Successful Research Paper; Anthropology

Check-list for a Successful Research Paper


  • Is my paper topic appropriate for the assignment?
  • If there were specific instructions for defining a topic, did I follow them?
  • Does my paper have a central research question?
  • Is my paper topic anthropological in nature?


  • Does my introduction provide a clear description of my topic for the reader?
  • Does my introduction have a thesis that answers my central research question?
  • Is my thesis either the first or last sentence of my introduction?
  • Is my introduction short, tight and focused, without excess background (<1 pg)?


  • Does each of my body paragraphs directly relate to my thesis statement?
  • Does each of my body paragraphs back up my thesis statement with specific evidence and support?
  • Does each body paragraph have a topic sentence that obviously ties it back to my thesis?
  • Does each body paragraph center around a single sub-point or theme related to my thesis?
  • Is each body paragraph 3-7 sentences long?


  • Does my conclusion restate my thesis as the first sentence?
  • Does my conclusion provide a brief summary of the major points of my paper in two or three sentences?
  • Do the last few sentences of my conclusion explain the significance of my topic and how it is part of broader themes in archaeology/anthropology? In other words, why is this important? Why should we care?

Citations and bibliography

  • Have I included in-text citations for every single idea that is not my own original thought?
  • Do all of my in-text citations include the author’s last name, year of publication, and page numbers?
  • Do most sentences in the body of my paper, with the exception of topic sentences, contain internal citations?
  • Are all of my references in American Antiquity format? Have I double-checked the style guide to make sure that my formatting is correct for every element of each reference?
  • Have I read my paper aloud before submitting it in order to catch grammatical errors and careless mistakes?

10 March 2016


The Hobbit may no longer be just an imaginary species in a fairytale world. Homo floresinies, or the Hobbit, is real and has been identified. This small bodied and skull being may be a new species within our human lineage or it could also be a deformed human with dwarfism. Found in October of 2004, this skeleton was said to be over 18,000 years old and perhaps around while modern civilization was expanding (Balter 2004:1116). The researchers and scholars provided below are all looking for evidence to finally define Homo floresinies as a separate species or a diseased being.




Forth, Gregory

2006 “Flores After Floresiensis: Implications of Local Reaction to Recent Palaeoanthropological Discoveries on an Eastern Indonesian Island.” Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 162(2/3):336-349.

Gregory Forth explains the controversies over the findings of the Homo floresiensis. This informative articles tells all sides of what this skeleton means to the human species, if anything, from his trip to the island of Flores. He also shares insight into the current population living on the island in 2006.


Forth, Gregory

2005 “Hominids, Hairy Hominoids and the Science of Humanity.” Anthropology Today 21(3):13–17.

This article reveals history over the Homo floresiensis and it’s correlation to other species. It also acknowledges the impressive discovery of the skeleton and what impact it has had and what more it will have in the field of science. Forth even further enlightens us on the folktales and other lore surrounding the island from which this discovery was made.


Green, Michael

2009 [Reviewed Work: “The Discovery of the Hobbit: The Scientific Breakthrough That Changed the Face of Human History by Mike Morwood, Penny van Oosterzee”]. Australian Archaeology (68):66–67.

Michael Green reviews the book, The Discovery of the Hobbit: The Scientific Breakthrough That Changed the Face of Human History. He highlights the key points and evidence need to explain the factuality of Homo floresiensis. He gives praise to the books co-writer and lead researcher on the project, Mike Moorwood.


Gibbons, Ann

2004 “New Species of Small Human Found in Indonesia.” Science 306(5697):789–789.

This article shares the discovery of a potential new species found on the island of Flores. Gibbons explains the surprise and revelation of a potentially mind-blowing skeleton referred to as Homo floresiensis. With references from a few of the lead researchers on the team, she hints at evolutionary traits between Homo floresiensis and other hominoid species.


Balter, Michael

2004 “Skeptics Question Whether Flores Hominid Is a New Species.” Science 306(5699):1116-1116.

Michael Balter explains the two-sided question of whether or not Homo floresiensis skeletons were once a species or deformed Homo sapiens. While skeptics continue their dispute, Balter attempts to find supporting evidence that could end this debate.


Obendorf, Peter J., Charles E. Oxnard and Ben J. Kefford

2008 “Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?” Proc. R. Soc. B 275:1287-1296.

In this article, Obendorf, Peter J., Charles E. Oxnard and Ben J. Kefford give specific research and references on Flores small skulls. They argue that Homo floresiensis are actually humans born with dwarfism and smaller brains. Interesting read compared to other articles that would see these beings as a species.









Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: