. These humans may have migrated throughout the Neanderthal areas, where they displaced or absorbed the original inhabitants. One hypothesis suggests that these "modern" humans immigrated to Europe from the Middle East. No satisfactory explanation of why modern human beings replaced the Neanderthals has yet been found. Some have speculated that the modern humans wiped out the Neanderthals in warfare; however, there exists no archeological evidence of a hostile encounter. It has also been suggested that the Neanderthals failed to adapt to the onset of the last Ice Age; yet their thick bodies should have been heat-conserving and thus well-adapted to extreme cold. Finally, it is possible that the improved tools and hunting implements of the late Neanderthal period made the powerful Neanderthal physique less of an advantage than it had been previously. At the same time, the Neanderthals' need for a heavy diet to sustain this physique put them at a disadvantage compared to the less massive moderns. If this was the case, then it was improvements in human culture--including some introduced by the Neanderthals themselves--that made the Neanderthal obsolete. According to the passage, the latest that any Neanderthal might have existed was: