Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wesleyan University and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to History and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
A BRIEF HISTORYOF EVOLUTION'
ALBERTF. H. NACCACHE
ABSTRACT
Those who invoke and heed today's scientific worldview consider that human
history is an indivisible part of the natural history of the world. They therefore
must grant that human history cannot be divorced from life's organizing princi-
ple, evolution. This conclusion is not controversial for most of the human his-
torical trajectory, and no one doubts that homo sapiens' origins are rooted in the
long interplay of "Darwinian," biological evolutionary forces. However, most
historians and social scientists believe that these same forces cannot account for
the last few millennia of dazzling human cultures and social organization.
Moreover, many today, including historians, consider that contemporary condi-
tions are so unprecedented that most of human history, all the premodern human
past, is irrelevant to the understanding of our present predicament. Coming on
the heels of the long period duringwhich humanhistory luxuriatedin its splen-
did isolation, these considerations have reinforced the belief in a deep and
unbridgeablechasm between history and evolution.2
This perceptionis incompatiblewith the contemporary"vision of a grandcon-
tinuity extending across all levels of reality from the physico-chemical systems
to the biosphereand to human societies and our symbols,"3and, furthermore,it
discourageshistoriansfrom contributingto the unravelingof the complex ways
historyemergedfrom biology.4
Awed and humbledby the daily wonders of this collective unweaving of the
rainbow,I presenthere a "prism"throughwhich to look at the nesting of human
history within the naturalhistory of the world. This metaphoricalprism consists
of a frameworkof eight hierarchicallynested modes of evolution that have gov-
erned the evolution of our lineage from the primeval cyanobacteriato present-
day humansocieties. The purposeof this frameworkis to help in separatingthe
evolutionaryspectrumof the constituentelements of human behavior.A brief
review of the history of the nature/nurture question introducesthis presentation,
which is concluded by an example of the analytic power of the framework,fol-
lowed by a brief comparisonwith recent similarlyoverarchingframeworks.
It has long been realizedthat we partakeof two realms, and that thereare behav-
iors we do not share with other animals. This was alreadyclearly expressed in
the account of how "steppe-raised"Enkiduwas broughtinto the folds of human
civilization,5and was encapsulatedin Aristotle'sdefinitionof "manas a political
animal."
By the end of the eighteenthcentury,the nature/nurturedichotomy had start-
ed to be perceived in a dynamic, voluntaristway. Rousseau had presented"the
classic form of the argumentthat the study of humansociety must find its basis
in a portraitof human nature,and specifically in a distinctionbetween what is
originaland fundamentalin man and what is artificialand acquired,"6and James
Burnet(Lord Monboddo)had writtenthat man makes himself, and that there is
no difference between man and brutes "except what culture and education
makes."7 By the early nineteenth century, belief in evolution and cultural
progresshad become widespreadin Europeanintellectualcircles. This belief was
further legitimized by Lyell's evolutionary views, which were based on the
method of scientific inquiry, and in which Earth's geology was understoodas
2. History and Evolution, ed. M. H. Nitecki and D. V. Nitecki (Albany, 1992); A. L. Kroeber,
"Evolution,History, and Culture, " in Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Man, ed. S. Tax
(Chicago, 1960), 1-15.
3. W. H. McNeill, "Historyand the Scientific Worldview,"History and Theory37 (1998), 1-13.
4. M. Polanyi, The Studyof Man (Chicago, 1958).
5. Old-Babylonian"Epicof Gilgamesh"(eighteenth-centuryBC).
6. K. Bock, HumanNatureand History:A Response to Sociobiology (New York, 1980), 17.
7. Ibid., 20.
12 ALBERTF. H. NACCACHE
Journal of Heredity72 (1981), 70-77. The analogy drawnbetween biological and culturalevolution
is particularlyclear in C. F. Swanson, Ever-ExpandingHorizons: The Dual InformationalSources of
HumanEvolution(Amherst,Mass., 1983).
15. F. Jacob, "Evolutionand Tinkering,"Science 196 (1977), 1161-1166.
16. R. Foley, "Causes and Consequences in Human Evolution," Journal of the Royal Anthro-
pological Institute(n.s.) 1 (1995), 67-86; D. Pilbeam,"MajorTrendsin HumanEvolution,"in Current
Argumenton Early Man (Oxford, 1980).
