sign in sign up
<<
Home , Evolution of primates, Primate, Primatology

Primate and Susan Cachel New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 469 pp. (hardback), $130. ISBN-13: 9780521829427.

Reviewed by STEPHEN LYCETT Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UNITED KINGDOM; [email protected]

rimate and is an ambitious and broad- in papionins also is discussed, although Cachel Psweeping attempt to set the issue of human evolution notes that as a general model of speciation (includ- firmly within the context of its catarrhine substrate, while ing hominins) such evidence tends to be contradictory to at the same time arguing that and their closest fos- data originating from comparison with other , sil relatives are remarkably different from other . which suggests that is more frequent- It is this essential tension that Cachel aims to explore. ly seen in mammals smaller than . The second part From its title it would be easy to assume that this is a of this chapter deals with the topical issue of extinction in textbook for undergraduates. As Cachel, however, warns extant primates. Primates have the highest proportion of in the opening sentences of her preface, it is not intended endangered amongst mammals, and Cachel draws as such, nor should be seen as a textbook. Perhaps to em- several sobering observations regarding the probable fate phasize the point still further, the opening paragraphs of of extant primates and fragmentation of their habitats. The Chapter 1 (The Primate ) dispense with certain “con- chapter also discusses how issues such as habitat special- ventions” that a textbook format might otherwise have fol- ization, and diet and body size differentially affect extinc- lowed. For instance, the term “hominin” is rejected, since tion rates, making the point that certain “weed in Cachel’s belief, “the of humans and their species” have shown a greater resistance to speciation. relatives are significant enough to warrant a - Chapter 5 discusses primate , venturing into level distinction.” functional morphology and ontogeny, while the sixth chap- The first three chapters cover issues such as - thede ter discusses captive studies of non-human primates, par- fining traits of primates, and historical impact of ticularly focusing on the issue of “aberrant behaviours” in on understandings of the natural world, captive subjects. If by now you are gaining the impression increased knowledge of heredity and variation due to ge- that Cachel is covering a lot of material rather quickly, you netic research, and essentialism versus population think- would not be mistaken, and indeed the density of infor- ing. Also covered is a short history of , where mation and pace of delivery is characteristic throughout Cachel traces some of our thinking about non-human pri- remaining chapters. That said, the text is written in an en- mates from antiquity to the Middle-Ages through to the gaging style, although, perhaps inevitably, such sweeping Renaissance, describing the first encounters between Eu- moves through wide-ranging material risk polemic. This ropeans and . A split in the history of primatology in is perhaps no more apparent than in a section of Chapter terms of behavioral versus anatomical studies is discussed, 5 discussing cladistic methodology and the study of ad- followed by a section on the historical impact of the recog- aptation. Several points Cachel makes regarding cladistic nition of as fossil hominins. The third methodology (p.108) could be challenged. For example, she chapter summarizes the catarrhine fossil record, while also argues that only produces bifurcations when in introducing the author’s views on niche divergence and in- fact polytomies will be produced in ambiguous situations. ter-specific competition, and (lack of) relationship between Likewise, she contends that character coding is always bi- climate change and evolution. nary, and that continuous variation is not accommodated. In a particularly interesting chapter (4), Cachel discuss- As Rae (1998) has pointed out, this is not the case. There es the evidence for speciation processes in extant primates. is no difference between quantitative and qualitative char- This begins with the author stating that, in her opinion, acters as far as cladistics is concerned. Cachel goes further distinctions should not be made between living and fossil than this, however, suggesting that cladistics may have led “species,” and she rejects the notion that different species to a decrease of interest in functional morphology and ad- concepts should be applied in neontological and paleon- aptation. According to Cachel, because cladistic methods tological circumstances. Moving on to discussion of actual of phylogenetic reconstruction emphasize shared derived forces of taxonomic diversification, issues such as river bar- characteristics rather than overall similarity, and because riers are considered, in particular, the evidence from New homoplasy often is brought about by , “the World monkeys. However, a point is made that the strength adaptive significance of characters or traits is not important of a channel’s current rather than width alone may be per- in cladistics.” However, while certainly are not tinent in determining whether water will form a “barrier” constructed solely with reference to phenetic similarity, Ca- to primate colonization and . Potential parapatric chel ignores the fact that cladograms are informative about

