William H. Calvin, A Brain for All Seasons: Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change (University of Chicago Press, 2002). See also http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/Okavango.htm.
ISBN 0-226-09201-1 (cloth) GN21.xxx0
Available from amazon.com or University of Chicago Press.
Webbed Reprint Collection|
William H. Calvin
University of Washington
I am in the Kalahari Desert, as far south of the equator as the Sahara
is north. It’s where the
equatorial air that turned south finally comes down from on high,
thoroughly dried out. And
since the weather systems move across the southern continent from east
to west, it makes this mid-continent location a rain shadow as well.
The plentiful water hereabouts is rain that fell elsewhere, and
then ran downhill to here.
This delta is full of low islands, thanks to hard stuff beneath
the shifting sands that the flowing water cannot easily cut into.
So when the river comes down out of the mountains of Angola and
reaches these sands, it fans out – rather like what happens when a
hose is left running in a large shallow sandbox.
This cuts a large land area into irregular parcels, looking from
above like a reticulated giraffe’s skin.
(On many such islands, there are even reticulated giraffes
nibbling at the tree tops.) At
the moment, the water level is low and so a lot of shallow water is now
converted into green fields of delicious grass.
Islands are always a matter of interest to the evolutionary
biologist. Just as Darwin
was the pioneer of the modern theory of evolution, so Alfred Russel
Wallace was an equivalent pioneer of island biogeography.
Here we see fragmentation without downsizing, a lovely teaching
example. Adjacent islands
merge when the lake level diminishes, and the islands get rearranged
when it floods. Temporarily
there may be islands without predators, and others with an oversupply.
And speaking of grasslands-adapted baboons happily invading
woodlands, I got a good dose of it last night.
They dropped out of an overhanging tree onto the roof of my
tented cabin in the middle of the night, shaking things like an
earthquake every half hour. At
one point three tails could be seen in the moonlight, dangling over the
edge of the rain fly.
At least my open-mouthed yawn, when standing at the front door
of the tent, was taken as a threat by the baboons, who ran away despite
my lack of impressive canine teeth.
They didn’t even yawn back to display their oversized canines.
(I hope no one will argue that human yawning is an adaptation
for dispersing baboons. Some
people see adaptations everywhere.
I somehow missed the arrival of the three elephants (who tore up
the camp’s internal electricity cables a few hours before dawn) – I
can’t imagine how I missed them, as I was awake half the night.
Don‘t these animals ever sleep?
now, and so quiet that the baboons must be indulging in a
siesta. The game guide
says that when baboons are so active at night, it is because they fear
leopards. So I missed seeing a leopard too.
My cousin (no, not the German cousin again; she’s the
Colorado-England-Kenya cousin with whom I discuss African health
planning, her field) came over to where I was writing this morning
before breakfast. Just
turn around, she said, and notice the elephant on the river bank behind
But I could hardly miss the other two elephants in between the
cabins, as they were busy dismembering a fallen tree while we ate a
proper English breakfast and watched them.
I’ve just seen two examples of how life shapes geography. The river channels between these islands are often maintained
by the hippos when they trudge through any new sandbars. Hippos thereby contribute to maintaining island isolation for
other species, preventing them from wading to the neighboring island at
lower water levels. Furthermore,
the islands themselves are built up to somewhat higher elevations by
all the termites that glue the sand grains together into harder stuff. This island is full of tall termite mounds and their
almost missed noticing the baobab tree because I thought, from
the distance, that it was just another tall fat termite mound wrapped
around a nearby tree, like the one I saw after breakfast.
This baobab looks, on closer inspection, like a table
decoration, made by standing a potato upright with some toothpick
“feet” and then sticking some leafy twigs up near its top, to mimic
a broad-brimmed hat. Baobabs
are thought to be very important in hominid gathering strategies, as
its leaves, fruit, and seeds can all be used (its pollen even makes a
good glue). And it can
Baobabs are another little lesson in surface-to-volume ratios,
and how you maximize volume for water storage while minimizing the
surface area from which water can evaporate.
Baobabs are drought-resistant trees in a big way.
Humans (especially marathon runners) sometimes do the
opposite, like the high surface-to-volume ratio of the tall skinny
Maasai compared to the rest of us.
It is said to be an adaptation for losing heat quickly by
evaporation, by maximizing the surface area from which to sweat.
You have to avoid cooking that big brain with the heat from
running and from the hot sun, particularly from both at once.
