JDMF & paleoanthropology [split from Anarchism and Anthropology]
Feb 14 2007 20:53
makaira wrote:
paleoanthropology
being a sucker for all kinds of popular science books, i just finished a fantastic paleoanthropological/primatologist book called Man the Hunted. The themes in that book have a lot of political weight as well.
It is about destroying the myth of early humans as hunters and the male centered view of the evolution. It focuses on going through all the evidence for early humans role as a pray animal and its effects on evolution.
real revelation that book. Should probably start a dedicated topic about it.
Feb 14 2007 20:40
#2
please mods pretty please could you split the Man the Hunted discussion to its own thread 
- done ;)
LR, no need to encourage victim mentality, since pray animals are not victims by choice and that position, the fact of doing everything you can to avoid becoming one is a key factor in our evolution.
The book explains the physical and comparative evidence for that in great length.
makaira, awesome you have worked with him! I'll try to find that documentary.
I have no means of assessing how widely accepted this theory is in paleoathropology - but the evidence seems strong and the references looked like it was already widely accepted, and that various cultural, political and religious reasons keep it from becoming common knowledge.
Just read an article in our local newspaper about some new findings about some australopithecus and illustration had a ape like creature with a spear in his hand and a small mammal on his shoulder legs tied together - such nonsense!
Feb 14 2007 21:00
#3
Hi
Quote:
no need to encourage victim mentality, since pray animals are not victims by choice and that position, the fact of doing everything you can to avoid becoming one is a key factor in our evolution.
Hmmm. Conceded. Where did the myth of “Man the Hunter” come from? I’m not sure they’re talking about humans at the same stage of development.
Quote:
Just read an article in our local newspaper about some new findings about some australopithecus and illustration had a ape like creature with a spear in his hand and a small mammal on his shoulder legs tied together - such nonsense!
Oh I don’t know, the spear is probably to coerce blow jobs from other Australopithecines, in the event the small diseased mammal represents inadequate tribute.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2007 21:12
#4
JDMF wrote:
I have no means of assessing how widely accepted this theory is in paleoathropology - but the evidence seems strong and the references looked like it was already widely accepted, and that various cultural, political and religious reasons keep it from becoming common knowledge.
As of now the Demonic Male hypothesis of Wrangham is more widely held, but this can be expected in the science world. When a new or recently revised theory is introduced, especially if it is controversial, it comes under sharp criticism, as it should. Basically, it just seems a matter of time. As of now Demonic Male has a majority, but Man the Hunted seems to be winning the minds of more and more scientists every year.
Of course this is just based on what I've seen, nothing methodological.
Feb 14 2007 21:17
#5
Ah ha, an anthropology discussion.
Have any properly anthropology educated people read Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture by Chris Knight and if so, what do you think?
It is also essentially political (marxist, feminist) in the views it advances about the origins of human culture, and social organisation. Sex strikes, menstrual symbolism, etc, etc.
It is the only anthropology book I have read, but it was such damn fun, I'm hoping it's also credible.
Feb 14 2007 21:19
#6
Lazy Riser wrote:
Where did the myth of “Man the Hunter” come from?
Feb 14 2007 21:22
#7
makaira wrote:
Man the Hunted seems to be winning the minds of more and more scientists every year.
i saw that documentary (i think) and was baffled what about it was new. early hominids were both hunter and hunted. when has that not been the majority view?
Feb 14 2007 21:27
#8
newyawka wrote:
makaira wrote:
Man the Hunted seems to be winning the minds of more and more scientists every year.i saw that documentary (i think) and was baffled what about it was new. early hominids were both hunter and hunted. when has that not been the majority view?
I'm afraid it's not that simple. Neither Wrangham/Peterson or Sussman/Hart would say that men were purely hunters or purely hunted, respectively. These two theories are merely trying to explain which was more prevalent. In turn, whichever theory "wins," if this is even possible, has incredibly large implications, effectively destroying or supporting related research throughout the entire scientific world.
Feb 14 2007 21:28
#9
Hi
Quote:
when has that not been the majority view?
Well precisely. Both theories assume they're countering conventional wisdom. Perhaps it's one for the pros after all.
