We are currently in a period of finding more bones, with more ability to understand them - their DNA in particular, but also their isotope analysis, which tells us about diet and movement. There are different approaches to naming and categorising them. Some like to name something as soon as they determine it is sufficiently different from what we have seen before. More recently, archaeologists are holding their fire, as new finds rescramble everything anyway. Think of the brontosaurus, which was considered a relative of the apatosaurus, then synonymous with apatosaurus, then distinct from it. Is it a diplodocus? Are they both diplodocus? Isn't this particular skull really a brachiosaur? Aren't we wasting a lot of energy on this?
Did the Renaissance really happen or is it just seamlessly part of the High Middle Ages? If a literate society documents a non-literate one, is the latter still prehistoric?
Impressionism gave way to Expressionism, except in theatrical design, where things took different names. But wait! Is there really any clear distinction anyway?
Is postmodernism a reaction against modernism, or a continuation of it?
Is rheology physics, chemistry, or biology? Sometimes...it depends on the context...why do you want to know? What's your real question?
My line for these matters has been "We make categories in order to break them." We cannot learn things without categorising them. But we can't describe reality with breaking categories.
This is what is happening with prehistoric remains now. We call things Denisovan even though it is so varied that it's going to have to be redescribed a dozen times. Or Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus beforehand. They are all going to be something else soon enough.
Because we have to call it something, so that we know it's not Neanderthal or Modern human, or African.
No comments:
Post a Comment