Upright posture itself is a way of minimizing surface area
exposed to the hot overhead sun, just head and shoulders taking the
full hit rather than a broad back.
You minimize your shadow. Some
anthropologists suggest that upright posture is a savanna adaptation
for treeless places where you can’t “shade up,” as most sensible
animals do at midday.
There are so many suggested explanations for upright posture – the evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane liked to
observe that only a human can swim a mile, run 20 miles, and then climb
a tree – that it is difficult to say why our ancestors did it and why
the other great apes didn’t. Sustained
bipedal running is really more efficient than quadrapedal, especially
if you have a heavy head to support (cantilevering it during bouncy
locomotion sure takes a lot of neck muscles, compared to balancing it
atop the spinal column). This
is an advantage in the long run, which must be distinguished from
arguments about how bipedality got started.
I have a favorite, naturally, but it doesn’t really exclude
any of the other candidates for bipedality’s origin.
Most leading features in evolution have a supporting cast.
Indeed it is often like a repertory theater, with the star one
night acting as the walk-on butler the next night.
Picking an overall “star” in an evolutionary repertory is
often a mere matter of taste, though “which is fastest” is a good
criterion when you are trying to figure out how we got here from back
there, and so quickly.
I mentioned in Paris, the chimpanzeelike hips and knees got
modified early on, presumably for upright locomotion – but there are
nonlocomotion possibilities too, such as upright stance per se.
Seeing over the tall grass was said to be an advantage (until
they discovered upright posture came four million years earlier than
life on the savanna). Upright
stance is also an advantage if you wade a lot but haven’t yet learned
There may be some secondary uses of upright stance, as for
picking fruits off trees without having to climb them, but the others
seem more likely to have substantial payoffs.
There are also some temporary advantages of upright posture for
hunting large animals, as naïve animals tend not to fear them as they
do their usual four-legged predators.
This allows the hunter to get closer before they start edging
back. But this advantage
doesn’t last, once a herd has been hunted for awhile.
Most animals who live in the grass and bush have, of course, managed to do it without switching to upright posture, so I tend to favor the wading-and-shallow-diving hypothesis, given the suite of other adaptations that we humans have (subcutaneous fat layer, copious tearing, loss of most body hair, breathing control for underwater, kidneys that are relatively unconcerned with hoarding salt and water, and so forth) that are often seen in the mammals that returned to the sea. Losing hair for whatever purpose would also tend to promote upright stance because infants would then need to be carried, being unable to find much maternal hair to grasp (we are an exception to the general infant-carrying rule among primates). Or perhaps the infants lost their ability to cling, forcing carrying.
This is usually called the “aquatic ape hypothesis” because
it involves so many things that are also seen in the land mammals who
returned to life in the sea (whales did it 100 million years ago, sea
otters only several million years ago) with a salty diet and a need for
less body hair. No one
imagines a fully aquatic ancestor, so the name is somewhat misleading,
but rather a creature that foraged along shorelines and occasionally
swam a little. One version
of this hypothesis about hominids emphasizes islands, as they have a
lot of shoreline and, in a drought, all of the remaining resources on
the island might have been the fish and shellfish along the shoreline.
While apes isolated on a chain of islands in the Red Sea would
indeed be an excellent setup for doing the aquatic adaptations quickly,
it may be that the lakes and rivers of East Africa could have also done
the job. There are lots of fish in shallow lakes that can be herded
into modern nets by small boys splashing around.
In the days before nets, one could likely drive them into
restricted spaces where someone could heave them ashore.
Even filling in the fossil gap between the great apes and the
australopithecines may not help settle the issue because they will
yield mostly bones from the usual sites of preservation (caves, lake
margins). Bones often tell
you something about muscle strength and, via the size of vertebral
openings for nerves in the chest region, something about how good their
breathing control might have been.
But they won’t tell you about fat layers and the extent of
hair coverage, nor about how much salt was conserved by their kidneys.
You might think that, because so many hominid fossils are found
at former lake edges, this might be used as evidence for shoreline
foraging. But the pros all
know that sites like forests are very unlikely to preserve bones, and
that lakeshores are excellent in that regard.
Caves also preserve the occasional skeleton as at Sterkfontein,
but no one assumes australopithecines preferred to live there (more
often, pits within Sterkfontein became death traps for explorers or
those being chased). And
so paleoanthropologists quite understandably treat the water’s edge
as simply a great setup for preservation (a flooding lake buries those
who die near the water’s edge and moves the shoreline – and the
grazing animals who might crush the bones –
back away), and do not also use it as an argument for where they
preferred to live. Still,
the evidence is often consistent with shoreline living.