Looking at it, "Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence" doesn't even directly assert "Man the Hunter", just "Man the Violent". The two theories aren't contradictory unless one associates cooperation with love rather than logic.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2007 21:30
#10
makaira wrote:
Neither Wrangham/Peterson or Sussman/Hart would say that men were purely hunters or purely hunted, respectively. These two theories are merely trying to explain which was more prevalent.
thanks for the info! but how could anyone quantify this? perhaps the question is how high they were in their food chain? i'd have to assume that they were hunter and hunted in equal measure.
Feb 14 2007 21:34
#11
makaira wrote:
Lazy Riser wrote:
Where did the myth of “Man the Hunter” come from?
i'd go further than anthropology on this one.
Firstly you have the religious aspect: the idea of original sin and the natural world being fierce and brutal.
Then plain sexism: man as the provider of food and doing it in a violent way only possible for the males: hunting.
Also the view of humans as the top predator is deeply rooted in our culture. The whole idea of us just being a regular meal for several large cats, hyenas, crocodiles etc etc is just incomprehensable (which explains the screaming headlines when a predator actually kills and eats a human - like we are somehow so separated from nature that even the top predators should know it and avoid an easy meal )
The book describes several awesome examples of paleontological findings which were misinterpreted because of our cultural view of us as hunters. For instance early man bones were found in a cave together with many other pray animals and some large cat, might have been sabretooth. The researchers went to conclude that the humans dwelled there and hunted all these animals, even killing sabretooths. The reality was different: early human bones were found there because they were pray animals, just like any other bones found there, and it was in fact sabretooths dwelling.
There were other similar examples like that, with good physical evidence (like pierced skulls with exact measurements which would fit sabretoots teeth and style of hunting) as well as the knowledge of the cabablities of early humans in those times.
Feb 14 2007 21:36
#12
also remember that before fire early hominids meat consumption could not have been high, we just dont have digestive tracks for it and require the pre-digestion of fire to use it. Which explains that early hominids while they may have hunted and opportunistically killed small mammals, the myth of hunting in packs for large mammals is without evidence.
Feb 14 2007 21:39
#13
newyawka wrote:
makaira wrote:
Neither Wrangham/Peterson or Sussman/Hart would say that men were purely hunters or purely hunted, respectively. These two theories are merely trying to explain which was more prevalent.thanks for the info! but how could anyone quantify this? perhaps the question is how high they were in their food chain? i'd have to assume that they were hunter and hunted in equal measure.
Well, this assumption is incredibly easy to have, but not probable based on evidence.
Man the Hunted, for instance, takes a lot from paleoanthropological evidence, much of which supports the idea that megafauna around during the time period researched were actively hunting hominids.
Demonic Male, on the other hand, took a great deal of evidence from current Chimps. Specifically, a population in Gombe. The problem with this is not only somewhat of a cross-species individualistic fallacy, but also that there was a great deal of intervention by the researchers into the research. Among these types of intervention was the provisioning of said Chimps, leading to their inevitable expectancy of a constant food source. This, in turn, gave way to "demonic" behavior.
Both of the books are much more in-depth that I set forth here, and I presume it's obvious to you which theory I tend to subscribe to. I hope this doesn't stop you from reading Wrangham's book, though. Read both, in fact.
Feb 14 2007 21:46
#14
Hi
Well I suppose you can be let off the first two, but the third seems a bit speculative…
Quote:
Also the view of humans as the top predator is deeply rooted in our culture. The whole idea of us just being a regular meal for several large cats, hyenas, crocodiles etc etc is just incomprehensable (which explains the screaming headlines when a predator actually kills and eats a human - like we are somehow so separated from nature that even the top predators should know it and avoid an easy meal
On the contrary, the idea of man as pray for the noble beast is deeply rooted in our culture. I mean, hunter-gatherers cowering around their fire, afraid of wolves, is a classic image. The idea we scavenged for meat (even by scaring away predators), rather than exert ourselves by hunting it, hardly seems an unconventional view.
Quote:
the myth of hunting in packs for large mammals is without evidence.
Well it depends at what stage of our development you're speaking. We did as soon as it became technologically feasible. Do you remember those pictures of early humans hunting mammoths though? As you say, not convincing.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2007 21:46
#15
makaira wrote:
I hope this doesn't stop you from reading Wrangham's book, though. Read both, in fact.
hmm ... the book pile's pretty high, but this is to taste...
but LR implies a good point, viz, which 'narrative' do you choose to think is 'dominant'?