17. Among many: L. C. Aiello, "Terrestriality,Bipedalism and the Origin of Language,"in
Runciman,ed., Evolutionof Social BehaviourPatterns;Aiello, "TheFoundationsof HumanLanguage,"
in The Origin and Diversificationof Language,ed. N. G. Jablonskiand L. C. Aiello (San Francisco,
1998);L. C. Aiello andR. I. M. Dunbar,"NeocortexSize, GroupSize, and the Evolutionof Language,"
CurrentAnthropology34 (1993), 184-193; D. Bickerton,Language & Species (Chicago, 1990); R.
Burling,"PrimateCalls, HumanLanguage,and NonverbalCommunication,"CurrentAnthropology 34
(1993), 25-53; M. Chazan,"TheLanguageHypothesisfor the Middle-to-UpperPaleolithicTransition:
An ExaminationBased on a MultiregionalLithicAnalysis,"CurrentAnthropology36 (1995), 749-766;
D. L. Cheney and R. M. Seyfarth,"Functionand Intentionin the Calls of Non-HumanPrimates,"in
Runciman,ed., Evolutionof Social BehaviourPatterns,59-76; N. Chomsky,"Languageand Nature,"
Mind 104 (1995), 1-61; T. W. Deacon, The SymbolicSpecies: The Co-evolutionof Languageand the
Brain (New York, 1997); K. R. Gibson, "ToolUse, Languageand Social Behaviourin Relationshipto
InformationProcessingCapacities,"in Tools,Languageand Cognitionin HumanEvolution,ed. K. R.
Gibson and T. Ingold (Cambridge,Eng., 1993), 251-269; D. F. Jonas and A. D. Jonas, "Gender
Differencesin MentalFunction:A Clue to the Originof Language,"CurientAnthropology16 (1975),
626-630; J. L. Locke, "Why Do InfantsBegin to Talk? Languageas an UnintendedConsequence,"
Journal of Child Language 23 (1996), 251-268; P. Marler,"Animal Communicationand Human
Language,"in Jablonski and Aiello, ed., Origin and Diversification, 1-19; M. Maxwell, Human
Evolution:A PhilosophicalAnthropology(New York, 1984); R. G. Milo and D. Quiatt,"Glottogenesis
andAnatomicallyModem Homo Sapiens:The Evidence for andImplicationsof a Late Originof Vocal
Language,"CurrentAnthropology34 (1993), 569-598; S. Mithen, The Prehistoryof the Mind: The
CognitiveOriginsofArt, Religionand Science (London,1996); S. Pinker,TheLanguageInstinct(New
York, 1994); M. S. Seidenberg,"LanguageAcquisitionand Use: Learningand Applying Probabilistic
Constraints,"Science 275 (1997), 1599-1603; I. Tattersall,Becoming Human:Evolutionand Human
Uniqueness(New York, 1998); I. Stewart and J. Cohen, Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the
CuriousMind (Cambridge,Eng., 1997);W. H. Thorpe,Biology and the Natureof Man (London,1962).
18. Dobzhansky,ed., On the EvolutionaryUniquenessof Man; T. N. Timbergen,"Ethology in a
Changing World,"in Growing Points in Ethology, 507-527, ed. P. P. G. Bateson and R. A. Hinde
(Cambridge,Eng., 1976).
19. K. R. Gibson, "The Ontogeny and Evolution of the Brain, Cognition, and Language," in
Handbookof HumanSymbolicEvolution,ed. A. Lock and C. R. Peters (Oxford, 1996).
20. W. Noble and I. Davidson, Human Evolution, Language and Mind: A Psychological and
ArchaeologicalInquiry(Cambridge,Eng., 1996).
14 ALBERTF. H. NACCACHE
II
DN
A ; At0 Phenotype.: |
Sexual reproduction
Innovation Elimination
Genome DNA
Phen~~~~~~otype
33. R. Dawkins, The ExtendedPhenotype:The Long Reach of the Gene (Oxford, 1989), 230.
34. To avoid visual cluttering, the recurrentmentions have been indicated only the first time.
Furthermore,time indices for successive generations(such as gI and g2, orfl andf2), and the con-
stant factors, such as energy and chemical compoundsinputs,have not been represented.
35. S. R. Hameroff,"Did ConsciousnessCause the CambrianEvolutionaryExplosion?"in Toward
a Science of ConsciousnessII, ed. S. R. Harneroffet al. (Cambridge,Mass., 1998), 421-438.
36. Eccles, Evolutionof the Brain, 217.
37. Lurnsdenand Wilson, Genes, Mind and Culture.
18 ALBERTF. H. NACCACHE
~DNA Phnotype
DNA(em; : Phenotype
38. G. M. Edelman, The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness (New York,
1989); Edelman, Bright Ait; Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind (New York, 1992); P. M.
