The Camden-(Walker) Hypothesis

The other night, I was talking to my friend and colleague (in the league of perennial extracurricular distraction), Liz Walker, and I came up with a crackpot theory. I was on the phone with Liz when I said it, so she's making me mention her name. That's right, the person that happened to be in the closest communicative proximity was some chick called Liz, and I think we all need to take a few moments to acknowledge the fact that she understood what I was talking about. Sorry, I'm just bathing in the childish satisfaction of pissing her off. Liz helped.

Anyway, so we're talking, and somehow we got on the Out of Africa II theory. The Out of Africa I theory postulates that H. sapiens evolved in Africa, and did not emerge onto other continents until they were fully anatomically modern. The theory implies that H. sapiens didn't get it on with other bipeds in Europe or Asia (Neanderthals or H. erectus, respectively), because they were already folks just like you and me. If us kids were the offspring of, say, Neanderthals, we wouldn't be able to make the claim that we were fully modern before we emerged from Africa.

There are a lot of other ideas about human dispersal and interaction with other biped species. Milford Wolpoff's got a fun one called Regional Continuity in which Neanderthals became Europeans, H. erectus became Asians, and A. africanus became, you guessed it, Africans. He argues that gene flow between these regions kept their inhabitants from diverging into distinct species. Apparently, one inter-regional hoedown every 70 years would do the trick, but how did they get to the party? Glacial periods and the sheer mileage would have put a strain on any long distance relationship. Moreover, Neanderthals seem to have had a radiating practice of foraging, meaning that they rarely traveled more than a day or two away from the cozy cave. Thus, it is highly improbable that these guys made the trip to meet their mates in Mongolia. Also, there is no evidence for the exchange of material culture between any of these groups for a long, loooooong time, so, in general, it seems that they lived in isolation.

On the other hand, I really wonder how much gene flow would have been necessary to keep these bipeds from growing apart. Basically, two species are distinguished by differences in their reproductive organs that are significant enough to prevent them from producing fertile offspring. Imo, human reproductive organs are good the way they are, so couldn't it be that Neanderthals and A. africanus met for the first time after hundreds of thousands of years, and the Neanderthal was like, "size doesn't matter," and the A. africanus laughed at him, just like today? Anyway, I don't know what to think about Regional Continuity, but let's move on.

The Out of Africa II theory is just the Out of Africa I, except it says, "P.S. The revolution in the material culture of H. sapiens (specifically the increased complexity and abundace of art and tools) that occurred ~60,000 years ago suggests a proportionate revolution of the mind (which, perhaps, enabled them to leave Africa). This revelation is talked about as "a light switch going on" in great grandpa's attic. Somehow, a crap ton of neurological pathways were all ready to go, and suddenly lit up, like the an irrigation network being filled for the first time. (Implications of eventual connection with agriculture, anyone)? A friend of mine told me about this dude's theory [Terrence McKenna] that the ingestion of hallucinogenics, like these trippy vines in Africa, awakened the human consciousness as we know it. Sort of a forbidden fruit thing going on there, so let's roll with it.

The Forbidden Fruit!

"Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful seat," says Milton.

Christians, I'm not writing this one for you. Non-Muslim Ismailis (if you still exist after your fad dissolved in the fear that came with the Bush administration), no, I'm not waiting for the downfall of civilization and hoping that, however few survive, they remember not to farm. All I wanna say here is this...which, now that I think about it, is not a lot... sorry you read all this... main point: Perhaps the revelation that occurred 60,000 years ago, the one that we've examined through it's manifestations in material culture, was none other than the knowledge of Good and Evil!!!, and, I should mention, all things and their opposites. A dichotomous understanding of things, the necessary prerequisite to the conceptualization of parts, patterns, everything.

I feel like yelling, "That's why Roger Pedacter's dead! He found Captain Winky!" But I won't.

Here's some fun stuff. The necrophiliacs (paleoanthropologists) have gone so far as to say that only humans could (and can) perceive and codify things in parts. Winner of the beauty pageant "thanks for participating" award, and Cold-adapted Biped of the Eon, the noble Neanderthal came in second for brains, and yet, has no understanding of parts. (really quickly, I wanna clarify that the hideous, ape-like Neanderthal image is just a fabrication of a man named Boule, who didn't like people thinking that Neanderthals could be "human," and whose own traits are most likely reflected in his work. For the record, Neanderthal ladies, I would cross tundras for you).

Now, back to the brain. Let's wrap this up. Neanderthal brains can grow to ~1750cc, actually larger than human brains which average maybe like 1500cc (this is a blog not a dissertation, you can look it up). For us, a larger portion of that space is filled with parietal and frontal lobes, areas of the brain that we associate with higher thought, including the conceptualization of parts. Neanderthals had larger temporal and sensory-motor areas, so lots of muscle control, but stuff would probably just have been blobs that they associated with some vocal ejaculations (The Neanderthal's vocal tract was identical to H. Sapiens). Cool, no racism right? At the same time, they would have been unable to make connections between the familiar and unfamiliar that would have assuaged the fear of the unknown, which, for some reason, I am assuming they had. Long story short, they're not racist or classist or anything, but, god, they can't be reasoned with. Anyway, enough conjecture. No one really knows whether Neanderthals were assimilated or replaced. If they were assimilated, did they learn human thought. If it can be spread, is it a contagious disease or an impartable gift? Is it a disease or a gift to be able to ask this question? How clear is the line between human and not, aside from the fact that we are apparently the only ones that are drawing these lines?

Let me end it with this: I just remembered an experience (I thought I would never forget) that happened at the zoo when I was a teenager. I had wandered off alone and was thinking about crap as I half-consciously observed a mandrill. Out of the blue, he shot up to the glass and his hand stopped hard with a bang. I almost shit myself, but I still remember the hand, his long thin fingers pressed on the glass. Within half a second my eyes moved to his, which stared at me with an expression so intense that it has never failed to raise my hairs, even as a memory. For a moment we stood there. Almost subconsciously I thought it felt odd that he was standing. My conscious mind was consumed with his gaze. I've wondered if I could have mistaken the expression, befuddled by the subtle differences of his face, but no, I really think not. The absolute fury in his eyes that seemed to scream, "I am here, and you will know that!" I nervously laughed and said aloud, "I'm sorry," and raised my arms in an imploring gesture as I backed away, then turned and ran. I felt a profanity in observing him through the glass. Nobody else had been there to see what had happened, and when I found my group, I don't believe I said a word.