Human evolution was messy and gradual, not an abrupt revolution, archaeologist argues
It is generally accepted by archaeologists that modern humans originated in Africa and dispersed worldwide, while other hominins went extinct. Yet how and when Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa, and whether it was an abrupt event, is still debated. Even more uncertain is how and when humans went from being “archaic” to “modern.”
In a recent study, published in Quaternary Science Reviews, archaeologist Huw S. Groucutt argues that the ideas of modernity and a “Human Revolution” arise more from bias and “cherry-picking” evidence than from a data-driven perspective. After reviewing fossil, genetic and archaeological data, he says that anatomical and behavioral modernity developed in a mosaic, regionally variable and gradual way instead.
In paleoarcheology, the “Upper Paleolithic Revolution” hypothesizes that a semisudden cognitive or genetic “switch” turned on roughly 50,000 years ago. Proponents argue this sudden brain reorganization triggered the out-of-Africa expansion and the creation of art, complex tools and more organized social structures. Yet many archaeologists are moving away from this idea because it conflicts with other evidence.
Earlier models focused on a rapid revolution starting in Europe, but as more data emerged, this shifted to Africa as the revolution’s origin. However, more recent research indicates that complex behaviors and anatomical features appeared gradually and variably across Africa, not in a single event or place. In addition, genetic studies reveal multiple dispersals and admixture events. Still, interpretations remain debated.
Groucutt says that interpretations in paleoarcheology are still strongly influenced by the notion of a revolution, more broadly described as “modernity.” He writes, “The continuing appeal of a ‘human revolution,’ with varying degrees of explicitness, can be rooted in both historical context and human psychology. As McBrearty put it, the quest for a ‘Eureka moment,’ says more about the ‘needs, desires and aspirations of archaeologists’ than about archaeological reality. The revolution makes a good, simple, story.” [Continue reading…]