Feb 14 2007 22:40
#16
Lazy Riser wrote:
HiWell I suppose you can be let off the first two, but the third seems a bit speculative…
Quote:
Also the view of humans as the top predator is deeply rooted in our culture. The whole idea of us just being a regular meal for several large cats, hyenas, crocodiles etc etc is just incomprehensable (which explains the screaming headlines when a predator actually kills and eats a human - like we are somehow so separated from nature that even the top predators should know it and avoid an easy mealOn the contrary, the idea of man as pray for the noble beast is deeply rooted in our culture. I mean, hunter-gatherers cowering around their fire, afraid of wolves, is a classic image. The idea we scavenged for meat (even by scaring away predators), rather than exert ourselves by hunting it, hardly seems an unconventional view.
sure, but have a look at the newspapers if there is a shark attack for instance. Or a cougar eats a human. This plays to both stories: deeply rooted fear of predators, and the shock of the idea that we are not separated from nature. So i guess both of our comments live together.
Feb 14 2007 22:48
#17
Hi
Quote:
So i guess both of our comments live together.
Indeed. As do the two views played out across society as a whole. Equally integrated, equally reactionary (or progressive as the case my be).
Love
LR
Feb 15 2007 00:58
#18
I asked Dr. Sussman about the current subscription of scientists to either theory and he stated that it seems about even. He attributed the following of the Demonic Male theory to current dogma and the unquestionable following of conventional wisdom by some scientists. He also mentioned that scientists should be skeptic about both theories - about any theory.
I guess I was wrong, but in a good way (at least from my perspective).
Feb 15 2007 02:05
#19
The fact that early hominids were hunted is nothing new at all and is far from controversial. For interest's sake, there is even suggestive evidence of intra-hominid, possibly intra-specific, predation from Sterkfontein, South Africa circa 2mya. Also, some unpublished work from tool residue analysis from South African artefacts shows that australopithecines where using a wide range of plant foods 2.5mya, as well as hunting and scavenging food.
Quote:
I have no means of assessing how widely accepted this theory is in paleoathropology - but the evidence seems strong and the references looked like it was already widely accepted, and that various cultural, political and religious reasons keep it from becoming common knowledge.
Yes, evolutionary processes are presented and interpreted in light of and reference to all sorts of ideologies. This is where pop-science shows up cultural values. Some pretty old and uncontroversial stuff is all of a sudden a whole independent theory just because of its relation to the zeitgeiss.
And it would be a mistake for us to start looking at the paleoanthropological record for our own political manipulation. Evolution is fascinating as a process in its own right, but what some half-ape did 1 million years ago says very little about what we want and what is possible today.
Quote:
It is about destroying the myth of early humans as hunters and the male centered view of the evolution.
But "man the hunter" evolved as an ideology from cultural anthropology and studies of hunter gatherers. Then, like all good ideologies worth their salt, it looked to biology for support and projected man the hunter back onto the stones and bones of paleoanthropology to naturalise the theory, giving it the scientific seal of approval.
So if you want to destroy "man the hunter", start with HG studies.
The fact is, as I've said in threads eleswhere, hunter-gatherer studies are pretty dodgy. By the time that anthropology became established as a discipline the only hunter-gatherers left to study where the Inuit of the Artic, the !Kung-San of the Kalahari, and desert Aborigines of Australia (Aboriginies in fertile or coastal areas being long exterminated). So our whole picture of HG societies is based on a few societies ekking out an existance in the harshest environments on earth, thus the famous hunter-gatherer band - a man and his family roaming the land. But its not at all sure that this was ever the case. We have no idea of band size in the Upper-Paleolithic when anatomically modern humans appeared on the scene but do have evidence of rudimentary sedentism and trade relations spanning huuuge areas.
In fact a closer look at the archaeological and available ethno-historical evidence shows that HG population densities overlap with horticulturalists and most most HGs are sedentary for large parts of the year, or at least a few months. The gender relations can be over generalised as women producing the subsistence economy and men involved in the prestige, politico-religious economy.
Feb 15 2007 08:51
#20
jason wrote:
Quote:
It is about destroying the myth of early humans as hunters and the male centered view of the evolution.But "man the hunter" evolved as an ideology from cultural anthropology and studies of hunter gatherers. Then, like all good ideologies worth their salt, it looked to biology for support and projected man the hunter back onto the stones and bones of paleoanthropology to naturalise the theory, giving it the scientific seal of approval.
