The origin of modern human behavior

Critique of the models and their test implications

Christopher S. Henshilwood, Curtis Marean

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

463 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)627-651
Number of pages25
JournalCurrent Anthropology
Volume44
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2003

Fingerprint

test subject
archaeology
Modern Human Behaviour
modernity
lack
time
Archaeological Record
Rendering
Justification
Africa
Modern Humans
Behavioral Modernity
Parsimony
Archaeologists
Tropical
Archaeology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology

Cite this

The origin of modern human behavior : Critique of the models and their test implications. / Henshilwood, Christopher S.; Marean, Curtis.

In: Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2003, p. 627-651.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c68a3128da0445af97c4be41a1691212,
title = "The origin of modern human behavior: Critique of the models and their test implications",
abstract = "Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.",
author = "Henshilwood, {Christopher S.} and Curtis Marean",
year = "2003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "627--651",
journal = "Current Anthropology",
issn = "0011-3204",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The origin of modern human behavior

T2 - Critique of the models and their test implications

AU - Henshilwood, Christopher S.

AU - Marean, Curtis

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.

AB - Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1442339469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1442339469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 627

EP - 651

JO - Current Anthropology

JF - Current Anthropology

SN - 0011-3204

IS - 5

ER -