Dear palaeoanthropologists/archaeologists:
Please stop using the word "primitive".
You might think you're doing well by avoiding jargon. But here's the deal: while you & your peers might understand that you're replacing "plesiomorphic" or "basal trait" with something easy to understand, "primitive" already has a layperson meaning - and it's NOT good.
At its best, "primitive" invokes a concept or orthogenesis (directionality) to evolution, the concept of "higher" and "lower" organisms, the idea of a "chain of being".
At its worst, "primitive" is a stand-in for "less than" or "unfinished". Because - if you have primitive, then you have to have advanced, right?

Primitive traits... primitive organisms... primitive cultures and people. And the flip-side: advanced organisms, cultures, people...
And we know that's not how evolution works. That's also not how we should view others, be they plants, animals... or peoples.
By avoiding the jargon, you're propagating a hideously loaded and problematic concept.
Find a better way; explain what you mean.
Maybe "ancestral condition" is better.
I dunno.

But "primitive" is not the way to go.
You can follow @DSRovinsky.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: