Monday, February 21, 2011

Refuting a Myth About Human Origins

2011-03SheaF8.jpgJohn J. Shea - For decades, archeologists have believed that modern behaviors emerged among Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years after our species first evolved. Archaeologists disagreed over whether this process was gradual or swift, but they assumed that Homo sapiens once lived who were very different from us. These people were not “behaviorally modern,” meaning they did not routinely use art, symbols and rituals; they did not systematically collect small animals, fish, shellfish and other difficult-to-procure foods; they did not use complex technologies: Traps, nets, projectile weapons and watercraft were unknown to them.

Premodern humans—often described as “archaic Homo sapiens”—were thought to have lived in small, vulnerable groups of closely related individuals. They were believed to have been equipped only with simple tools and were likely heavily dependent on hunting large game. Individuals in such groups would have been much less insulated from environmental stresses than are modern humans. In Thomas Hobbes’s words, their lives were “solitary, nasty, brutish and short.” If you need a mental image here, close your eyes and conjure a picture of a stereotypical caveman. But archaeological evidence now shows that some of the behaviors associated with modern humans, most importantly our capacity for wide behavioral variability, actually did occur among people who lived very long ago, particularly in Africa. And a conviction is growing among some archaeologists that there was no sweeping transformation to “behavioral modernity” in our species’ recent past. ...

There are no known populations of Homo sapiens with biologically constrained capacities for behavioral variability. Generations of anthropologists have sought in vain for such primitive people in every corner of the world and have consistently failed to find them....

In the unforgiving Pleistocene environments in which our species evolved, reproductive isolation was the penalty for stupidity, and lions and wolves were its cure. In other words: No villages, no village idiots. If any such cognitive “winner take all” wipeout event ever happened, it was probably among earlier hominins (Homo ergaster/erectus or Homo heidelbergensis) or during the evolutionary differentiation of our species from these hominin ancestors. ...

Even today, a caveman remains the popular image of what a prehistoric person looked like. This individual usually is shown with enlarged eyebrows, a projecting face, long hair and a beard. The stereotypical caveman is inarticulate and dim-witted, and possesses a limited capacity for innovation. In 2006, GEICO commercials put an ironic twist on this image. Their cavemen were more intelligent, articulate, creative and culturally sophisticated than many “modern” people. In a striking case of life imitating art, recent archaeological discoveries are overturning long-standing misconceptions about early human behavior.

via Refuting a Myth About Human Origins » American Scientist.

1 comment:

Mirlen101 said...

I said this years ago ! Being an artist I look at the earliest art with awe . These cave painters from the earliest known paintings were not simple . They had advanced style ! We are speaking of an artist without modern fine haired brushes no flash lights etc . Painting on the roughest canvas imaginable in a dim cave ! Sometimes in a cramped contorted position , like the ceiling of the cave ! Under these conditions they created art so stylized but very accurate of animals that would be a challenge to the best artist of modern times . They had no photos to go by only their memory ! Most consider me a master level artist . I'd be hard pressed to do a representation without examples , images to go by . Let alone do such stylization . They didn't merely paint representations they were creating art of the highest degree ! You almost have to be an artist to realize this though .To do photo realism you just copy , technical skill. To do stylization you need creativity and technical skill .
I've always thought that to understand ancient man all one has to do is look at the Australian Aborigine . They didn't change for eons . I wouldn't call an Aborigine ignorant they are highly evolved . But more at one with their environment . I think they are like the ancient man . Living off the land , part of the environment .