Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution [Hardcover]

Donna Hart (Author), Robert Wald Sussman (Author), Robert W. Sussman (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 2005

Although “Man the Hunter” is a popular description of our ancestry, the central importance of hunting is firmly fixed only in the archeological record of relatively recent human history. Man the Hunted argues that primates, including the earliest members of the human family, have evolved not as hunters but as the prey of any number of predators, including wild cats and dogs, hyenas, snakes, crocodiles, and even birds of prey. Eyewitness accounts, data collected by the authors, and the published reports of naturalists establish the astonishing extent to which living monkeys, lemurs, apes, and even humans fall victim to a wide variety of predators, some of which even specialize in the consumption of primates. Additionally, the fossil record demonstrates that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that necessarily shaped the evolution of our earliest ancestors in body and behavior. Skillfully combining information from a number of lines of evidence, Man the Hunted casts an entirely new light on the natural history of primates and the evolution of fossil and modern humans.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Contrary to the familiar image of the aggressive, spear-wielding "caveman," our hominid ancestors were more hunted than hunters, more preyed upon than slayers of large predators, contend wildlife conservationist Hart and anthropologist Sussman. The authors note that as anthropologists and primatologists have studied various primate species in the African and Asian rainforests, many myths have been dispelled about how aggressive these primates (who resemble our ancestors) were and how they reacted to predation. And as more early hominid fossils have been discovered, researchers have come to realize that they were small enough to make a tasty snack for a pack of large hyenas. One skull bears twin holes that match exactly the fangs of a leopard; another displays scratches that suggest the victim was carried off by a very large bird of prey. Modern-day humans are still preyed upon in many places: mountain lions have ambushed joggers in California, and in southern Africa, the crowned harp-eagle occasionally carries off a small child. The authors maintain that our need to socialize stems from early hominids' improved odds of survival when they banded together against predators. Some readers may raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that our predilection for a beautiful scenic view evolved from our ancestors' scanning the African grasslands for danger, but the authors' novel proposals merit serious consideration. B&w illus. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

In an agile, knowledgeable presentation, the authors contest a popular conception about human evolution: that ancestral hominids were hunters. Hart and Sussman, anthropology professors, think that the support for that idea is flimsy. However, its advocates, such as Louis Leakey, have been influential. Leakey insisted that humans were not "cat food." We were, demur the authors, and food for bears, hyenas, snakes, and eagles, too. To make their case, which eminent paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall extols in a preface as "the first comprehensive synthesis of the information available about predation on humans," Hart and Sussman marshal both fossils and behavioral studies of living primates. The authors' prose is wryly irreverent, as if intended to keep a lecture class awake and interested. Even readers who instinctively shy away from science would enjoy reading this book. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (March 1, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813339367
• ISBN-13: 978-0813339368
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #984,335 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally, March 18, 2005

By 

Dr. Lee D. Carlson (Baltimore, Maryland USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution (Hardcover)

From a mathematical/statistical viewpoint, one of most unjustified beliefs of the modern age is that humans are a killer species. Unfortunately this myth is embedded in both popular and scientific cultures, and has resulted in a completely distorted view of human and primate species. The number of humans throughout history that have actually killed another human being is extremely small, and warfare is actually quite rare between humans. Yet we are told over and over again that humans have an innate propensity for murder or violence. The good news is that such a viewpoint has been challenged recently by some anthropologists and social psychologists, with two of these being the authors of this book. They not only give fossil evidence that supports their assertion that humans and other primates are not violent by nature, but also give constructive arguments as to their actual nature, namely that their behavior is a consequence of their exposure to predation. The book is fascinating reading, and readers who accept the "Man the Hunter" paradigm in anthropology will find solid challenges to their belief structures. It is indeed refreshing to finally see a book in print that gives serious effort to countering this paradigm.

The book begins with the authors asking whether human evolution has been molded by hunting ability or by survival techniques that were developed to avoid being eaten. They then spend much of the book elaborating on the fossil record and contemporary evidence of predation on human and non-human primates. The authors are intellectually honest enough to admit that quantitative data is sparse, and that they use current examples of predation on primates to estimate the rates of predation on ancient hominids. Fossils of the losers in predator-prey encounters are available they say, but there are not enough of them to obtain conclusive figures on the rate of predation or reliable information on successful strategies to outwit predators.

As an example of their analysis, the authors point out that in all the research conducted so far, killings among chimpanzees averaged only one every 8.5 - 17 years. So much for the assertion that chimpanzees are natural-born killers. They also point out, but unfortunately do not give any references, that current research into the neurophysiology of aggression between species indicates that this form of aggression is very different from the violence humans sometimes wage against each other. Because of its importance, and because it would enhance the case of the authors, it would have been very helpful if the authors had cited research papers on this topic.

Most enlightening is the section of the book entitled "The Other 50%" the authors illustrate, without appeals to some current notions of "masculine" versus "feminine" science, the pitfalls of ignoring how the females are behaving in primate groups. Why is the behavior of females always ignored in anthropological studies? The historical record reveals that women are even less violent than men have been, and most men, in fact the vast majority, have not been violent. In this section the authors also briefly discuss the research of Adrienne Zihlman, a physical anthropologist whose studies revealed that in early hominid societies women conducted most of the socialization of the young and were repositories of group knowledge, among other things. Most interestingly, these studies revealed that females chose sexual partners that were less aggressive than others, completing negating frequent contemporary assertions to the contrary.

