<p>Over the past twenty years, empirical and theoretical advances have significantly reshaped the research agenda on “behavioral modernity” and its conceptualization. Major shifts involve the material signatures of the phenomenon, the general archaeological pattern, the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change, and species attribution. In response, some researchers have called for eliminating the concept altogether. In this article, I contend that, while eliminativist arguments are gaining traction, their justification remains unsatisfactory. I consider three angles of attack: (1) the relationship between “anatomical” and “behavioral” modernity and their purported shared fate, and two explicit eliminativist positions as advanced by (2) Shea (2011) and (3) Garofoli (2016). I suggest that major concerns can be addressed through conceptual “housekeeping” and, possibly as a result, “relabeling,” while contending that the ongoing debate has not yet erased a fundamental explanandum—a transition—that still warrants further investigation. This pertains to a conceptual core that has not yet been defeated. Thus, I suggest that tempering enthusiasm towards the concept’s elimination is more conducive to a nuanced discussion of archaeology’s practice and aims.</p>