In forty years, the aquatic aspect has gained few adherents
among the pros, even though the savanna hypothesis has recently proven
awkward for the australopithecines.
Archaeologists do not buy the aquatic hypothesis, perhaps
because there’s nothing in it for them to study yet (a nice trash
heap of shells that is 5 million years old might change their minds).
Physical anthropologists don’t like it for similar reasons;
their strength is anatomy, and most aspects of the aquatic ape
hypothesis are physiological. When
they proclaim “But there is no evidence for that!” about the
aquatic hypothesis (and they are quite vehement), what they seem to
mean is that there is none of their specialized kind of evidence –
except, of course, those hip and knee rearrangements, and they prefer
to ascribe other functions to them.
Everybody has a mental checklist for what needs explaining (mine
is that chunnel-train list), mostly items within their own technical
expertise, and many don’t like to be bothered by things that don’t
address their agenda.
Occasionally in the history of science, facts finally accumulate
to the point that the old way of looking at them seems a little awkward
compared to another – perhaps a minority view or some new suggestion.
The facts aren’t yet good enough to make the
woodland-to-savanna bipedality hypothesis look awkward without a
shoreline interlude. But
then the suite of hominid questions that require evolutionary answers
doesn’t, for most, yet include the physiological or the
Now that the evidence for upright posture has reached back to
six million years ago, very close to the DNA dating for the common
ancestors with chimps, we are faced with a situation where efficient
bipedal locomotion (losing those tree-climbing feet to improve running)
happens a few million years after upright stance per se.
So maybe infant carrying or something like wading came very
early. Certainly the
bipedal apes were sticking close to woodlands and even Homo erectus,
though found in more arid environments and adapted to heat stress,
probably had the same savanna drawbacks that we moderns do:
our kidneys waste so much (compared to truly arid-adapted
animals) that, before canteens were invented, our ancestors had to stay
close to drinking water.
now know a lot about island biogeography, including the fact
that evolution seems to operate faster in small populations than on
continents with large ones. Large
central populations tend to buffer change, as natural selection for one
trait may be diluted or balanced out by selection for another.
Individuals there have a lot of mating choices, and aren’t as
likely to mate with someone whose ancestors have been through similar
But the archaeologists are now starting to emphasize that
population density of australopithecine and Homo species may
have remained quite low throughout the ice ages, meaning that large
central populations may merely be a feature of recent agricultural
times. Low numbers are
what you would expect from top predators in the food chain, the same
reason why bird-eating birds like peregrine falcons are so few in
numbers compared to pigeons, or why it takes large herds of grazing
animals to support a few lions. Or
a few hominids. Maybe it
wasn’t until we learned to grow grains and bake bread that human
population density could increase significantly.
Still, I’d bet that hunting is what most allowed the hominid
range to expand, what with all those naïve herds to tackle.
during subdivision may omit typical predators.
For example, in the last warm period when rising sea level
converted a peninsula on the coastline of France into the island of
Jersey. The red deer
trapped there underwent a considerable dwarfing in stature within only
a few thousand years. That’s
probably because their usual predators died out locally – predators
that had made large body size a real advantage.
Lacking predators, there is something to be said for maturing
early (at a small body size) and having more time to produce more
So it’s possible to predict some of the things that might
happen if a prehuman population were fragmented into smaller inbreeding
subpopulations by an abrupt climate change.
A higher percentage of the total then live on the margins of
some habitat (it’s surface-to-volume ratio, once again) and the
margin is also where selection pressure is greatest.
Local extinctions, as when an island population becomes too
small to sustain itself, also speed evolution in a way that isn’t
immediately obvious – that’s
because no competition is markedly better than some
competition. A local
extinction creates an empty niche. When subsequent pioneers rediscover the unused resources,
their descendants go through a series of generations where there is
more than enough food. That
means that even the more extreme variations that arise, the ones that
in childhood would ordinarily lose out in the competition with the more
optimally endowed – such as the survivors of a resident population
– can now survive and reproduce for a few generations.
When the environment again changes, some of those more extreme
variants may be able to better cope with the third environment –
better, at least, than the narrower range of variants that would reach
reproductive age under the regime of a long-contested niche.
