What do you think?
Rate this book
The Improbable Primate: How Water Shaped Human Evolution
In The Improbable Primate, Clive Finlayson takes an ecological approach to our evolution, considering the origins of modern humans within the context of a drying climate and changing landscapes. Finlayson argues that environmental change, particularly availability of water, played a critical role in shaping the direction of human evolution, contributing to our spread and success. He asserts that our ancestors carved a niche for themselves by leaving the forest and forcing their way into a long-established community of carnivores in a tropical savannah as climate changes opened up the landscape. They took their chance at high noon, when most other predators were asleep. Adapting to this new lifestyle by shedding their hair and developing an active sweating system to keep cool, being close to fresh water was vital. As the climate dried, our ancestors, already bipedal, became taller and slimmer, more adept at travelling farther in search of water. The challenges of seeking water in
a drying landscape moulded the minds and bodies of early humans, and directed their migrations and eventual settlements.
In this fresh and provocative view of a seven-million-year evolutionary journey, Finlayson demonstrates the radical implications for the interpretation of fossils and technologies and shows that understanding humans within an ecological context provides insights into the emergence and spread of Homo sapiens worldwide.
a drying landscape moulded the minds and bodies of early humans, and directed their migrations and eventual settlements.
In this fresh and provocative view of a seven-million-year evolutionary journey, Finlayson demonstrates the radical implications for the interpretation of fossils and technologies and shows that understanding humans within an ecological context provides insights into the emergence and spread of Homo sapiens worldwide.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
10 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
February 27, 2017
This author has spent years studying the Neanderthals, especially the remnant population of Gibraltar, their last home. He's including Neanderthals, whose DNA has been found among modern humans, and Denisovans, the recently found Siberian group with a DNA which has also merged with humans, as humans. The term Cro-Magnon is not used anywhere; maybe it has fallen out of favour. The author uses terms Middle Earth and Hobbit frequently; the term Homo floresiensis is only used in a credit title in the footnotes.
When the term water is used in the title what this means is that Finlayson has read the Aquatic Ape books by Elaine Morgan, in which are listed all the ways that modern humans are adapted to live around water although none of our primate relatives is, but he does not want to go that far. To me it is obvious that seashore, river valley, marsh and estuary are a better environment than open plains full of predators, for a small, fragile people. He says we followed water around as the climate dried and got wetter, as we moved around the world or the world changed around us. We were rain-chasers. The Sahara is the prime mover of such changes becoming a barrier to passage when dry but showing that at various times in the past there were rivers and lakes, now arid fossils.
Climate and geography study have been added to our fossil record of evolving primates and humans. The creatures in a primeval environment were fossilised along with the people, and if there were hippos and crocodiles, that tells a lot about the environment, just as giraffes and antelope differentiate land from that used by deer and boar.
What I found best was the chapter detailing the author's own work on the Gibraltar and Spanish sites. He explains that a mountain on the southwest corner of the peninsula gets hit by wet wind off the Atlantic, causing the water to condense out and fall, so this corner of Europe gets wet even when the rest of the continent is bone dry. He says this is why the Neanderthals, not good at moving long distances, stayed here. I've visited the Gibraltar Museum, of which he is the Director, and I'm pleased that another cave is being opened up for excavation.
The other well explained concepts which may not be familiar to everyone, include the Source and Sink concept; an area capable of supporting a growing population will produce an oversupply of people who move out from the source to populate other areas. Some areas are only able to support a minimum population. In ecology studies we use a term not in this book, an ecological trap; this is when there is enough food to support parent eagles but not their chicks, for instance. A sink area will be like this as people may keep coming to shore up a dwindling population but there are never enough resources to support an increase.
The Launchpad is the other concept and the author uses it first about the Himalayas. In times of heat the bird population on the mountains cannot move down to where it is too hot, or up to where it is too cold. So they are stuck in a band of climate. But when the world climate shifts, the birds can travel around the mountains from India in the south to north, and at some time the climate will enable them to move down into Asia where they can spread out over the wide areas. They quickly adapt to the new land as the climate is now suitable for them. Crows and bullfinches are said to have spread in this way. Other Launchpad mountain chains would include the Alps.
