Behavioral strategies. Do they differ under different circumstances and in places with different character? Do they prove a hierarchy of humanity? Why should I ask?
The highly common nature of our human DNA suggests that we are all, in fact, human. Yes, we do different things. Yes, we hold varied values. And yes, we even look different, so much so that for thousands of our species’ years we have either recognized or argued about race. Ostensible differences, however, don’t keep us from calling both white and red “wine.” Back to my question: Why should I ask?
I was intrigued by John J. Shea’s hypothesis that humans have always been human.* Shea proposes that archaeologists need to rethink human origins, that the so-called revolutionary transition from “nonhuman” hominins to human ones was not a matter of a gradual rise from primitivism. Our ancient human ancestors were human, just as you are human. Evidence for this hypothesis lies in the strategies that our ancient ancestors used to shape and use their tools. Here’s a passage from his “Refuting a Myth about Human Origins: Homo sapiens emerged once, not as modern-looking people first and as modern-behaving people later”:
"The differences we discover among those strategies will lead us to new and very different kinds of questions than those we have asked thus far. For instance, do similar environmental circumstances elicit different ranges of behavioral variability? Are there differences in the stability of particular behavioral strategies? Are certain strategies uniquely associated with particular hominin species, and if so, why? By focusing on behavioral variability, archaeologists will move toward a more scientific approach to human-origins research."
Imagine trying to suggest this kind of thinking in Nazi Germany. No, step into the present. Imagine trying today to suggest that behavioral strategies shaped by place mask a common humanity.
Here’s your assignment: Make that suggestion in an American inner city, in the suburbs, and in the presence of any exclusive group. Make that suggestion in the Middle East. Make it to Hutus and Tutsis. Make that suggestion to any two opposing groups of “humans.” What, do you suppose, will be the reaction to your suggestion?
*John J. Shea, “Refuting a Myth About Human Origins: Homo sapiens emerged once, not as modern-looking people first and as modern-behaving people later”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2011/2/refuting-a-myth-about-human-origins/5
The highly common nature of our human DNA suggests that we are all, in fact, human. Yes, we do different things. Yes, we hold varied values. And yes, we even look different, so much so that for thousands of our species’ years we have either recognized or argued about race. Ostensible differences, however, don’t keep us from calling both white and red “wine.” Back to my question: Why should I ask?
I was intrigued by John J. Shea’s hypothesis that humans have always been human.* Shea proposes that archaeologists need to rethink human origins, that the so-called revolutionary transition from “nonhuman” hominins to human ones was not a matter of a gradual rise from primitivism. Our ancient human ancestors were human, just as you are human. Evidence for this hypothesis lies in the strategies that our ancient ancestors used to shape and use their tools. Here’s a passage from his “Refuting a Myth about Human Origins: Homo sapiens emerged once, not as modern-looking people first and as modern-behaving people later”:
"The differences we discover among those strategies will lead us to new and very different kinds of questions than those we have asked thus far. For instance, do similar environmental circumstances elicit different ranges of behavioral variability? Are there differences in the stability of particular behavioral strategies? Are certain strategies uniquely associated with particular hominin species, and if so, why? By focusing on behavioral variability, archaeologists will move toward a more scientific approach to human-origins research."
Imagine trying to suggest this kind of thinking in Nazi Germany. No, step into the present. Imagine trying today to suggest that behavioral strategies shaped by place mask a common humanity.
Here’s your assignment: Make that suggestion in an American inner city, in the suburbs, and in the presence of any exclusive group. Make that suggestion in the Middle East. Make it to Hutus and Tutsis. Make that suggestion to any two opposing groups of “humans.” What, do you suppose, will be the reaction to your suggestion?
*John J. Shea, “Refuting a Myth About Human Origins: Homo sapiens emerged once, not as modern-looking people first and as modern-behaving people later”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2011/2/refuting-a-myth-about-human-origins/5
RSS Feed