Re: The Shifting AAT
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 19 Oct 95 16:58:13 GMT
In article <60.3538.7295.0N1F98A8@canrem.com>
j#d#.moore@canrem.com "J. Moore" writes:
> Pa> I'm really a Littoral Ape Theorist (LAT) a very watered-down (haha)
> Pa> version. As far as I can see it, this only requires that hominids
> Pa> >1.5mya be found in association with large bodies of water. I
> Pa> could be wrong, but nearly all sites seem satisfy this requirement.
> Pa> Paul.
>
> Since you have read the "what the AAT isn't" post from a week
> or so back, you can see that you don't actually support the
> AAT, at least from what you say above.
It is not up to you to legislate what is AAT and is not. There
are, essentially, two sides to this debate: the orthodox that
maintains that early hominids became bipedal on the savanna/mosaic
and the AAT'ers who say that it had a lot to do with water.
You said in your "what the AAT isn't" post:
> The AAT says that the costs of standing upright when not supported by
> water are so great as to outweigh the benefits to a degree that it was
> virtually impossible. This support by water is the key element in
> the AAT's scenario of the development of bipedalism;
I believe that the absence of trees was crucial, and that "supported
by water" is only a part of a complex story. Indeed, I am not sure
that it was an absolutely essential part. I still rate myself an
AAT'er as my view derives from Hardy's original insight.
Paul.
|