The Aquatic Ape

What would you think if, coming in sight of the beach at a seaside resort, you saw that all the deckchairs were turned toward the land?  This is the punchline of a short story by science fiction writer, Brian Aldiss, in which his character slips into an alternative universe, one that looks superficially similar but is fundamentally alien – human beings are no longer drawn towards the sea.

That was in the 1960s.  Not long after reading the story, I came across an extraordinary hypothesis by Welsh television writer and feminist, Elaine Morgan.  Reacting to what she saw as the sexist nature of the savannah hypothesis in human evolution (chaps off hunting, women sitting around at home watching day time TV), she found a reference in Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape to a period in human evolution when apes might have been forced to live in water.  Here’s his argument.

Morgan’s book, The Descent of Woman (1972), popularized the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.  You can see why, as a feminist, she found it attractive.  There is no division of labour in an aquatic environment – males and females are equal partners in the struggle for survival.

Beyond that, it has some supporting evidence, presented by Morris in the video.  This theory supports, among other things, the evolution of bipedalism (as a means of literally keeping your head above water), frontal sex, lack of body hair, and conscious control of breathing (necessary in an aquatic environment).

Needless to say, her work was not well received in scientific circles.  I will leave you to apportion the reasons between her non-scientific background and being a woman.

Morgan followed this with The Aquatic Ape (1982), in which she made the science more rigorous, and continued to develop her theory in subsequent books.  The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (1997), subtitled The Most Credible Theory of Human Evolution, takes the prize for sheer chutzpah.

Criticism of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis has not diminished in the ensuing years, but it has gained a place among the family of respectable evolutionary theories.  Somewhere in the back row of the family photo, among the maiden aunts.  Morgan is still passionately defending her hypothesis.  Here she is at TED in 2009.

I like AAH as much for its scientific credentials, as for my affinity for water.  It resonates on an intuitive level, and I was appalled by Aldiss’ glimpse of a world where human beings are no longer drawn to the sea.  I’m not even sure I’d give it the bum’s rush if there was a preponderance of evidence against it.

The ancestral memory of wading through the mangrove swamps is just too strong and comforting.

One thought on “The Aquatic Ape

  1. Of course the term “aquatic ape” is a misnomer, it’s not about apes or australopiths (only about Homo s.s.), and it’s not about having been aquatic (a better term is “littoral”), but – however one wants to name it – the Hardy-Morgan theory is beyond the slightest doubt: it’s obvious that Pleistocene Homo populations dispersed along coasts & rivers: how else could they have reached Flores? why else are all archaic Homo fossils found next to edible shellfish (work of J.Joordens, of S.Munro & of others), all over the Old World, from the Cape to Eritrea to Boxgrove to Dmanisi to Mojokerto, from 1.8 Ma until 125 ka?
    IMO we have to discern 2 theories:
    – the littoral theory of Homo s.s.: Pleistocene diaspora along coasts & rivers,
    – the aquarboreal theory of apes: Mio-Pliocene hominoid adaptation to flooded forests (mangrove, gallery, swamp forests).
    For up-to-date insights, please
    – google “econiche Homo” & “aquarboreal”,
    – or read our forthcoming ebook “Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution” by M.Vaneechoutte, A.Kuliukas & M.Verhaegen eds 2011 Bentham Sci.Publ., with contributions of Elaine Morgan, Phillip Tobias, Michel Odent, Anna Gislén & others,
    – or see our recent paper “Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods” in HOMO J.compar.hum.Biol.62:237-247, 2011.
    Marc Verhaegen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s