I noticed that not once does the author mention domestication of animals. He talks about humans of all stages as rain chasers. He praises the Aboriginal people of Australia highly as having adapted to the arid lands, but never mentions that they brought dogs with them, the forebears of dingoes. He doesn't say that dogs and pigs were staple domesticated food animals of Polynesians as well as dogs being beasts of burden for North Americans. Wolf-dogs, sled animals, helped people cross the Bering Landbridge to North America and from there to reach Greenland across sea ice (neither journey is discussed). We are told that one group of people became nomadic following a secure supply of food, reindeer; this is not domestication. Dogs are adapted differently to wolves because of their long association with us, far longer than we have been farmers. Horses and asses were a tremendous advantage for travel and carrying food, tent materials or goods; this would help chase the rain or enable trade.
Why doesn't Finlayson talk about domestication of animals and the undoubted advantages it brought, as Jared Diamond does in Guns, Germs And Steel? Well, Neanderthals are not known to have domesticated anything. Any more than they were adapted to swim or cross large bodies of water. As the author's specialty is Neanderthals, he is writing about what he knows and can see in front of him. I reckon a large part of the picture is missing from this book. Like all studies of prehistoric man there is a lot of good information in The Improbable Primate but we need to read a few books as each person has their own pet theory on our development (like The Ape That Spoke).
I also reckon that if you want to understand the effects of climate and water sources on the spread of populations, you should play the game Sid Meier's Civilization. I especially recommend Civ III Complete.
When the term water is used in the title what this means is that Finlayson has read the Aquatic Ape books by Elaine Morgan, in which are listed all the ways that modern humans are adapted to live around water although none of our primate relatives is, but he does not want to go that far. To me it is obvious that seashore, river valley, marsh and estuary are a better environment than open plains full of predators, for a small, fragile people. He says we followed water around as the climate dried and got wetter, as we moved around the world or the world changed around us. We were rain-chasers. The Sahara is the prime mover of such changes becoming a barrier to passage when dry but showing that at various times in the past there were rivers and lakes, now arid fossils.
Climate and geography study have been added to our fossil record of evolving primates and humans. The creatures in a primeval environment were fossilised along with the people, and if there were hippos and crocodiles, that tells a lot about the environment, just as giraffes and antelope differentiate land from that used by deer and boar.
What I found best was the chapter detailing the author's own work on the Gibraltar and Spanish sites. He explains that a mountain on the southwest corner of the peninsula gets hit by wet wind off the Atlantic, causing the water to condense out and fall, so this corner of Europe gets wet even when the rest of the continent is bone dry. He says this is why the Neanderthals, not good at moving long distances, stayed here. I've visited the Gibraltar Museum, of which he is the Director, and I'm pleased that another cave is being opened up for excavation.
The other well explained concepts which may not be familiar to everyone, include the Source and Sink concept; an area capable of supporting a growing population will produce an oversupply of people who move out from the source to populate other areas. Some areas are only able to support a minimum population. In ecology studies we use a term not in this book, an ecological trap; this is when there is enough food to support parent eagles but not their chicks, for instance. A sink area will be like this as people may keep coming to shore up a dwindling population but there are never enough resources to support an increase.
The Launchpad is the other concept and the author uses it first about the Himalayas. In times of heat the bird population on the mountains cannot move down to where it is too hot, or up to where it is too cold. So they are stuck in a band of climate. But when the world climate shifts, the birds can travel around the mountains from India in the south to north, and at some time the climate will enable them to move down into Asia where they can spread out over the wide areas. They quickly adapt to the new land as the climate is now suitable for them. Crows and bullfinches are said to have spread in this way. Other Launchpad mountain chains would include the Alps.
I noticed that not once does the author mention domestication of animals. He talks about humans of all stages as rain chasers. He praises the Aboriginal people of Australia highly as having adapted to the arid lands, but never mentions that they brought dogs with them, the forebears of dingoes. He doesn't say that dogs and pigs were staple domesticated food animals of Polynesians as well as dogs being beasts of burden for North Americans. Wolf-dogs, sled animals, helped people cross the Bering Landbridge to North America and from there to reach Greenland across sea ice (neither journey is discussed). We are told that one group of people became nomadic following a secure supply of food, reindeer; this is not domestication. Dogs are adapted differently to wolves because of their long association with us, far longer than we have been farmers. Horses and asses were a tremendous advantage for travel and carrying food, tent materials or goods; this would help chase the rain or enable trade.
Why doesn't Finlayson talk about domestication of animals and the undoubted advantages it brought, as Jared Diamond does in Guns, Germs And Steel? Well, Neanderthals are not known to have domesticated anything. Any more than they were adapted to swim or cross large bodies of water. As the author's specialty is Neanderthals, he is writing about what he knows and can see in front of him. I reckon a large part of the picture is missing from this book. Like all studies of prehistoric man there is a lot of good information in The Improbable Primate but we need to read a few books as each person has their own pet theory on our development (like The Ape That Spoke).
