New research suggests connection and mobility were key drivers in early human innovation

“This broader ecological perspective challenges how we understand early human innovation. Instead of seeing innovation as a direct reaction to climate change, our study shows that it reflects deeper cultural changes shaped by shifting ecosystems and by how people stayed connected or became isolated over time,” says Francesco d’Errico.

A first large-scale ecological reconstruction

d’Errico is a professor and principal investigator at the SapienCE Centre of Excellence at the University of Bergen, and one of the researchers behind the new study on early human innovation.

The study presents the first large-scale reconstruction of how ecosystems in southern Africa changed between 180,000 and 30,000 years ago. This was a time when environmental change overlapped with cultural developments.

The researchers combine large-scale ecological data with archaeological evidence from the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort cultures. These are two of the best-studied periods in African prehistory.

“By placing both cultural traditions within the same ecological timeline, our study shows that they developed under markedly different environmental conditions,” d’Errico says.

Innovation in stable versus unstable ecosystems

The Still Bay developed during a humid and productive period, while the Howiesons Poort emerged during times of climatic instability and rapidly shifting ecosystems.

“When ecosystems were highly variable and unpredictable, as during the emergence of Howiesons Poort, we see new technologies spread across large areas”, d’Errico says.

He explains that this period is characterized by standardized blade production, backed tools, and early bow-and-arrow technology — all appearing over vast distances at the same time.

“These widespread technological similarities suggest that people travelled more, kept long-distance contacts, and exchanged knowledge and materials over hundreds of kilometers,” d’Errico says, adding: “These connections likely helped groups manage environmental risk and cope with uncertainty.”

In contrast, during more stable and productive periods, such as those associated with the Still Bay, populations appear to have been more locally rooted, with stronger social interaction. This is also when highly standardized bifacial points emerged, along with some of the earliest examples of symbolic behaviour, such as engraved ochre and shell beads.

According to d’Errico, these innovations likely emerged when people lived closer together over longer periods, in settings that encouraged learning, teaching, and strengthening of shared cultural norms.

No single pathway to innovation

“In southern Africa, as in other regions, there were also long periods with good environmental conditions but little evidence for major technological or symbolic change,” d’Errico notes.

d’Errico says that this shows that innovation depends not only on resources, but on how people connect and how knowledge is shared within and between groups.

“In some cases, stable conditions may reduce the need to change practices if existing solutions work well,” he says.

According to him, the study shows that early humans used different adaptive strategies.

“Our study show that early humans adapted in different ways depending on their surroundings. Sometimes they travelled widely and maintained long-distance connections, while other times seems to have brought them closer together, in locally based communities,” d’Errico says.

Lessons from the past – relevance today

Looking beyond southern Africa, a later and different example that illustrates similar principles is the Norse settlement of Greenland. When climatic conditions deteriorated during the Little Ice Age, the Norse communities became increasingly isolated and eventually abandoned the region, while Inuit populations, with different technologies, social networks, and subsistence strategies, proved more resilient under the same environmental stress.

“Without drawing direct or alarmist parallels, this also resonates with current discussions about the Arctic, where climate change is opening new environments and intensifying geopolitical and economic interest,” d’Errico says, adding:

“Overall, this study reveals that human resilience and ability to innovate has never relied on environmental conditions alone, but on how people stayed connected, exchanged knowledge, and adapted together.”