Conceptual Progress in Physical Anthropology: Fossil Man

TLDR: Fossil hominid discovery has opened up a wider range of hypothetical possibilities than have been appropropriate in the past as mentioned in this paper, but this does not mean that the truth itself is necessarily simple.

Abstract: The strictures which encompass and define scientific method are high­ lighted in an observational science such as paleontology, which permits prac­ tically no experimentation. Progress in the study of human evolution based on the fossil record has been beset by nearly as many problems as it has solved. While today we know far more of the fossil evidence than those who wrote early in this century, we have also come to realize more clearly the theoretical difficulties which stand in our way. We know that we can never do more than present hypotheses on the basis of presently available evidence. As time-bound creatures, no ultimate truth about the origin and evolution of mankind can ever be known to us. The recent discovery of so many fossil hominids has, as we shall see, opened up a wider range of hypothetical possibilities than have been appro­ priate in the past. Those fossils known earlier in this century, and indeed as late as 1955, could be fitted into a relatively simple and not very controver­ sial phylogenetic lineage. The numerous fossils now known offer alternative interpretations (Figure 1). Since the number of possible hypotheses are both theoretically and practically unlimited, it is essential in our assessment of the present position to evoke the principle of William of Ockham that plurality should not be posited without need (essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem), but as Whitehead has pointed out, this does not mean that the truth itself is necessarily simple (127). In this review we shall discuss first some of the most important fossil dis­ coveries since 1955,1 and then consider their conceptual significance. 1 Archaeological sites lacking fossil hominid remains are obviously relevant to an understanding of human evolution. In the present state of our understanding of cultural variation and the taxonomy of tool assemblages, however, it is most unwise to equate a particular culture with a particular hominid taxon. Because of limited