I also reckon that if you want to understand the effects of climate and water sources on the spread of populations, you should play the game Sid Meier's Civilization. I especially recommend Civ III Complete.
June 17, 2015
This is an excellent and up-to-date look at human origins through the lens of ecological and environmental science. Finlayson makes a compelling case for the evolution and adaptation of human species being driven by changes in habitat and environmental conditions in Africa and, like most species, our strong dependence on reliable water supplies. This short book is a quick read, but quite thought-provoking. Good bibliography with references to several very new paleo-anthropological journal articles that I also sought out and read.
September 9, 2016
It's hard to keep up with evolution. Or, I should say, our understanding of human evolution keeps changing. Clive Finlayson offers intriguing new interpretations that make sense of the most recent discoveries in human ancestry. His vision of a world where only one species of human exists at a time is radically different than what I learned about in school. Also the very image of widespread Neanderthal cultures living, perhaps peaceably next to our other ancestors (what used to be called Cro-Magnon) is one that shifts paradigms. Focusing on the need to stay near water, this little book will update and challenge many ideas about our long lost ancestry.
For further comments please see my blog post on the book: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.
For further comments please see my blog post on the book: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.
February 21, 2021
//3.5//
The main thesis of this book is that humans and human ancestors 1.8million years ago required fresh water at a time when the world was becoming increasingly arid.
Ties together human ancestry from an ecosystems and ecology based approach and weaves in questions regarding bias in interpretation of evidence, the impct of climate on people, the stationary vs nomadic lifestyle of homo sapiens compared to homo australapithecus.
Along the way the author makes some very interesting comments about how our modern prejudice impacts our perception of hominids. For example by pointing out that we do not thing 21st century humans are cognitively superior to romans (20thousand years ago), but we make this same assumption about the neanderthals (40thousand years ago). Equally does finding a flint blade mean that this population was more advantance than another or does it mean that there was a cultural difference? “we have confused ghe cumulative effects of culture in a social species with behavioural peogression.”
“Our ancestors arrived very late on the savannah scene and they brought with them a vegetarian and aboreal heritage. They were interlopers, amateurs in the world of the professional carnivores.”
He speaks about how the expansion and contraction of sources of fresh water drove movement of early people around the globe and crafts a compelling and well backed up explanation of why we see certain populations of homo sapien, homo neanderthalensis and homo australapithecus and denisovanas in different places around the globe and explaind geographical differences in modern human dna components from these species.
What bothered me about this is the writing style. It seemed very confused and in need of editing. Most of the book was just straight and interesting facts, but every so often there are sections that feel like narrative non fiction (speculative scenes depicting early human settlements) and sections detailing a trip the author had taken in order to find out this piece of information. These were so infrequent however that they did not add anything and rather made the message more confused. I would have happily read a book that vaguely followed the authors research career in addition to the cold hard facts about his thesis. Indeed I love both birds and early human evolution and so his life and research life, from the little I gleamed here, seem highly fascinating.
The main thesis of this book is that humans and human ancestors 1.8million years ago required fresh water at a time when the world was becoming increasingly arid.
Ties together human ancestry from an ecosystems and ecology based approach and weaves in questions regarding bias in interpretation of evidence, the impct of climate on people, the stationary vs nomadic lifestyle of homo sapiens compared to homo australapithecus.
Along the way the author makes some very interesting comments about how our modern prejudice impacts our perception of hominids. For example by pointing out that we do not thing 21st century humans are cognitively superior to romans (20thousand years ago), but we make this same assumption about the neanderthals (40thousand years ago). Equally does finding a flint blade mean that this population was more advantance than another or does it mean that there was a cultural difference? “we have confused ghe cumulative effects of culture in a social species with behavioural peogression.”
“Our ancestors arrived very late on the savannah scene and they brought with them a vegetarian and aboreal heritage. They were interlopers, amateurs in the world of the professional carnivores.”
He speaks about how the expansion and contraction of sources of fresh water drove movement of early people around the globe and crafts a compelling and well backed up explanation of why we see certain populations of homo sapien, homo neanderthalensis and homo australapithecus and denisovanas in different places around the globe and explaind geographical differences in modern human dna components from these species.
