{"id":315,"date":"2026-06-21T13:38:46","date_gmt":"2026-06-21T13:38:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housingnewsamerica.com\/?p=315"},"modified":"2026-06-21T13:38:46","modified_gmt":"2026-06-21T13:38:46","slug":"sapiens-in-the-mist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/housingnewsamerica.com\/?p=315","title":{"rendered":"Sapiens in the Mist"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In 1888, the British author Henry Strickland Constable pointed to discoveries of prehistoric human remains to explain the racial inferiority of the Irish. Thousands of years ago, he confidently postulated, the Iberians, \u201coriginally an African race,\u201d had reached Ireland and mixed with the descendants of \u201csavages of the Stone Age.\u201d Isolation on the island had protected these natives from being \u201cout-competed in the healthy struggle of life\u201d to make way, \u201caccording to the laws of nature, for superior races.\u201d In so doing, Constable used ideas about prehistoric human evolution that were circulating in his time to present the British colonization of Ireland as part of a story of human progress. In recent centuries, such theories supported the subjugation of peoples that many Americans, British, and Europeans perceived as stuck in the deep past.<\/p>\n

Read more When a Cease-Fire Is Really a Stalemate<\/a><\/p>\n

The effort to solve the mystery of human origins has been disastrous for human beings, according to the historian Stefanos Geroulanos in his richly illustrated account, The Invention of Prehistory<\/em>. From its start in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment through the present, the quest to understand the ascent\u2014or descent\u2014of man has again and again been co-opted into \u201ca long, brutal history of conquest and empire.\u201d<\/p>\n

Geroulanos shows how the search for humanity\u2019s prehistory in the era of European colonialism shaped major fields of inquiry\u2014anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, psychology, and more\u2014and made humans so susceptible, even in a time of existential crisis, to coddling reassurances about the inevitability of human progress (exemplified by the popularity of the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari\u2019s 2015 book Sapiens<\/em>, which Geroulanos derisively calls a \u201cdeceptive hodgepodge\u201d). Surveying the horrors enabled by this \u201cobsession,\u201d Geroulanos argues that \u201cit is time to wallow a little less in origins.\u201d After all, people in the present have \u201calmost nothing in common with our paleolithic forefathers.\u201d Whatever they may have been like, he wisely affirms, \u201cwe are violent because of what we do now.\u201d<\/p>\n

But in reminding readers of humanity\u2019s ethical accountability to the present, Geroulanos paints with too broad a brush. He ascribes to the search for human origins flaws that belong specifically to the modern European and American chapter of that inquiry. But interest in the past, on any timescale, need not serve only nefarious ends. It can also stoke imaginings of alternative, better futures.<\/p>\n

KILLER APES AND\u00a0BARBARIAN HORDES<\/h3>\n

According to Geroulanos, the search for human origins began with European doubts about the biblical narrative of creation, which were triggered by encounters with New World peoples who did not appear in that account. As they displaced, enslaved, and slaughtered indigenous Americans, Europeans came to see them as primitive beings existing outside civilization and somewhere before historical time\u2014and came to think about the past in new ways. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes had long used the term \u201cstate of nature\u201d to describe an anarchic, \u201cbrutish,\u201d social setting, but in the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau reinvented the concept to refer to a utopian original condition, imagined temporally as something to which humans might return. This, according to Geroulanos, made it \u201cpossible to think of prehistoric humans\u201d for the first time, precipitating a relentless effort to understand the deep past.<\/p>\n

But rather than producing enlightenment, this quest proved immensely destructive. It unleashed zombie concepts, such as the idea of \u201cnoble savages\u201d and the stadial triad for dividing humanity (for instance, the categories of \u201csavage,\u201d \u201cbarbarian,\u201d or \u201ccivilized\u201d states; or in slightly more modern parlance, \u201cunderdeveloped,\u201d \u201cdeveloping,\u201d and \u201cdeveloped\u201d), that caused massive harm and continue to haunt the world to this day. These concepts, Geroulanos claims, enabled European conquest and colonization of other parts of the world, justifying the domination and killing of peoples in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere as either civilizational uplift or the evolutionarily required elimination of vestiges of the deep past.<\/p>\n