Churchland,The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey into the Brain
(Cambridge,Mass. 1995); see also The Handbookof Brain Theorym and Neural Networks,ed. M. A.
Arbib (Cambridge,Mass. 1995), and The CognitiveNeurosciences,ed. M. S. Gazzaniga(Cambridge,
Mass., 1995).
39. Edelman,BrightAi; Brilliant Fire, 118-123.
A BRIEFHISTORYOF EVOLUTION 19
=
.D.
. ..E.... enoty
DANA henotype
l DNA l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Phenotype.
t;-ff:00:!::;t-(kom
offspring ph ;;:-:;<:0X:0-DNA)i
+ .Teaching , /
: : Phenotype,--::
.....,
....E.. 00
Fiur4. Lif-ccl setu fortePorsieMmaan odof Evlto
57. N. K. Humphrey,"The Social Function of Intellect," in Bateson and Hinde, ed., Growing
Points in Ethology, 303-517; N. Rescher,A Useful Inheritance:EvolutionaryAspects of the Theory
of Knowledge(London, 1990).
58. D. Reiss, "Cognition and Communicationin Dolphins: A Question of Consciousness," in
Hameroff,ed., Towarda Science of ConsciousnessII, 551-560; H. Whitehead,"CulturalSelection and
Genetic Diversity in MatrilinealWhales," Science 282 (1998), 1708-1711; P. Mackenzie, "Elephant
InformationRepository,"<www.elehost.com> (1999).
59. C. Boesch, "The Emergence of Cultures among Wild Chimpanzees,"in Runciman, ed.,
Evolutionof Social BehaviourPatterns,251-268; W. C. McGrew,"Culturein NonhumanPrimates?"
Annual Review of Anthropology27 (1998), 301-328; A. Whiten et al., "Culturesin Chimpanzees,"
Nature 399 (1999), 682-685.
60. Or rather"Spencerian";see M. Ruse, TakingDarwin Seriously:A NaturalisticApproach to
Philosophy (London, 1986), 125.
61. Dawkins, The ExtendedPhenotype.
62. Two recent studies make this point: G. Rizzolatti and M. A. Arbib, "Languagewithin Our
Grasp,"Trendsin Neurosciences 21 (1998), 188-194; R. Worden,"TheEvolution of Languagefrom
Social Intelligence,"in J. R. Hurfordet al., Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and
Cognitive Bases (Cambridge,Eng., 1998). See also M. Jeannerodet al., "GraspingObjects: The
CorticalMechanismsof VisuomotorTransformation,"Trendsin Neurosciences 18 (1995), 314-320;
F. Aboitiz and V. Ricardo Garcia, "The EvolutionaryOrigin of the Language Areas in the Human
Brain:A NeuroanatomicalPerspective,"Brain ResearchReviews 25 (1997), 393.
A BRIEF HISTORYOF EVOLUTION 23
..........~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~'"-.''.','i.-.000
. 1 0 0 ; -- 0 -- ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ -
.
God ;.g A_!-;-n,# ..... ... ...~
...
f.0.f--,;
~~~~~~~~.,..................................
/ 4... 44444444444444;4....... ..........^
;3i
~~~~~~~~~~~... ,g'S>...........z.
: ,.S..
......;..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
(Homo)
2.6 millin L0year!ao
o ife-yl
Thegworking theeuo e
"extrasomatically nhanced
scoutrlME"wt t
brain only sets general limits to the human behavioralphenotype and does not
dictateparticularimplementations,which are socioculturallydetermined.89
Therefore,in orderto determinethe date of onset of the exosomatic memory,
we have to find the oldest artifactthat could reliablybe consideredintentionally
made to carry a symbolic message, the first artifactclearly producedprimarily
for its symbolic function or value. Clearly,many of the humanintellectualcapa-
bilities, includingthe use of symbols, predatewriting,90but by how much?What
is the oldest symbolic artifact?Is it the 50,000-year-old "depictiveimage,"91or
the 100,000-year-old "exquisite nonutilitarianoval plaque,"92or the 250,000-
year-old "figurine"?93 Or might it be some artifactthat appearsto be utilitarian,
such as the consummatelycrafted400,000-year-oldwooden spearsfound recent-
ly nearHanover?The use of these powerful weapons must have been "symboli-
cally loaded," but it is also arguablethat the extraordinarycare and attention
needed to produce artifacts having such magical properties could only be
expendedin the context of a succession of symbolic acts. This is so because man-
ufacturingtechnology had to be coaxed from a magical contact with the materi-
als and theirproperties,and not, like today,deducedfrom a body of scientificand
technologicalknowledge.