What bothered me about this is the writing style. It seemed very confused and in need of editing. Most of the book was just straight and interesting facts, but every so often there are sections that feel like narrative non fiction (speculative scenes depicting early human settlements) and sections detailing a trip the author had taken in order to find out this piece of information. These were so infrequent however that they did not add anything and rather made the message more confused. I would have happily read a book that vaguely followed the authors research career in addition to the cold hard facts about his thesis. Indeed I love both birds and early human evolution and so his life and research life, from the little I gleamed here, seem highly fascinating.
November 10, 2018
Finalyson writes in clear fashion and contributes some interesting arguments overall in this book, regarding his triptych "few trees + open spaces + water sources" favourable hominin landscape scenario. However he follows the single-species views as any good student from Ersnt Mayer would, which forces him into an extreme-lumper (e.g. for him, H. sapiens + neanderthalensis + denisovans + heidelbergensis + antecessor + ergaster + erectus represent a singles species... H. sapiens), so he believes our species goes back to 1.8 Ma, instead of the more consensual values oscillating from 4 to 2 ka. While he argues extensively that this solves many problems of taxonomic, cladistic and phylogenetic discussions... but I do fail to see how it can solve anything at all. The biological species definition and its variants are always going to crumble as long as you add a time dimension (the palaeontological data) onto them. Probably, there were never clear-cut endings and beginnings for species evolving through natural processes. These constant rumbles on "solutions" to taxonomy, or the use of such concepts as "Middle Earth" to define the core biogeographic area of hominin speciation (c'mon we already got the Hobbits in Flores!) or other catchy designations as the "rain catchers" were very distracting, diverting attention from the main arguments from the book: a (somewhat reductionist) biogeographic explanation to human dispersal patterns and occupation of nearly all major ecological niches on Earth, driven mainly by exploration (and dependence on!) of reliable water sources.
Another weak point, was the complete exclusion of Orrorin from this analysis. I just cannot understand why!!! He also reflects multiple type on aquatic ape theory, but completely ignores Kingdon's coastal ape hypothesis (which I believe is far more relevant to his ideas).
Where Finlayson excels is in the 8th chapter on neanderthal behaviour and lifestyle. That one was really excellent!
Another weak point, was the complete exclusion of Orrorin from this analysis. I just cannot understand why!!! He also reflects multiple type on aquatic ape theory, but completely ignores Kingdon's coastal ape hypothesis (which I believe is far more relevant to his ideas).
Where Finlayson excels is in the 8th chapter on neanderthal behaviour and lifestyle. That one was really excellent!
August 31, 2018
Before 2.5 M.Y.A our earliest ancestors took the initiative to move to rocky lands were there are varieties of stones and rocks and they started to get familiar with and involve them in their daily lives such as, stone tools and shelters. Surprisingly, this happened during the time of the drought time, which took a place in Africa. Water resources started to become more rare and separated from each other with distance. Earliest Homo had to leave the trees and find a place with water resources to to live by.
Baldwin effect
The body temperature : to keep a lower core temperature would mean constant sweating and a higher temperature would be too close to the point at which proteins are dentured risking vital life process. So, 37 degree seems to have been set ad the ideal core body temperature
Neanderthal were the first to control fire.
The reason why Neanderthals were not able to survive in contrast to homo Sapiens is because of the climate change that accured and pushed the area in the middle east and south Africa to become more dry and drove draught and made the North very cold. When the area became more dried and it started to experience more drought seasons. Neanderthals were not able to survive in contrast to homo Sapiens because of their massive body size. Unlike, Homo Sapiens, who managed to change their body structure and be able to be more fit and the fact of longer legs helped a lot moving faster on land and added a lot regarding searching for food and water faster.
Both the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens shared a common ancestor, who is the Homo Heidelbergensis.
Acheulian exists only on the drier environment. The oldowan,
Baldwin effect
The body temperature : to keep a lower core temperature would mean constant sweating and a higher temperature would be too close to the point at which proteins are dentured risking vital life process. So, 37 degree seems to have been set ad the ideal core body temperature
Neanderthal were the first to control fire.
The reason why Neanderthals were not able to survive in contrast to homo Sapiens is because of the climate change that accured and pushed the area in the middle east and south Africa to become more dry and drove draught and made the North very cold. When the area became more dried and it started to experience more drought seasons. Neanderthals were not able to survive in contrast to homo Sapiens because of their massive body size. Unlike, Homo Sapiens, who managed to change their body structure and be able to be more fit and the fact of longer legs helped a lot moving faster on land and added a lot regarding searching for food and water faster.
Both the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens shared a common ancestor, who is the Homo Heidelbergensis.
