In reading the book, I encounter a reference to Nothingness, Time and the Missing Link by Chaim Chayat. Chayat is an outsider archeologist, and has built a theory of human development around fire. Specifically, he suggests that the sort of protocols and organization that went into the maintenance of fire was the leverage of evolution of humans into modernity.
Or I think that is his theory. I got interested in finding out more. I am both interested in the (possibly sketchy) theory of mind and love outsider researchers, like Fred Eugene Ray Jr., as they can do good work. If nothing else, I am on the lookout for the next Schlieman. I visit YouTube, home of outsider theories, but I do not find anything, for either the author or the book. Doing some more searching in different capacities, I cannot find anything.
Okay, maybe I am hitting the wall of English-language material. I go to check the reference in the end notes. There is none. I know that the authors mention that he sold only 10 books, but what is up with this? Who or what is this about that it gets billing next to Richard Wrangham? Wrangham's theory is not orthodoxy, but it is treated seriously, even when then discarded.
I thought "hmmm," and started to think over things that I read. There is, for instance, a reference to 'Galilee Man." I had not heard of this set of remains before, and looked into it. Galilee Man tends to be the older name, with the Galilee skull more commonly used now. I do not see a lot of conversation about it; as the authors rightfully state, no one is particular sure what they are looking at. But there are some oddities about the story, like calling the discoverer of the skull, Francis Turville-Petre the "boyfriend and lover" of W.H. Auden, talking about his sybaritic ways and not any of his other history, but referencing a story about the skull's discovery "that anyone with a passing interest in prehistory" has heard, that I, with a passing interest in prehistory, has not heard, and that I cannot source or even find discussion of elsewhere.
But none of this is wrong in so many words. Turville-Petre was a libertine, and there might be a story about his dog and the skull in his works. And maybe I do not know the story. It sounds like the sort of story that is in line with other stories of paleontological discoveries.
The premise of the book is an accessible overview of human history, humble in its recognition of the complexity and constant change to the topic, focused on Israel. This is not an arbitrary choice, nor a political one even as it feels political in the sense that we are in a world where calling Israel Israel is a political act. And the book is lower case n-nationalistic. The discussion about the Ubeidya site, which the later discovered Dmanisi site in Georgia displaced in priority, has a sort of boosterism about it. Which feels weird, but I get it. I saw the PBS NOVA where Neil deGrasse Tyson visited Clyde Tombaugh's hometown and it was hilarious. And speaking of jokes, the title of this book has got to be made of load-bearing irony, regardless of political take.
And I feel that I get the vibe of the what the authors are going for, which feels to me particularly John McPhee, though the authors bring up Jared Diamond or Bill Bryson more, which also works. But what sticks in my mind about it is their use of the term Homo geogicus. That is a name for the bones discovered at Dmanisi, but as far as I can tell it is not currently favored by the principal researchers on it. True the 'correct' nomenclature is a debated point, but it is notable that the authors pick out an older one that feels like it fits more as part of the sort of rivalry school of ancient archaeology. It is not wrong, but even at the 10,000 foot view that the authors are taking, I feel like there is some qualification, elaboration, or at least better citation, whereas it feels more like they took what was available and went with it.
That comes to the fore with Barbara Erenreich?
Hold on, that Barbara Erenreich? Nothing...well, things wrong with her, but while a journalist worth the name, also not someone who worked the homonin beat. The quote of hers they use is striking: "they knew that they were meat, and they seemed to know that they knew that they were meat - meat that could think."
First off, unacknowledged Terry Bisson shout-out. But what is this article? There is not a citation provided for it. But searching around solves this, an article, originally in The Baffler titled "The Humanoid Stain."
And let's lead with the aside that the title of that article suggests that Erenreich is not up to date on the science, referencing an distinctly Victorian use of the term humanoid, and, I think, not a Roth fan, or at least I do not get the way the pun works.
But the article itself is Erenreich's attempt at taking a break from Trump and Climate Change worries to delve into "paleoarcheological scholarship," primarily cave art. She is accurately quoted, though the context is different. The authors use it to discuss how they think Homo erectus would have viewed itself in the context of all the other animals around them, "a figure in the landscape" to do the sort of quote decontextulization for Jacob Bronowski as is done to Erenreich.
For better context, Erenreich's quote continues "[a]nd that, if you think about it long enough, is almost funny," (which as far as I'm concerned proves that this is an unattributed Bisson nod). Her point is the way in which the human representations in cave art, of Cro-Magnon rather that Homo erectus vintage, is not one where humans include themselves with the other animals. It is that they painted animals "with almost supernatural attention to facial and muscular detail," and painted humans with comedy that sublimates any sense of ego in its humor (as opposed to Trump, selfies, and the Bronze age).
Look, it is a killer line, but first off, again, I say, Barbara Erenrich? What's next, Thomas Sowell on whether Mallory reached the top of Everest? But second, it is weird piled on weird. It is weird to reference her fever dream of an article, much more about modernity than about history; it is weird to then decontextualize the quote, (without specific citation, though I feel like that may miss the point); it is weird to then not reference the article when the book turns to the topic of ancient cave art, it is weird. It is not wrong, it is werid.
But this then is where I functionally give up on the book. I am not an anthropologist. My only claim to expertise there is that I have liked videos from Stefan Milo and Gutsickgibbon. I am sure that I have gotten something in my interpretations above incorrect. And I specifically want to stress that everything I have looked at the authors wrote falls loosely accurate. This is significant. There are many racist takes in human evolution out there very close to the surface, and I don't mean like irritable college student racist. This is not that, and it is not wrong, mostly. But even untutored I kept noticing things that were off enough it leads to me feeling like I have to consistently fact check the work.
I like books that get me to read other books, but at some point, I feel like someone ought to have, you know, hired someone to do it, with like a degree in the topic and stuff, someone not an ARC reader like me. Or, as I suspect is more likely, the author's desire to make for a breezy, fun read meant that an impressionistic take worked best. I do think that maybe the book works as an absolutely from nil introduction to the topic. But I as a reader hit a point where I was no longer reading comfortably critically and started reading warily. That is not fun for me.