Other interesting discussions or facts in the book include: 1. The large change (300cc) in cranial capacity that occurred from the time of the first known member of human genus (H. habilis) to H. erectus. The authors quote research that indicates that 20cc of brain tissue is added every 100,000 years. 2. The "Man the Dancer" hypothesis. The authors admit to sarcasm here, but their discussion serves as an amusing counterexample to the "Man the Hunter" dogma. Activities such as face-to-face sex, cooperation, language and singing, and bipedalism could be explained by a propensity to dance rather than a desire to hunt, they humorously emphasize. In a light-hearted way they expose the absurdity of the Man the Hunter hypothesis. 3. The detailed discussion of the six different explanations for bipedalism: carrying, vigilance, heat-dissipation, energy-efficiency, display, and foraging. The authors are careful to point out that none of these explanations are causal explanations of bipedalism, but rather our ancestors were `preadapted' for it. They discuss some of the factors that make bipedalism advantageous, such as carrying food and tools, sitting upright while eating, etc. 4. The discussion of the predominant role of intelligence in dealing with predators, by confronting the `predation sequence' at its earliest stages.

So why do so many scientists and the "general public" accept the view that human ancestors were bloodthirsty killers? The authors believe that there are three reasons for this, namely the `perverted' Western views of modern humans, the Christian concept of `original sin', and `sloppy science'. They devote an entire chapter to the elaboration of these reasons, and their arguments are convincing. Whether or not their ideas will replace the current hunter-killer paradigm only time will tell. Hopefully these ideas, or better ones that are formulated when more evidence becomes available, will do just that.

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars People as Prey, April 29, 2005

By 

E. N. Anderson (Riverside, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution (Hardcover)

This is an excellent and balanced book about humans as prey for other animals. It is at a "popular" level, but professionals will be interested in much of the data. The authors marshal evidence of everything from eagles to hyenas eating people and other primates, and point out that the predator universe back when people were evolving was much more impressive than now--sabretooth cats the size of bears, with fangs over six inches long, abounded. Here in California, we had lions almost twice the size of African lions; wolves as big as St. Bernards; and other friendly fauna.
Obviously, early hominids were more hunted than hunting. The rise of brain size clearly went along with a rise in hunting and in self-protecting ability, but I was surprised to find out how many people get eaten even today.
The authors deconstruct the myth of the violent chimp, and subject claims of human aggressiveness to some deflation. A point they could make more clearly is that hunting has nothing to do with intraspecies aggression; just watch a cat--the brain and behavior mechanisms of hunting have to be quite different from those for intraspecies fighting. Hunting did not make humans fierce to each other. Probably, group rivalry did that.
My wife recalls from her Peace Corps days in Ethiopia the need to stay locked in one's house at night, because of the hyenas; they ate about one person per day in Addis Ababa. An acquaintance, noted for his arrogance, went swimming in the Nile in spite of local warnings about crocodiles. He was last seen disappearing slowly, feet first, down a large Nile croc. Local people watched helplessly from the bank; the river was a churning mass of huge crocs. Eventually they could venture out and catch the offending croc--too late. Another Peace Corps worker visited the site, and found the locals selling souvenir photos of the croc cut open with the unfortunate Peace Corps volunteer's body parts being cut out of its stomach. The story is still used as a cautionary tale.... Yes, humans are prey.

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Yum, said the Cave Bear, Hominid! My Favorite Dish!, May 20, 2008

By 

Giordano Bruno (Wherever I am, I am.) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution (Hardcover)

A debate has raged, politely you may be sure, among archaeologists concerning whether Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, and other pre-modern humans were ferocious hunters or skulking scavengers. That debate is not even near resolution, and may well be conducted on false questions, but authors hunt and Sussman want us to consider human evolution from another angle, that of primates in general and hominids in particular as more preyed upon than preying. Their evidence derives from two sources: observation of depradation on primate species in the world today, and forensic examination of bite and claw wounds in hominid/homonoid fossils. Some reviewers seem to have read an ethical issue into the book, addressing aggression in human nature. Frankly, if such issues were raised, I hardly noticed them. My attention was riveted to the question of the central importance of predation in evolution, not only of Homo sapiens but of all multicellular life.

The most successful predators on primates in the world today - leopards, eagles, and crocodilians - would seem to have been likely predators on australopithecines as well. Then there's some archaeological evidence that hyenas were on gastronomic terms with "Cro-Magnon" folk in China. But did fear of predators and the skills needed to avoid them play a significant role in human evolution. The authors think so, and their case, if not proven, is at least entertaining to the jury.

I'm prompted - unrepentant carnivore that I am - to ask a broader question of evolutionary theory. Has predation been a significant accelerator of evolution, a driver if you will, since the pre-Cambrian?
It's generally supposed that the development of our "large-but-not-quite-large-enough" brains was fueled by the calories of hunted or scavenged flesh. Long before "us", however, was predation the driver of intelligence. Could we Wise Homos ever have existed without someone being eaten?