PaleoAnthropology 2007: 31−33. Copyright © 2007 . All rights reserved. 32 • PaleoAnthropology 2007 those features that are homoplastic. Indeed, homoplasies forces in hominins is one that the author repeats at several that demonstrate similarity of form or property indepen- points in following chapters. dently of phylogenetic association, provide the most secure Chapters 9–12 delve into issues such as primate social- evidence for adaptation (Harvey and Pagel 1991). In a foot- ity, body size and its effect on behavioral , and the note on page 127 Cachel suggests that “the furor mounted of the fossil record. In Chapter 13, Cachel takes on against adaptation … may have been the biological equiva- the thorny issue of hominin . Despite the fact lent of post-modernism.” I would be surprised if I were not that the book is not designed as textbook, this is one chap- the only reader of this journal to be somewhat bemused to ter that may be useful for tutors of undergraduates to use find cladistics implicated at the heart of a post-modernist as potential reading material when introducing some of plot. the issues surrounding this debate. Chapter 14 marches In Chapter 7, Cachel lists 29 behavioral and anatomi- through the hominin fossil record from the earliest fossil cal traits that she sees as uniting all catarrhine species. She candidates to the origin of anatomically modern humans, then uses this list to make a claim that while hominids, in while Chapter 15 discusses some of the history, and what Cachel’s terminology, resemble catarrhines in many behav- Cachel sees as potential pitfalls, of using baboons as mod- ioral and anatomical features, hominids are truly distinc- els for human evolution. tive from what she terms the “catarrhine substrate.” The In Chapter 16, Cachel discusses the importance of Pa- remainder of the book is largely dedicated to reinforcing leolithic in understanding human evolution. this point, and arguing that, as a result, we must look else- There is a short history of changing attitudes to Paleolithic where for models of why the particular hominin character- artifacts, followed by the nature of the earliest archaeologi- istics arose. cal traces in the form of the , and evidence for use Drawing on some of her earlier work (Cachel 1994), the of bone tools in the Pleistocene. Again, in dealing with all author argues that what makes humans distinctive from of this material Cachel makes a plea to look outside of pri- other catarrhines is “natural history .” She takes matology (particularly hominoids) in order to identify the some time to discuss how her use of the phrase “natural important aspects of human evolution, and possible selec- history intelligence” differs from that of Mithen (1996), who tive pressures and associated adaptive responses. Cachel previously used similar terminology. For Cachel (p.159), is particularly scathing of what has come to be termed “[n]atural history intelligence corresponds to fluid intelli- “chimpocentrism,” and at one point (p. 373) states “that gence, highlighting the importance of planning, predicting, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that hominids dur- and manipulating items in the nonsocial environment.” ing the Plio-Pleistocene or any earlier time were behaving Stone tools, appearing in East 2.6 Mya, indicate the like bipedal .” Although an appeal for the use presence of such distinctive cognitive and behavioral traits of non-primate models for studying hominin evolution is in early hominins, Cachel argues. To reinforce her point, she well-reasoned, it is her dismissal of primate taxa as sources devotes part of the chapter to discussing problems with the of hypotheses and as appropriate models with which I sus- alternative “Machiavellian intelligence” or “social ” pect some readers will find issue. As Cachel herself warns hypothesis to hominin intelligence, whereby many cogni- in her preface (p. xv), such arguments identify her as “an tive capacities are seen as resulting from selection associ- apostate from primatology.” ated with social interactions and political maneuverings. In the final part of Chapter 16, Cachel draws together Indeed, Cachel posits that competitive social pressures the foregoing issues to present a “hominization model.” and Machiavellian interactions may even militate against The trigger of her model is reduced intra-group competi- attentiveness to events outside of the social sphere, poten- tion and, as the author notes, this is a stark contrast to alter- tially inhibiting the evolution of the features she sees as- native models that posit environmental change as the initial sociated with “natural history intelligence.” Cachel (p.171) catalyst of “hominization.” Cachel argues (p. 346) that if even argues that less status striving and social competition environmental change was “all that was needed for homi- among ( paniscus) compared with P. troglo- nid origins, then the first hominids should have emerged dytes, might result in greater natural history intelligence as part of the early to middle hominoid radia- capacities in bonobos, and it is argued that this hypothesis tion.” For Cachel, reduced intra-group competition leads may be supported by captive studies. However, this point to parallel developments in increased terrestrial behavior is left under-explored. Why, for instance, do bonobos show and sentinel behavior, and increased natural history intel- less tool-use in the wild? Do wild bonobos show more evi- ligence capacities. In turn, these factors instigate the main dence of “planning, predicting, and manipulating items in elements of “hominization” such as tool behavior, dietary the nonsocial environment” than do wild chimpanzees? In change, increased levels of carnivory, etc. The chapter ends the final pages of the chapter (pp.180–184), Cachel argues with a brief discussion of how the model may be tested in that because social exhibit elaborate cooperative the future. feeding, food sharing, and food caching, they may make The range and breadth of topics covered in this lengthy better models than non-human primates for understand- book are undeniably impressive, and Cachel certainly ing the selection pressures underlying natural history in- dares to be different. There are forays into artificial intel- telligence. The point that more distantly related taxa may ligence, speciation, primates as models (and non-models), make more appropriate models for understanding selective neuroanatomy, the origins of , the evolutionary im- BOOK REVIEW • 33 plications of body size, the possible impact of diet on sex- cy of argument. For those of us who believe that a book ual dimorphism, taphonomy, bipedalism, Hox genes, tool should be, perhaps, primarily for stimulating, educating, use, technology, … the list goes on. And all interspersed and entertaining, the question raised is simply whether I with condensed histories of primatology and palaeoan- enjoyed Cachel’s book and learned something from it? Un- thropology. However, given the wide-ranging discussion, doubtedly yes, and I believe others also will, although they the reader has to work hard to maintain semblance of the probably will wish to draw breath as they reach the book’s overriding argument, despite what is generally a highly close. readable style. Such breadth also leads to an inevitable lack of depth on some issues. Indeed, I have glossed over many REFERENCES individual points with which I may have wished to quibble Cachel, S. 1994. The natural history origin of human intel- (if not contest). I leave it to those who go on to read the ligence: a new perspective on the origin of human intel- book for themselves to find their own, for in a volume as ligence. Social Bulletin 2, 25–30. broad as this, there are sure to be many. Harvey, P. and Pagel, M. 1991. The Comparative Method in If book titles are supposed to provide a précis, then . Oxford University Press, Oxford. a title that aims to take in many of the most controversial Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the topics in discussions surrounding the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames and Hud- and humans under a single cover is extremely ambitious— son, London. some may even say too ambitious. The book is wide-rang- Rae, T.C. 1998. The logical basis for the use of continuous ing and thought-provoking as a result, albeit with the noted characters in phylogenetic . Cladistics 14, tendency, at times, to be a little under-developed in cogen- 221–228.