Archeology and the evolution of human behavior

Human paleontology and Paleolithic archeology both focus on the most ancient phases of human prehistory, and they often draw their materials from the same sites. Yet, since the mid-19th century when both fields were founded, their practice and theory have remained largely separate. As the 21st century dawns, human paleontologists are trained mainly in human anatomy or biological anthropology, and they take their theory principally from late 20th century evolutionary biology. In contrast, Paleolithic archeologists are trained to recover and sort ancient material residues, and their interpretative frameworks stem primarily from cultural anthropology. The difference in practice means that human paleontologists are usually ill-equipped to assess controversies in Paleolithic archeology and vice versa. The difference in theory is more profound, since human paleontologists unflinchingly attribute major morphological changes or differences to natural selection, mutation, gene drift, or gene flow. Paleolithic archeologists in contrast tend to ascribe major behavioral changes to newly developed cultural strategies or to population growth, even when the changes coincide with conspicuous morphological changes. Many especially reject biological explanations for perceived behavioral differences between modern humans and their immediate precursors, and some believe that such explanations smack of racism.1 Yet those who accept the reality of human evolution must also accept that some ancient humans must have lacked the inborn capacity to participate in historic human societies. Since we lack historic analogs for such premodern people and archeology cannot substitute for an eyewitness account, we can