Geroulanos details how European settlers, Nazis, and bomb-dropping states put the key ideas of prehistory to ever newer sinister uses. Even the concern of Victorian anthropologists about disappearing native populations merely helped states \u201ctreat land as empty.\u201d By the early twentieth century, psychologists\u2019 belief that, beneath a \u201cthin veneer of civilization,\u201d humans remained innately violent savages, had migrated into popular culture. Commanders and politicians then justified the \u201cmodern savagery\u201d of World War I as the inevitable result of human ancestry, \u201cwith little evidence that those early humans had been savage themselves.\u201d Similarly, the \u201ckiller ape\u201d hypothesis (the theory developed in the twentieth century of a cannibalistic man-ape that emerged just before the dawn of humans in Africa) colored Western views of decolonization in Africa and lent cover to racist policies such as apartheid. Today, when European and American far-right leaders talk of \u201chordes\u201d of nonwhite refugees \u201cflooding\u201d their countries, they echo the theories of ancient historians in the nineteenth century about violent Asiatic \u201chordes\u201d sweeping into Europe.<\/p>\n

Even as genetic research has made the science more reliable today, Geroulanos argues, the search for human origins remains \u201cfundamentally deceitful\u201d in its very effort to identify the timeless essence of humanity. It allows the powerful to make excuses for \u201cthe real humanity\u201d that chooses to destroy the environment and ignore inequality while blindly believing in inevitable human progress.<\/p>\n

CHECK YOUR HERODOTUS<\/h3>\n

Geroulanos\u2019s dissection of the ideas of dozens of scientists is careful and fascinating. But it is undermined by his misplaced faith in intellectuals as the drivers of history. In fact, Rousseau, the catalyst of Geroulanos\u2019s story, intended his idea of the \u201cstate of nature\u201d to be purely \u201chypothetical.\u201d The state of nature \u201cno longer exists, perhaps never did exist, and probably never will exist,\u201d Rousseau wrote, disavowing any interest in \u201chistorical truths\u201d\u2014in the \u201cgenuine origin\u201d of things. His thought remained within a biblical timescale, imagining God had \u201ctaken men out of a state of nature immediately after the creation.\u201d Rousseau was not imagining the deep time proposed by geologists in the nineteenth century, whose scale and incalculability introduced a new cognitive problem. Prehistory was not, in short, invented with Rousseau\u2019s more positive twist on the state of nature.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Europeans didn\u2019t need prehistory to dispossess Native Americans. Beyond arguments based on religion and the right of conquest, the seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke had designated indigenous peoples in the New World as \u201cwild\u201d beings who had forfeited claim to the land by failing to enclose it. Such notions already provided sufficient justification for Europeans to treat the land as empty. Locke may not have had an idea of the deep past, but in his liberal vision of history, civilization was a state achieved through progress over time, entailing necessary evils that would be vindicated by the retrospective judgment of history.<\/p>\n

But more than the thinking of any one philosopher, early modern Europeans drew on an older idea\u2014inherited from ancient epics, Aristotle, the Bible, and medieval notions\u2014in committing violence against Native Americans. This was the long-standing belief in the pastoral nomad as the adversary of civilization. Geroulanos claims that \u201csince the eighteenth century, the word \u2018barbarian\u2019 has been used to describe peoples deserving of scorn.\u201d But\u2014check your Herodotus\u2014this habit dates to the ancient Greeks, at least. Enlightenment invocations of these notions did their own damage around the world well before nineteenth-century discoveries in geology and evolutionary biology exploded European understandings of time and situated the conflict between nomad and civilization in prehistory. Existing racial colonialism was, in fact, the enabling context of the new theories of the deep past: the British genocide of the Tasmanians, for instance, happened in the early nineteenth century, well before European race scientists compared prehistoric skulls with those of the annihilated Tasmanians.<\/p>\n

The effort to solve the mystery of human origins has been disastrous for human beings.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Invention of Prehistory <\/em>feels strangely unmoored from the developments on which Geroulanos claims prehistory had such ruinous effect. He describes a late-nineteenth-century European \u201ccraze for archaeology,\u201d for instance, without mentioning the context of the imperial expansion in Asia and Africa that shaped it. He claims that ideas about prehistorically determined human naturefueled and excused the savagery of World War I, as if ideologies such as nationalism, racism, and blind faith in technology were not damaging enough on their own. Interwar European fascinations with ancient Mesopotamia and Arabs as \u201cflooding hordes\u201d appear without discussion of the European conquest of the region in this very period.<\/p>\n

