Colonialism and narratives of human origins in Asia and Africa

Abstract

In their seminal works on postcolonialism, Edward Saïd (in Orientalism) and V.Y. Mudimbe (in The Idea of Africa) proposed that Asia and Africa, respectively, were constructs created around the notion of their otherness. Both regions were viewed as infantile, primitive, and homogenous entities that fell outside the domain of civilized (i.e. Western) humanity. These constructs shaped scientific perceptions of both continents over the course of several centuries and have continued to be operative over the last 100 years following the discovery of fossil human ancestors, particularly within the narratives of recent human origins. Here we reflect on these narratives, both in the early days of the discoveries and more recently, in the context of the othered identities of the continents more broadly. We argue that a colonialist socio-political framework has shaped the science of human origins since its inception, and that this has negatively affected the quality of this endeavour. Existing phylogenies cannot be divorced from those ideologies-even today. Indeed, while the details of human origins (e.g. when, where, who) have changed radically over time, the narrative that emerged always left one group in control, and marginalised non-Western lands and their peoples, leaving the ordering of superior and inferior more or less unchanged through the history of the discipline. More informed models of human evolution cannot be constructed until the community of voices constructing them is reworked to be more inclusive of many worldviews. "The cultural marginalization by Orientalism is up against the physical centrality of Africa." (Ali A. Mazrui, 2005. The Re-invention of Africa: Edward Saïd, V. Y. Mudimbe, and Beyond, p 79)

A Review of Ethnographic Use of Wooden Spears and Implications for Pleistocene Hominin Hunting

“…Several researchers are working to right these historical wrongs, addressing the scientific racism underpinning interpretations of human culture (e.g. Athreya & Rogers Ackermann 2019;Porr & Matthews 2019;Read 2006), while others are re-evaluating the idea that wooden spears are a 'simple' technology (e.g. Garofoli 2015;Haidle 2009).…”

“…One solution, proposed by scholars working to decolonise human origins, is to desist from representing early humans as primitive. By reframing in this way, the use of ethnographic analogy to more accurately represent necessary skills and abilities in use of technologies becomes less problematic (Athreya & Rogers Ackermann 2019). It is also important to avoid ' cherry-picking' ethnographic examples to support a given model (French 2019).…”

The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis

“…Recent work in aDNA, archeology and fossil discoveries reveal that second model is incorrect in the sense of Pleistocene Homo having genomic "regional continuity" with contemporary populations and that first model is overly simplistic. 3,50 Twenty years ago, Alan Templeton offered an alternative to these two positions, and since then others have also emerged. Templeton proposed the "lattice" model, 112 where he pointed out that patterned exchange of genetic materials appears to have been sporadically present across populations of the genus Homo throughout the Pleistocene, rendering both models insufficient and misleading.…”

“…For example, it has been recently demonstrated that primatological fieldwork is focused on a few particular taxa from a small number of field sites, biasing the broader perspective of what primates do 1,2 . Similarly, there is a bias in paleoanthropology that privileges Western voices and the hypothetico‐deductive model of knowledge construction 3 . As others have shown there is a bias in where we dig, what we publish, and how we talk and think about human evolution 4 .…”

“…1,2 Similarly, there is a bias in paleoanthropology that privileges Western voices and the hypothetico-deductive model of knowledge construction. 3 As others have shown there is a bias in where we dig, what we publish, and how we talk and think about human evolution. 4 However, recent work in biological anthropology has focused attention on both regions and scholars whose contributions were often ignored, overlooked, or marginalized.…”