So a flipping climate has an ability to get more variants out
onto the board in play, as well as providing a recurring stress that
culls the less versatile.
Thinking of the Ice Ages as the “Chattering Ages” with
alternating boom-and-bust provides a perspective quite different from
adaptationism’s usual focus on efficiency.
Efficiency arguments, as I mentioned, tend to suggest lean mean
machines without a scrap of excess baggage.
But the need to discover a new way of making a living within a
single generation shows how jack-of-all-trades variants could survive
better. Techniques that
were last needed a hundred generations earlier would need to be
rediscovered, in order to make use of less-favored food resources.
small populations are rarely average.
Often they have some odd clustering.
This always seems to surprise people – as, say, when a
randomly-selected jury turns out to be all men or all women, not
exactly the proportions in the larger population from which they were
This usually isn’t a bias in the selection procedure; it’s
just how chance sometimes operates when a few are drawn from the many.
This happenstance clustering has some interesting implications
for the evolution of social traits, things like language or reciprocal
altruism where groups are important.
By chance, some subgroups are strikingly over represented in one
trait, woefully lacking in others. Evolution now operates on dozens of
subpopulations independently, rather than upon the whole large
“average” population – and a subpopulation may thrive relative to
others, simply because it chanced to have a disproportionate number of
the bearers of some minority trait.
Culture can pass things along, but a critical mass is sometimes
needed to get cultural transmission going; most inventions simply die
out. Others are useful in the long run, but can be easily
overburdened in the short run – and that’s the big problem with
most species that share food more generally than just mothers
sharing with their offspring, individuals only share with close
relatives. If they help
out someone being attacked, this assistance is also usually limited to
close relatives. That’s
kin selection, where you are helping out copies of your own genes by
helping the others.
As human society presently demonstrates, there are great
benefits to expanding the circle of beneficiaries to nonrelatives, what
is called reciprocal altruism. But
it’s a puzzle: How could
that happen, when everyone loves to freeload?
Cheaters (those who receive without eventually reciprocating)
are the norm in animal societies.
Any individual that tended to give away food, or
indiscriminately risk life and limb for non-relatives, would be a loser
– unless living, by happenstance, in a subpopulation with a lot of
other indiscriminate sharers, likely to provide benefits at other
And that’s what the repeated fragmentation of large prehuman populations into many smaller subpopulations could have occasionally created: a group with a critical mass of sharers. In hard times, when the every-man-for-himself groups were wasting a lot of time and effort at fighting over the remaining food, the groups that shared (and otherwise minimized conflict) might have survived better, successfully raising a next generation when the others were squabbling. They weren’t competing against each other as in team sports but rather against the downsizing environment, for sheer survival.
In this manner, natural selection can occasionally operate on
groups – and therefore on social traits.
Some things, like language and altruism, only operate between a
substantial number of individuals.
If all the subpopulations are lumped together and mixed, as in
today’s cosmopolitan societies, it may be hard to initially evolve
such traits, simply because there are always enough freeloaders nearby
to swamp and sink even a promising startup.
But a history featuring fragmentation, and then amalgamation
(and repeating hundreds of times), is capable of accomplishing some
things that might otherwise be improbable.
Thinking in terms of the average can seriously mislead you.
The traditional thinking that dismisses group selection is that,
even if a subpopulation happened to have a majority of cooperators,
you’d still expect that tendencies to share could be swamped by all
the non-reciprocating freeloaders, who would out-reproduce the sharers
and slowly sink the altruistic practice.
So the group trait would be leaky, like a car tire going slowly
If this were the prime consideration, of course, we would also have to conclude that car tires would never work. Sooner or later, they too all go flat. We just pump them back up occasionally, and maybe that’s what reciprocal altruism takes. The bust-then-boom cycle provides both a concentration mechanism (via fragmentation) and a pump (survivors get the eventual re-expansion opportunities). Such pumping might allow widespread cooperation to become established long enough for other things to be invented that prop up cooperation by combating freeloading. I sometimes think that the first sentence spoken was “But you owe me!”
you could interview a chimpanzee about the differences between humans
and apes . . . , I think it might say, “You humans are very odd; when
you get food, instead of eating it promptly like any sensible ape, you
haul it off and share it with others.”
On to the NEXT CHAPTER
Copyright ©2002 by
Book's Table of Contents
All of my books are on the web.
out-of-print books are again available via Authors Guild reprint