>>Now, AAT (or better: the consistent comparative approach, of which AAT is
only a part) gives new insights in a lot of what were >"problems", in this
case: language origins, brain size, etc.
>Hi, Glen here. Hate to set the conversation back a few notches but I just
got here and I have to ask: What's AAT exactly? (Aquatic Ape Theory?? What
in the world is that?!) And what really are these "problems" concerning
language origins anyway? I study comparative linguistics and am not
really caught up on the more Chomsky-esque topics to do with anthropology. I
guess Chomsky et al. simply frighten me because their theories unconsciously
seem trite and unnecessarily complex (as somewhat else has just alluded to)
but I've never sat down and looked it all so I admit to my ignorance. -
gLeN
I agree on Chomsky.
Here's a short introduction to AAT:
Humans developed a lot of features that are different from the apes: no fur,
a lot of subcutaneous fat, a big brain, an external nose, extremely long
legs, bipedalism etc. Comparisons with other animals (climbing animals,
diving mammals, wading species, etc.) suggest that human ancestors did not
leave the forest to live on the African savanna (that's very unlikely
physiologically and paleontologically) but first went to flooded forests
such as mangrove forests where they climbed trees and also waded bipedally
between the trees (a bit like proboscis monkeys). They not only ate fruits
and nuts, they also collected the oysters that grew on the mangrove trunks.
They learned to use hard objects to open the shellfish, just as mangrove
capuchin monkeys do. Later they also dived for shellfish in deeper water.
Humans are excellent (though slow) divers, as opposed to all other primates.
Diving was probably the reason why we can voluntarily control our breathing,
which eventually led to voluntary speech. [if you want to hear more
about AAT & language, please let me know] They lost their climbing
adaptations and became wading/diving omnivores along the Indian Ocean,
collecting seafood and what they found near the coast such as small animals
and plant food and coconuts (in this view the australopithecines are not our
direct ancestors but a sidebranch). Most of these coastal areas are now
under water, but some very early H.erectus fossils are still found in river
delta layers, eg, the Mojokerto child ca.1.8 million year ago, on Java, amid
barnacles and shellfish and corals. From the Indian Ocean the different Homo
species colonised the inland following the rivers (where Homo fossils are
found) where they fished and collected plants and animal food at the
riverside.
More about this "Aquatic Ape Theory" (AAT -- more accurate perhaps
"Amphibious Ancestors Theory" or "Aquarboreal Apes Theory") at
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html (the proceedings of the
1999 symposium “Water and human evolution” -- pro and con -- contributors
prof.P.V.Tobias, prof.J.Langdon, prof.S.C.Cunnane, Elaine Morgan and
others).
Marc
http://www.flash.net/~hydra9/marcaat.html
http://jurix.rechten.rug.nl/rth/ess/ess50.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
Community email addresses:
Post message:
AAT@...
Subscribe:
AAT-subscribe@...
Unsubscribe:
AAT-unsubscribe@...
List owner:
AAT-owner@...