If not savanna . . . (was Re: AAT Theory)

Nicholas Rosen (ndr102@psuvm.psu.edu)
Sun, 17 Sep 1995 17:16:51 EDT

In article <42l2tn$3u@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Alex Duncan
<aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> scolds Elaine Morgan:
>This is becoming tiresome. It has been pointed out to you again and
>again that virtually no one now claims that early hominids evolved on the
>savanna, and yet you insist that this is the "theory" that competes with
>AAT. Among modern "anthropologists" (I use the term extremely loosely)
>you seem to be the only one who thinks the "savanna theory" hasn't been

Excuse me. I am not even as much of an anthropologist as Mrs. Morgan,
just a layman who tries to be widely read. It comes as something of
a surprise to me that "savanna theory" is no longer accepted, and
it is astonishing to be told that it has been disproven. Hypotheses
in geometry can be disproven, perhaps hypotheses in physics, but in
paleoanthropology? If most anthropologists these days do not claim
that early hominids evolved on the savanna, and, I trust, not on the
beach either, where do they think that early hominids did evolve,
and what are their reasons to believe this? I am asking in good

Nicholas Rosen
Standard disclaimers apply.

It is a principle of the law that people are presumed to intend the
reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. Those who apply
this principle to government actions are paranoid conspiracy theorists.