So if you want to destroy "man the hunter", start with HG studies.
i think you would enjoy reading that book mate, because it goes through all the evidence, including cultural anthropology. Couple "feminist" anthropologists have been destroying the man the hunter myth from the cult. ant. point of view criticising that the traditional stuedies have focused on the role of men in providing calories and a closer look reveals that women are responsible for majority of the food intake in some study groups.
Same happened with several chimpanzee studies where the studies focused solely on the role of males in the pack which gave a skewed picture of the hierarchies, diet etc.
The book also goes through some cases where stones and tools have been falsely attributed as hunting tools whereas competing argument would point to the direction of them being tools for gathering food (digging, cracking, forcing openings to tree trunks etc), or defensive tools against predators.
Feb 15 2007 20:53
#21
jason wrote:
This is where pop-science shows up cultural values. Some pretty old and uncontroversial stuff is all of a sudden a whole independent theory just because of its relation to the zeitgeiss.And it would be a mistake for us to start looking at the paleoanthropological record for our own political manipulation. Evolution is fascinating as a process in its own right, but what some half-ape did 1 million years ago says very little about what we want and what is possible today.
two very good points IMO
JDMF wrote:
Couple "feminist" anthropologists have been destroying the man the hunter myth from the cult. ant. point of view criticising that the traditional stuedies have focused on the role of men in providing calories and a closer look reveals that women are responsible for majority of the food intake in some study groups.
there's an example (of jason's first point). hunting is chancy, gathering more predictable. i'm no expert, but that experts would assume that men would have been routinely responsible for the majority of calories seems, like, odd.
Feb 17 2007 22:55
#22
jason wrote:
The fact is, as I've said in threads eleswhere, hunter-gatherer studies are pretty dodgy. By the time that anthropology became established as a discipline the only hunter-gatherers left to study where the Inuit of the Artic, the !Kung-San of the Kalahari, and desert Aborigines of Australia (Aboriginies in fertile or coastal areas being long exterminated). So our whole picture of HG societies is based on a few societies ekking out an existance in the harshest environments on earth, thus the famous hunter-gatherer band - a man and his family roaming the land.
This isn't true - there are plenty of hunter-gatherers who have been studied in forests in South America, Africa and SE Asia. Admittedly there are plenty of changes all these societies have had in the last few decades, but they're still there.
On this more general theme, of course small primates have always been "prey" but it strikes me this is arse about face. If it was true, surely there wouldn't have been the mass extinctions in Australia, the Americas and all large islands at the time humans arrived - extinctions that conveniently also put paid to smilodon, the marsupial lion etc.
Quote:
In fact a closer look at the archaeological and available ethno-historical evidence shows that HG population densities overlap with horticulturalists and most most HGs are sedentary for large parts of the year, or at least a few months. The gender relations can be over generalised as women producing the subsistence economy and men involved in the prestige, politico-religious economy.
Well, as you yourself say, they do now. And with examples like the Pacific North West tribes, you have sedentary hunter gatherers. However, this is in a particular set of circumstances where there is enough food. No group is going to be itinerant if they don't have to.
Regards,
Martin
Feb 18 2007 01:18
#23
martinh wrote:
This isn't true - there are plenty of hunter-gatherers who have been studied in forests in South America, Africa and SE Asia.
I'm not positive, but I think he meant that there were not many HGs left that had not been adversely affected by colonization. This, however, still isn't true... so maybe I'm reading him wrong.
Feb 18 2007 02:13
#24
Quote:
This isn't true - there are plenty of hunter-gatherers who have been studied in forests in South America, Africa and SE Asia.
Only reinforces my point. Rainforests are a complete cunt to live in so any models drawn from forest HG groups are pretty dodgy if we're trying to recreate principles of paleolithic life.
Quote:
If it was true, surely there wouldn't have been the mass extinctions in Australia
Can't comment on the other places but humans and some megafauna species coexisted in Australia up to 20,000 years ago. If we take 60 Kya as when humans arrived, they coexisted for 40,000 years. There is also no archaelogical evidence of megafauna hunting so its hard to say how predominate the practice was. The problem with dicks like Flannery et al. who trumpet the blitzkrieg overkill model is that they love presenting humans as locusts ala Malthus, so their interpretations are always gonna be dodgy.
