Customer Reviews

The Hunting Apes

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As an avid lay reader of the latest work in the area of human evolution, I approached The Hunting Apes with a little trepidation; it's the latest in a long line of "The X (insert adjective) Ape[s]." No one behavior could have accounted for our rise to domination of all other species. However, I thought that Stanford did a great job convincing me of the importance of meat-eating in our early ancestors, theory and especially in debunking the old Man The Hunter and replacing it with something a whole lot more rational and well-researched. The best part of the book for me was Stanford's deftly written overview of current hot debates in the study of our evolution. I took an undergraduate survey course in human evolution a few years ago, and if this book had been assigned I would have gotten a lot more out of the class. I give it five big stars.

With a wealth of primate research supporting his thesis, Stanford argues that meat is an essential element in human evolution. Although not the older and simpler "Killer Ape" hypothesis of some years ago, Stanford sees meat hunting and consumption as the foundation of human society. Meat also acted as a basis in developing the resource voracious human brain and associated communication skills we developed. Among those primates who consume meat, its acquisition remains a male-dominated activity. However, instead of resulting in inexorably male-dominating societies, meat distribution and consumption results in complex negotiation patterns in which females play significant, if not equal roles. This concept suggests humans must seriously reassess their role in Nature. Urging that humanity's lineage is far from linear, he presents a good overview of recent studies. Although the number of definitive fossils is meager, they still demonstrate that our primate roots are not in doubt. The struggle by researchers to properly place humans within the larger animal community has been stoutly resisted by many, both scholars and the lay public alike. Feminist anthropologists, in particular, have striven to displace the male dominated academic group with excessive roles of females in various primate cultures. Some have stretched the idea to the point of seeing females as the true source of language, nutritional foods and even tool making. Stanford addresses these suggestions as mostly unrealistic. Instead, he notes how meat plays a major role in mating scenarios, granting females an active role in selection. Acquiring meat may be accomplished through various strategies, from opportunistic scavenging to actively seeking prey. The true hunter, he contends, must develop a sophisticated array of skills in pursuing meat - prey location, stealth, communication, and the tools able to kill and process. Once obtained, the distribution of the kill becomes an essential element in societal arrangement. He reviews many forms social structures have taken, from selfish monopolization of the kill to the hunter himself receiving but limited return for his effort. What the hunter does gain in all societies is respect and recognition of the group. For Stanford, this is but one indication of the diversity encountered in all primate societies, human and otherwise. The only universal is the hierarchical structure resulting from the hunting role. While hierarchy is the norm, dominance doesn't necessarily follow. In this study, Stanford examines the many social structures primates have developed. These range from nearly solitary, such as the orang-utan, to both male-male and male-female bonding strategies. These elements are essential to understanding the roots of human societal structures. As an example, in primate societies, in contrast to many other animals, it is the female who migrates from the natal group. Stanford doesn't follow this to suggest that dowries and bride-bargaining derive from this behavior, but the inference is clear. Indeed, part of the value of this book is his restriction to biological patterns. One need only accept that humans are included in the primate community. Stanford's book may raise some hackles, but it's far too important an idea to dismiss lightly. He's a skilled enough writer not to get bogged down in a pedantic rendition of the evidence or his conclusions. With the large number of works on the vagaries of human evolution appearing in recent years, finding worthwhile books can be a daunting task. Rest assured that The Hunting Apes is worth your attention and investment. Future research may modify it slightly, but is unlikely to supplant it.

I found Hunting Apes to be a superbly written summary of current debates in human evolution. Stanford makes a case for meat-sharing's supremacy that may or may not be true, but even if his theory were someday disproved, this book would stand as an excellent piece of readable science.

Stanford's contribution to our search for our behavioral origins is timely, fascinating, and well-researched. He argues for the centrality of meat-sharing in the origins of cerebral expansion, and in the process presents a deftly written, insightful survey of what is known about great apes, especially wild chimpanzees, at the turn of the 21st century. An excellent read based on the most important study conducted to date on the hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees.

I found this book very well written, easy to read and full of substantial information. This was a new topic for me, and I particularly found the contrasting information about hunting vs. scavenging was interesting. While the book is certainly about "hunting," it really isn't -- it's more about the politics behind meat, and about the move from being scavengers. Actually, the information about scavenging was most valuable.

Actual observation of chimpanzees and bonobos hunting,killing prey and sharing the meat gives considerable credance to the concept that human hunting was a key part in human evolution. Many questions are not answered like;how is predatory behavior influenced by meat consumption,what substances in the meat could be regulators of brain growth and predatory behavior enhancement,what is the linkage to meat substitutes for group sharing like alcohol and drugs,could the present shift away from high meat consumption have a link to increased alcohol and drug use? Only by understanding our past evolutionary journey can we wisely solve our present problems.

This is not a work of fiction, so the reader's response should not be "Did I like it?" but "What did I learn?" The answer is, little. (I should qualify that by saying I have read quite a bit on this topic.) Stanford presents little that cannot be found elsewhere, more incisively. Every time you think he is going to say something, he shies off. In fact, I think there is only one sentence in the whole book: "While women may collect most hunter-gatherer protein, we should not ignore the fact that men are able to use meat for their own selfish and manipulative political ends." (p212) This is new?

I was taken aback by Stanford's approach. "This has yet to be shown. But the notion that a high-quality diet frees the metabolism of an evolving hominid to develop a larger and larger brain is extremely appealing because it would explain both the trend toward greater encephalization and toward more meat in the diet of the evolution of the human lineage (p50-51)." Appealing? (Also, I never knew that evolution had a diet.) "Surely bonobos and gorillas ought to make use of such a valuable resource whenever possible." (p95) Come on, you guys, get with it, what's the matter with you, why don't you eat hamburgers, like God intended us to? I wish Stanford would just come out and say, "Eating meat is good for you, because I was raised on an American diet with plenty of meat, and I know what I want to hear and what you want to hear. Therefore, I am going to prove that eating meat is good for you, and what's more, it's good for all of us. Dumb gorillas, don't know a valuable resource when they see one!" Stanford's method reminds me of the half joking advice to young scholars: "Put forth your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, and throw away everything that does not agree with your hypothesis." I was also aware that academics prefer not to give credit to Ardrey's African Genesis, which effectively kicked off evolutionary psychology. Nonetheless, I was surprised to read on page 182 that "In their search for evidence that modern people operate on a cognitive plane shaped by a long history of natural selection, evolutionary psychologists have erred in their level of analysis. There is no reason to consider the cognitive domains by which we respond to our social environment to be uniquely human." I thought that was the whole point of evolutionary psychology, that our congnitive domains are NOT uniquely human.

In short, if you wish to learn something, I suggest you read The Wisdom of the Bones by Walker and Shipman, Moral Animal by Wright, Lemur's Legacy by Russell, or any one of a large number of books that are more tightly reasoned than this one.

Stanford offered many insights that were new to me such as the pervading sexism within ape societies. However the authors tone is almost snobbish in the way he belittles researchers with disagreeing opinons. For example one researcher who believes bonobos are more like humans than chimps was discredited in 1 or 2 sentences I believe.

This book by Craig Stanford started to show some real information toward a hypothesis than lost all track. It lead to be a dull and redundant essay. It lacks logical sense in scientfic theory and has a biased theme. I would suggest another book most likely a book by Jane Goodall.