Algis ranting about AAH
- From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:03 +0200
>>Algis: Another posting about what the AAH and what the AAH isn't. My
question is, again, when, why and by whom did this get decided? I thought
the AAH was something rather different.
> Everyone gets to decide - about their *own* version of AAH. No one has the
right to say that the AAH is X and nothing else. Well, Elaine perhaps. She
is the nearest anyone has come to 'owning' the AAH, she can say whatever she
likes :-) But I don't think she would.
>>(Sorry to keep ranting on about this but if no-one is bothered about this
here, then where?)
> I think it's important enough to justify a little rant. But perhaps the
time for the big rant is now past? The lengthy point-by-point discussions
don't seem to be achieving a productive outcome, and are trying the patience
of others in this group. Here's a suggestion: if Marc (or anyone else for
that matter) posts that 'AAH/T is only about Homo [*]' (or whatever), simply
post a one-line reply pointing out that this is only his version and there
is no one definitive AAH/T. If I get there first, I intend to do the
same. That's all that's necessary. [*] But he has quite a broad definition
of Homo, doesn't he? Right back to the HPG LCA. I discussed this with Rob
recently, and while it's not an impossible idea, it is - well, a bit
unusual. -- Pauline Ross
Thanks, Pauline. I wouldn't know why we would obscure discussions by
introducing new terms like AA*H*. I never speak about AA*H* and I don't see
any reason why I should: AAT is no hypothesis, it's a theory, as certain as
say continental drift. If Algis wants to talk about AAH, fine, but not with
me. Although everybody http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
agrees that the term "AAT = aquatic ape theory" is unfortunate & confusing
(it's not about apes & not about having been some sort of dolphin), we can't
drop it: it's short & everybody who is a bit sincere knows that we're
talking about humans having been *more* aquatic than chimps. I've tried to
make things a bit clearer by saying that AAT s.s. "amphibious ancestors
theory" is about Homo, and AAT s.l. "aquarboreal apes theory" about ape
evolution (arboreals becoming amphibious obviously go through an aquarboreal
phase). Algis's problem is that for some reason (his "bipedality"?) he
wants to have the apiths in & perhaps even his river hypothesis in. But
that is not what AAT is about: AAT is about what makes humans Homo different
from chimps Pan, and as Hardy argued 45 years ago: it's about our ancestors
having been littoral some time after the H/P split. It has nothing to do
with apiths: they have short legs, apelike brains, no ext.nose, curved
phalanges, no basicranial flexion, no masticatory reduction etc. As long as
we don't state this clearly, antiAATers will continue ranting that apiths
are not aquatic. AAT is about Homo. AAT is a biological theory, it's not
some paleontological or archeological hypothesis: AAT is based on
comparative, not on fossil data. Whether we find Homo fossils is less
important than explaining the differences between H & P. Biologically, Homo
is everything in the Homo branch after the H/P split ~5 Ma or so. I thought
that was obvious. If we find fossils that can clearly be placed in Homo,
fine, the better, but these are secondary, no primary arguments.
I think every AATer can agree with this: "Hardy's theory, usually but
confusingly called Aquatic Ape Theory, says that some time after the
Homo-Pan split (7-4 Ma or so - not so important), our ancestors were
littoral omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, turtles, bird eggs,
stranded animals, shell-, crayfish, aquatic plants etc. The theory is based
on the behavior, anatomy, physiology & DNA of living humans compared to
chimps & other animals. It explains many typically human traits (not seen
in apes or australopiths) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: brain
size, diving skills, breathing control & well-developed vocality, small
mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway & projecting
nose, reduced sense of smell, elaborated handiness & tool use, late puberty,
very long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high
needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc."
There's no place here for "bipedality": gibbons walk bipedally on branches,
Oreopith is believed to have been parttime bipedal, kangaroos are bipedal
etc., but important are IMO "very long legs" & "body alignment". IMO this
littoral phase can partly be seen in the fossil & archeological record in
the Plio- &/or Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean &
African coasts, IOW, AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- From: JAE
- Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Prev by Date: Re: Bo Graslund "Early humans & their world" Routledge
- Next by Date: Re: Savannah Runner Found Dead in Lake
- Previous by thread: Selective Origins of War
- Next by thread: Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
