Page 194 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 171
This statement is factually correct. Burials at Qafzeh (~92 ka), ochre use at
Pinnacle Point (~164 ka), and early exchange networks are real. But the wording
suggests smooth continuity, as if these sparks flowed seamlessly into today
’s
cultures.
The reality is different. These sparks vanish. They fail to stabilize. Only after
~70 ka does symbolism become durable and global.
Critique: Museums simplify for accessibility. But in smoothing, they conceal
the rupture that matters most. Why did symbolism stop and start? Why silence
for so long? Why sudden ignition? Public narratives reassure, but they flatten
the paradox.
APH insists that the rupture is the story: sparks as readiness, ignition as
threshold.
The Smithsonian: Institutional Variability
The Smithsonian’s Hall of Human Origins juxtaposes Acheulean handaxes
(~1.6 mya) with Aurignacian figurines (~35 ka), pigment use by Neanderthals
with Chauvet cave art. The exhibit implies continuity.
Curator Rick Potts emphasizes his “
variability selection” model:
“The ability to adapt to changing environments is the central theme of human evolution. Our
survival and ingenuity are explained not by sudden leaps, but by variability as a long-term
pattern.
” (Potts, 2010, p. 57)
The Smithsonian’s caution is deliberate. As a national museum, it favors
narratives of resilience and adaptability over revolutionary breaks. But variability
cannot explain why humans were “adaptable” for hundreds of thousands of
years, yet only after 70 ka did durable symbolism ignite. Nor can it explain why
Neanderthals, equally variable, never stabilized symbolic culture.
Critique: Variability explains survival, but not the silence before symbolism.
APH explains both: anatomy allowed survival, but infusion triggered culture.