If some 400,000 years ago, artifactsintentionallycarryingsymbols were man-
ufacturedwith such care, their first appearancecould well be correlatedwith the
emergence of archaichomo sapiens, and the neuralcorrelateof the exosomatic
social memory would be the brainenlargementassociated with it.
Ourperceptionof the world is so deeply embeddedin and dependenton sym-
bolic systems that it is hard to realize that these, like all emerging phenomena,
must have followed a growthcurve, and thatthey must have had, therefore,very
humble beginnings. Humble beginnings they had, but levered on top of the
"Lamarckian"socioculturalMoE, the growth rate was explosive. So explosive
that it is perceivedlike a succession of nested, ever-acceleratingrevolutions:
1. The Upper Paleolithiccognitive revolutionsome 30,000 years ago;
2. The symbols'revolutionof the LevantineEpipaleolithicthatusheredthe first
permanentsettlementsand then agriculturesome 14,000 years ago;94
3. The urban revolution5,000 years ago;
4. The scientific revolution500 years ago;
5. And now a burstingrevolutionso far-reachingthatit is usheringin the emer-
gence of a furtherMoE right underour eyes, a mode that I will attemptto char-
acterizein the next section.
89. Rescher,A Useful Inheritance, 124.
90. See amongmanyothers:R. G. Bednarik,"Concept-mediated Markingin the LowerPaleolithic,"
CurrentAnthropology36 (1995), 605-634; A. Belfer-Cohen,and N. Goren-Inbar,"Cognitionand
Communicationin the LevantineLower Palaeolitthic"WorldArchaeology26 (1994), 144-157.
91. A. Marshack, "A Middle Paleolithic Symbolic Composition from the Golan Heights: The
EarliestKnown Depictive Image,"CurrentAnthropology37 (1996), 357-364.
92. Idem.
93. A. Marshack,"TheBerekhatRam Figurine:A Late AcheulianCarvingfrom the Middle East,"
Antiquity71 (1997).
94. J. Cauvin,Naissance des divinitis, Naissance de agriculture: La Revolutiondes Symbolesau
Njolithique (Paris, 1997).
28 ALBERTF. H. NACCACHE
But before doing that, I still have to propose a name for the MoE that has
definedhumanhistory,and which is characterizedby the presence in the human
life-cycle setup of an inorganicallysupported,exosomatic social memory. We
could call it the "exosomatic socioculturalMoE," but let us try to find a more
suggestive name. We note that the workings of this mode have allowed the fol-
lowing modifications of homo sapiens' life-cycle setup:
1. The progressive elimination of the causes of "naturalselection" in human
populations(throughhygiene, medicine, and populationmovements);
2. The growing potentialto control the genome's reproduction(up to genetic
engineering);
3. The furtheramplificationof all behavioralinterventionsin the organic and
behavioral development of offspring phenotype (throughtechnology and engi-
neering).
These modificationshave not yet run their full course, and all three might not
be traceableall the way back to the onset time of this mode. However, they have
sufficientlyalteredthe underlyingbiological mechanismsof the life-cycle setup
to be consideredcharacteristicof this mode. All three modificationshave come
aboutas the resultof unskilledand/orexperimentalrepairor adjustmentmade by
homo sapiens to basic biological processes. That is, all three are cases of "tin-
kering,"which is why I propose to refer to this mode as the "tinkeringMoE."95
GenomeN Phentotype..
is~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*i
Genome DNA
Ph~~~~~~~~enotype,~
Figure8. Life-cyclesetupfortheParabiological
Modeof Evolution
(Babbage)150years ago
III
If we now comparethe three frameworks,it should be clear that they are not
methodologicallyexclusive of each other.By focusing upon the origins of bio-
logical reproduction,MaynardSmith and Szathmarywere able to uncover the
successive mechanisms and modes of evolution that bridged, throughreplace-
ment or addition,chemistryand biology. By focusing upon hominid social evo-
lution, Foley was able to uncover specific demographic,biological, environmen-
tal, and social contexts that have molded it. By taking the overall perspective,
and basing it systematicallyupon the principleof reproduction,we hope to have
achieved a prism for the study of human behavior that, while not yet properly
polished, will be judged worthy of revision and improvement.
Lebanese University
Beirut