Magazine article The Wilson Quarterly

The Revolution That Wasn't

Magazine article The Wilson Quarterly

The Revolution That Wasn't

Article excerpt

JOHN J. SHEA IS AN ARCHAEOLOGIST. He is also a flintknapper, or someone who makes stone tools. While on a dig at a 195,000-year-old site in the Lower Omo River Valley Kibish Formation in Ethiopia, he was given pause by the stone tools our supposedly "primitive" human ancestors had left behind. Nothing about the tools seemed archaic or primitive in the least; they were made by hands that skillfully manipulated a range of rock types, and were not all that different from what a flintknapper could make today. What separates these "primitive" flintknappers from "modern" humans?

Maybe not much, says Shea, a professor at Stony Brook University. Archaeologists have for too long perpetuated the idea that there are distinct primitive and modern periods, with a revolution occurring between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods (roughly 40,000 years ago). In fact, fossil evidence challenging that view has been around for decades.

From the 1970s onward, archaeologists based their idea of the Paleolithic revolution on artifacts from Europe, where they had found fossils of Homo sapiens with Upper Paleolithic tools dating back 35,000 years, and Homo neanderthalensis and other protohumans with earlier tools. But later, when they began to look outside Europe, in Asia and Africa, they found much older Homo sapiens--some dating as far back as 200,000 years--with the same primitive tools once associated with Neanderthals. To accommodate this evidence, archaeologists theorized that modern behaviors emerged tens of thousands of years after the earliest Homo sapiens. …

Author Advanced search

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.