Without such context, the diverse indigenous victims of European ideas of human origins merge into an eerily generic category. Specific ideas about prehistory harmed specific groups differently. By the same token, individual scientists acquire an exaggerated greatness. With few exceptions, the string of European geological and fossil finds that Geroulanos details reads like the inevitable march of scientific discovery rather than contingent cultural and political developments shaped by the history of empire.<\/p>\n

Read more The Quiet Rise of the Plastics Crisis<\/a><\/p>\n

Geroulanos also sheds little light on how ideas about prehistory acquired practical power, merely asserting that they had \u201creal policy consequences.\u201d The nineteenth-century British historian Henry Maine, for instance, did develop influential ideas about primitive communism\u2014the theory that all societies began with communal forms of property and evolved inevitably toward private property ownership. But surely it\u2019s relevant that he was also a member of the British governing council in India and wielded enormous influence over policy, a fact Geroulanos does not mention. In fact, anthropologists and the discipline of anthropology had vast influence on colonial policies regarding famine, settlers, indirect rule, and more. (Unfortunately, Geroulanos neglects the work of many historians who have established these connections.) Geroulanos\u2019s intellectual history, organized around various concepts of prehistory, comes at the expense of a sense of chronology and causality, obscuring the evolution and connections between the concepts.<\/p>\n

He thus winds up putting the cart before the horse.The problem, as Geroulanos sees it, is that \u201cthe story of human origins has never really been about the past.\u201d But if ideas about the deep past were really about their racial imperial present, how can they be understood as the cause of that imperialism? Perhaps it wasn\u2019t that the science had \u201cruinous\u201d effects but that the science was ruined by the context of empire. Racist theories of human origins gave racial thinking longer legs. The problem was not the search for origins but imperialism\u2019s hijacking of that search.<\/p>\n

THE VIRTUES OF THE PAST<\/h3>\n

But even then, the search did not have unremittingly ruinous effects. Prehistory at times abetted progressive causes, according to Geroulanos\u2019s own account. The German composer Richard Wagner encouraged a virulent strain of German nationalism by drawing on the trope of the indigenous Germanic savage, but his contemporary, the French historian Jules Michelet, used that very trope to challenge the French government\u2019s oppression: \u201cThe people\u201d were \u201cbarbarians,\u201d he affirmed, \u201cthat is, travelers marching towards the Rome of the future.\u201d (In fact, this was an evocation of the ancient rather than the deep past\u2014a distinction Geroulanos frequently elides.)<\/p>\n

Similarly, although racist scientists used diffusionist theories of civilizational spread (the idea that human culture had spread out of a single original center) to claim that Africans were stuck in an evolutionary past, diffusionism also emboldened antiracist and anticolonial thinkers such as the American sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois and the Senegalese statesman L\u00e9opold S\u00e9dar Senghor. Geroulanos stresses that the \u201cOut of Africa\u201d theory of human origins was no \u201ccelebration of Africa,\u201d but it wasto Senghor. Black intellectuals made Afrocentrism\u2014a worldview that centers Africa and its peoples\u2014the most lasting form of the theory, suggesting that interest in prehistory perhaps isn\u2019t inherently disastrous. As the helpful inclusion of more women in the field shows, it matters who is searching for human origins. Ideas of prehistory were put to destructive use by policymakers drawn from a white male elite that believed itself destined to rule and that was tasked with maintaining a racially hierarchized geopolitical order.<\/p>\n

Geroulanos\u2019s central conceit, that \u201cconcepts . . . escape their human designers and the institutions meant to house them,\u201d is fundamentally incompatible with his insistence on their necessarily poisonous effects. There is a meaningful difference between stadial views that saw indigenous peoples as stuck in prehistory and destined to vanish, and those, espoused by thinkers such as Friedrich Engels, that saw them as proof that communism is human nature and that a noncapitalist future was therefore possible for everyone. Geroulanos dismisses European thinkers who questioned the destructive ends that prehistory was put to as \u201cmere theory and critique\u201d by a few, while confusingly acknowledging that they \u201csometimes pioneered ways to fight\u201d violent policies.<\/p>\n