Quote:
And with examples like the Pacific North West tribes, you have sedentary hunter gatherers. However, this is in a particular set of circumstances where there is enough food. No group is going to be itinerant if they don't have to.
What's your point? It looks like anywhere that's not a stinking rainforest or arid desert the HG societies are quite complex. How much rainforest and desert existed in the paleolithic? When were these areas colonised? What's it all mean about our EAE?
Feb 18 2007 12:50
#25
Hi
Quote:
No group is going to be itinerant if they don't have to.
The love of adventure, he’s a cruel master alright, but once the calling takes you...
Love
LR
Feb 18 2007 23:23
#26
jason wrote:
Quote:
This isn't true - there are plenty of hunter-gatherers who have been studied in forests in South America, Africa and SE Asia.Only reinforces my point. Rainforests are a complete cunt to live in so any models drawn from forest HG groups are pretty dodgy if we're trying to recreate principles of paleolithic life.
Not sure that's true at all. The problem for humans in rainforests (as for all animals) is density. But if you know what you're looking for there is so much more food. Where rainforests do become difficult is if you're trying to farm them, even on a horticultural scale, as they tend to have poor soils. From what I've read about forest peoples, including those who adopted horticulture, there is a wider range of societal models than in other ecosystems. It's also a truism to say that farmers and pastoralists pushed them out of all other areas (in many cases as recently as 100 years ago) - it doesn't mean that there's nothing there to learn.
Quote:
Can't comment on the other places but humans and some megafauna species coexisted in Australia up to 20,000 years ago. If we take 60 Kya as when humans arrived, they coexisted for 40,000 years. There is also no archaelogical evidence of megafauna hunting so its hard to say how predominate the practice was. The problem with dicks like Flannery et al. who trumpet the blitzkrieg overkill model is that they love presenting humans as locusts ala Malthus, so their interpretations are always gonna be dodgy.
I think the humans causing mass extinction of large animals hypothesis is pretty conclusive. They survive where they evolved alongside humans (Africa and places near to it) and disappear after modern humans arrive (everywhere else, but particularly the Americas, Australia and islands as the animals there have no experience of this new predator).
Quote:
What's your point? It looks like anywhere that's not a stinking rainforest or arid desert the HG societies are quite complex. How much rainforest and desert existed in the paleolithic? When were these areas colonised?
I think some existing HG societies are complex, though by complex I mean that they have elaborate rules about how they relate to each other and their environment, with conflict resolution mechanisms built in. What do you mean by complex?
Quote:
What's it all mean about our EAE?
What's EAE?
Regards,
Martin
Feb 19 2007 14:52
#27
I think the evidence of Boxgrove in Kent alone clearly shows that, half a million years ago, hominids hunted large animals collectively. One of the striking aspects of hominid life from about a million and a half to half a million years ago, is the fact that stone tools hardly changed. Our ancestors didn't do wonders during this million year period but kept themselves intact in what must have been a terrifying world.
Current anthropological evidence from existing tribes is necessarily limited but this didn't stop Lewis Henry Morgan over a century ago writing his master work, Ancient Society OR the Lines from Savagery through to Barbarism and into Civilisation, upon which Engels based his History of the Family, Private Property and the State.
Today, there is plenty of evidence of the development of homo sapiens, notably through developments of neurology and the extremely interesting developments that are going on around explanations for paleolithic art.
Feb 19 2007 20:26
#28
baboon wrote:
I think the evidence of Boxgrove in Kent alone clearly shows that, half a million years ago, hominids hunted large animals collectively.
lol, please do remember that this is laymens discussion - if you just mention some "evidence" please be a bit more verbose
In the book under discussion they state that any significant scale hunting would have only started about 60-80 000 years ago and cite several examples of the hunter hypothesis being one of assumed truths rather than based on evidence. They dont mention boxgrove though (just checked).
Feb 20 2007 08:29
#29
martinh wrote:
jason wrote:
Quote:
This isn't true - there are plenty of hunter-gatherers who have been studied in forests in South America, Africa and SE Asia.Only reinforces my point. Rainforests are a complete cunt to live in so any models drawn from forest HG groups are pretty dodgy if we're trying to recreate principles of paleolithic life.
