Re: Leslie Aiello's review of Cunnane's Survival of the Fattest

Good point: the real article:

Survival of the Fattest makes a number of relevant points
that any researcher interested in the field of dietary evolution
needs to take into consideration. However, there are also
a number of problems with this book. Principal among them
is that Survival of the Fattest is very hard work to read. This
is not because of any essential difficulty in the subject matter,
but because it is poorly written. Arguments are not clearly and
logically developed, discussions of brain biochemistry assume
a level of knowledge that the average anthropologist may not
have, and there is considerable redundancy in the discussions.
Palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists could also take
many exceptions to the interpretation of the fossil and
archaeological record in Survival of the Fattest and with the
often simplistic and idiosyncratic logic.
....
Much of the discussion seems to be focused on unspecified
early phases of human evolution, and there is little attention to
the dietary correlates of the increase in body size in Homo
erectus or of the significant increase in encephalization that
occurs from approximately 500,000 years ago. Both of these
events are highlighted in discussions in Chapter 2 but never
revisited
in the context of the dietary hypothesis being proposed.
There are also unfortunately a number of editorial errors scattered
through the book and factual errors that are particularly
cringe-inducing for any anthropologist or comparative anatomist
who knows their stuff.
At one point (in Chapter 12) when Cunnane is reviewing
the pros and cons of the Savannah-Woodland Theory of human
evolution and the various versions of the Aquatic Theory (including
his) he touches on a perceived unfairness. He claims
that the Savannah-Woodland Theory starts from a position
of strength because it is an `anthropological' theory and everyone
learns it. He claims that the various Aquatic theories have
little clout in anthropological circles because their supporters
are mostly non-specialists in human evolution. I am afraid
that Survival of the Fattest is not going to change this situation.
It falls far short precisely in the areas that are needed to convince
anthropologists of the importance of the shore-based argument.
To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have
been written in a more accessible style with clearly developed
arguments, got its anthropological facts correct and engaged
with current work that is on-going in other areas of hominid
dietary and brain evolution.

To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have
been written in a more accessible style with clearly developed
arguments, got its anthropological facts correct and engaged
with current work

To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have
been written in a more accessible style with clearly developed
arguments, got its anthropological facts correct and engaged
with current work

To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have
been written in a more accessible style with clearly developed
arguments, got its anthropological facts correct and engaged
with current work...

sorry, Marc

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Leslie Aiellos review of Cunnanes Survival of the Fattest
    ... is that Survival of the Fattest is very hard work to read. ... early phases of human evolution, and there is little attention to ... To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have ... got its anthropological facts correct and engaged ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Leslie Aiellos review of Cunnanes Survival of the Fattest
    ... is that Survival of the Fattest is very hard work to read. ... early phases of human evolution, and there is little attention to ... To be convincing, Survival of the Fattest should have ... got its anthropological facts correct and engaged ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)