This confusion about the significance of dissent results from his larger disinterest in how and when ideas acquire force. Any intellectual history focused, even critically, on \u201cgreat white men\u201d risks underestimating alternative views. Geroulanos\u2019s chapters bridge the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries without admitting interlocutors from colonized societies, although anticolonial thought had left its mark all over European and American ideas by the 1930s. He concludes, preposterously, that \u201cit took until the 1930s for someone to frontally attack the idea that Indigenous peoples are literally \u2018primitive\u2019\u201d\u2014as if anticolonial movements had not been attacking that idea for decades by then. But influence, for Geroulanos, flows only one way: out of Europe. Apart from a passing mention of the Afro-Caribbean anticolonial thinker Frantz Fanon, nonwhite contestation of Western views of prehistory remains unacknowledged even as the book moves into the period of decolonization, making one wonder how such dramatic political change ever happened in the first place.<\/p>\n

Disinterest in the wider life of ideas about prehistory leaves Geroulanos feeling unnecessarily hopeless about their relevance in modern times. He is suspicious even of revisionist works that correct the older derogatory depictions of indigenous peoples simply because in these works, too, \u201cthe past performs tasks for the present.\u201d<\/p>\n

STORIES FOR THE FUTURE<\/h3>\n

Geroulanos asks readers to register prehistory\u2019s lack of \u201csuccess\u201d\u2014the way debates in the field have remained unchanged for three centuries. But that makes as much sense as ceasing to philosophize merely because humans continue to ponder the same questions of existence, ethics, perception, and mortality. History, including prehistory, is not about solving a mystery once and for all but rather an open-ended, ongoing search for truth. Hubris, forgetting \u201chow little we know,\u201d makes for poor scholarship in any field\u2014and perhaps prehistory is more susceptible to it than others\u2014but it does not make the field itself unworthy. It is also not true, going by recent scholarship from anthropology departments, that scholars \u201cignore the colonial baggage.\u201d Geroulanos helps expose the public\u2019s faulty understanding of prehistory (and the sticky influence of museums established in the colonial era to sponsor and showcase it); but as anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers show, prehistory is hardly the only arena of scientific research whose \u201cpublic life\u201d outruns its researchers\u2019 control.<\/p>\n

The search for human origins is, in truth, uncontainable; human curiosity about it simply exists. As Geroulanos notes, the first theories are found in religions. Telling stories to make sense of existence is\u2014dare one say it\u2014human nature. It is compelled by the very fact of human existence among traces of the deep past, from cave paintings to rock formations, fossils, and prehistoric artifacts. Calling for reduced investment in understanding human origins, as Geroulanos does, thus seems both futile and misguided.<\/p>\n

Prehistory is needed now more than ever.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Geroulanos assumes that the modern European and American chapter of this inquiry is the version everyone subscribes to, that all humans believe the \u201cstory of human origins tells us . . . how we came to dominate this planet and each other\u201d and \u201ctreat the story of our origins as the obvious triumph of modern knowledge over religious superstition.\u201d But the quest for self-understanding, the search for who we are and what it means to be human, extends well beyond those invested in such colonial assumptions.<\/p>\n

For most of history, such inquiry has led people not to vaunt the grandeur and separateness of humans but to admire divine majesty and human connection to all beings. Most faiths conceive of humanity as integrally tied to other breathing and soul-bearing species. The answer is not to stop searching for human origins but to do so in light of the harmonious and preserving purposes the search once served. The hubris of colonial-era inquiries into prehistory was the product of a particular time, not intrinsic to the inquiry itself. The problem is not so much that the search for human origins has \u201cnever really been concerned with an exact, precise depiction of humanity\u2019s emergence out of nature,\u201d as Geroulanos claims, but that for much of the modern era, it was shaped by values that, on their face, violated everyday morality.<\/p>\n

Prehistory is arguably needed now more than ever. Minus the baggage of the Victorian age, Charles Darwin\u2019s ideas of human and human-animal interdependence might support more constructive politics in facing the climate crisis. The historian Deborah Valenze\u2019s 2023 book, The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History<\/em>,uses revisionist prehistory to imagine new approaches to food production in the present. It\u2019s not clear that for the sake of humanity\u2019s future, \u201cwe must see that the deep past . . . isn\u2019t worthy of our love,\u201d as Geroulanos insists. Stories about the deep past can remind us now of the life-honoring and earth-preserving species we can be.<\/p>\n

Read more Iran Won the War but May Lose the Peace<\/a><\/p>\n

Loading…