Not sure that's true at all. The problem for humans in rainforests (as for all animals) is density. But if you know what you're looking for there is so much more food. Where rainforests do become difficult is if you're trying to farm them, even on a horticultural scale, as they tend to have poor soils. From what I've read about forest peoples, including those who adopted horticulture, there is a wider range of societal models than in other ecosystems. It's also a truism to say that farmers and pastoralists pushed them out of all other areas (in many cases as recently as 100 years ago) - it doesn't mean that there's nothing there to learn.
Quote:
Can't comment on the other places but humans and some megafauna species coexisted in Australia up to 20,000 years ago. If we take 60 Kya as when humans arrived, they coexisted for 40,000 years. There is also no archaelogical evidence of megafauna hunting so its hard to say how predominate the practice was. The problem with dicks like Flannery et al. who trumpet the blitzkrieg overkill model is that they love presenting humans as locusts ala Malthus, so their interpretations are always gonna be dodgy.I think the humans causing mass extinction of large animals hypothesis is pretty conclusive. They survive where they evolved alongside humans (Africa and places near to it) and disappear after modern humans arrive (everywhere else, but particularly the Americas, Australia and islands as the animals there have no experience of this new predator).
Quote:
What's your point? It looks like anywhere that's not a stinking rainforest or arid desert the HG societies are quite complex. How much rainforest and desert existed in the paleolithic? When were these areas colonised?I think some existing HG societies are complex, though by complex I mean that they have elaborate rules about how they relate to each other and their environment, with conflict resolution mechanisms built in. What do you mean by complex?
Quote:
What's it all mean about our EAE?What's EAE?
Regards,
Martin
It seems to me that the book in question is attempting to rebutt the preconception that protohumans have been serious hunters since our half-monkey beginnings. And that the author is trying to do this coz she dosn't like the pop-science conclusions people draw about modern behaviour based on a perception of "man the hunter". Now I haven't read the book, that's just my impression.
I generally have a problem with people looking to paleoanthropology to draw conclusions about society coz like I said above, the info just isn't there. The book isn't saying anything new, protohumans have hunted and been hunted for millions of years. There was also a definite trend to big game hunting in the middle to upper paleolithic. So if the author of the book is trying to point out man as hunted, she is missing the point coz parts of our relatively more recent history have involved a lot of hunting. But since the mesolithic, say, ca. 13 kya, most societies have been sedentary, quasi-horticultural societies.
So people look to modern HGs to get a taste of the paleolithic, which is absolute bollocks because the places where HGs operate today would have been wildernesses in the past.
So wouldn't the mesolithic be the place to look for evolutionary imprints on our behaviour? I don't think so coz noone nows much about evolutionary rates, and also people have continued to hunt, farm, herd or manufacture in all different parts of the globe. So it dosn't look to me that humans are predisposed to do anything. If some evo-psychology numpty says "yeah, but modern society makes us fat and stressed", I'd say "but it has also increased our life spans and comfort. Its just another expression of a highly malliable behavioural repitoire".
We're getting side tracked about the ins and outs of HG societies. My main point is that observations of such societies are of almost negligible use to interpret the artefacts of the paleolithic, cox like you say people have been pushed onto these marginal resources quite recently. And evolutionary explanations of society are always bumpkin.
The ethnographic examination of societies to examine different social forms is IMO highly valid. And I'll try and get back to some of your questions.
Feb 20 2007 09:41
#30
yeah probably better not to jump to conclusions what the book tries and tries not to do, or gets right and doesnt get right if you havet read it. Its two authors by the way, and if the theory is gaining ground in the paleoanthropology and primatologist circles, i would not be too quick to dismiss it.
But like i have said before, i am biased in this. The book spoke to me on many levels, and the arguments made load of sense. I am also fascinated by the idea of how the politics, culture, religion etc have clouded the fundamental assumptions about hard paleological hard evidence, which is an interesting way of questioning possibility of neutral science.
Anyways, it is easy to read, brilliantly and entertainly written, so it is worth it to get hold of it.
It's funny that you mention that book. I actually studied non-human primates under Dr. Sussman in Costa Rica. He's a very smart man, and well-renowned in the primatalogical world.
As for the book, it's a very thorough theory. I know there's a small documentary out there as well that he showed to me, that provides arguments from Sussman as well as Wrangham (The other side of the argument), an anthropologist from Harvard.
Edit: Ah, found it! Horizon: The Demonic Ape