Acheulian exists only on the drier environment. The oldowan,
September 3, 2017
The favoured human habitat, over the past 2 million years of evolution, combined trees, open spaces, and - most importantly - water. This story traces the interrelationship between climate change and our ancestors, with water as the main driver (water optimization hypothesis). The story seems reasonably well researched, but left me feeling that it was somewhat superficial and one-sided, boring at times. Too quick in dismissing the multiple human species theory and embracing a neat, single human species theory.
July 29, 2019
Good theory about how the search for water dictated the spread of humans across the earth. This author lumps all human like creatures (modern humans, neanderthals, homo erectus, etc) over the past half million years into the same homo sapien species. This viewpoint is not universall7 but this author provides good reasoning to support his views. He makes good arguments and theories about how DNA evidence could illustrate the spread of humans across the globe. A good read overall.
May 17, 2018
Más flojo que el anterior.
Nos vende su movida y su idea, pero se deja leer.
Nos vende su movida y su idea, pero se deja leer.
October 7, 2023
Would have liked to have known more about the water aspect of the human evolution. Hope future books will cover this more fully.
March 9, 2024
This is interesting if a little light. I would like a lot more detailed information than is given so this is more of a general public publication.
October 27, 2020
FIRST OF ALL I AM LINDA CAMPBELL FRANKLIN and it;s annoying that goodreads keeps using my name wrong. •
I wanted to like it more than I did. Many many years ago I read a book about the origin of homo sapiens...speculating that we came out of the ocean and flippers became legs...etc. And the human body has a surprisingly high water content...varying (on the internet info sites, including Wikipedia) from about 50-60% for males and 45-55% for females. So I was ready for this book, thinking it would have some references to that lonnnngggg history. [I can't find the title of the book...I read it at least 40 years ago}. I still wonder why the author, Clive Finlayson, decided that humans were IMPROBABLE. Nature is full of evolution and mutation. I was also hoping there would be a little about why homo sapiens of the last many thousand years have different facial characteristics, because of course evolution/mutation meant shorter broader noses for some, longer bigger noses for others, relatively small slanted eyes for some, very large eyes for others, thin lips for some, large lips for others, as well as straight, curly, kindy, fine, coarse hair differences. Also, I found the book a little to informally chatty, with sentences that read more like a conversation with someone rather than facts stated clearly. I did appreciate being introduced to a variety of considered suppositions about the landscapes preferred by various homo sapiens (and the fact that Finlayson counts as homo sapiens more of our "ancestors" than some other experts do. WIsh there were many more illustrations, and also that some notes reserved for a section in the back had been footnotes on the same page. After all, the book was published by Oxford University Press.
Below is a site on public tv that might offer some visuals that would go along with this book.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...
~ Linda Campbell Franklin
I wanted to like it more than I did. Many many years ago I read a book about the origin of homo sapiens...speculating that we came out of the ocean and flippers became legs...etc. And the human body has a surprisingly high water content...varying (on the internet info sites, including Wikipedia) from about 50-60% for males and 45-55% for females. So I was ready for this book, thinking it would have some references to that lonnnngggg history. [I can't find the title of the book...I read it at least 40 years ago}. I still wonder why the author, Clive Finlayson, decided that humans were IMPROBABLE. Nature is full of evolution and mutation. I was also hoping there would be a little about why homo sapiens of the last many thousand years have different facial characteristics, because of course evolution/mutation meant shorter broader noses for some, longer bigger noses for others, relatively small slanted eyes for some, very large eyes for others, thin lips for some, large lips for others, as well as straight, curly, kindy, fine, coarse hair differences. Also, I found the book a little to informally chatty, with sentences that read more like a conversation with someone rather than facts stated clearly. I did appreciate being introduced to a variety of considered suppositions about the landscapes preferred by various homo sapiens (and the fact that Finlayson counts as homo sapiens more of our "ancestors" than some other experts do. WIsh there were many more illustrations, and also that some notes reserved for a section in the back had been footnotes on the same page. After all, the book was published by Oxford University Press.
Below is a site on public tv that might offer some visuals that would go along with this book.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...
~ Linda Campbell Franklin
August 8, 2015
The Improbable Primate is about 40% the story of human evolution and the information we've gathered about it and 60% building the case for the author's premise that it was water above all else that fueled our species' evolution. While I would have preferred more in the way of background regarding human ancestry, the read seems appropriate if you're coming from a slightly greater background in the subject area itself.
It was a decent read and I gained some valuable tidbits of information that makes it worth the time spent. If this is your area of interest I think it's probably even a good read. That said, for me it was less engaging than I was hoping for. I'm not really sure if that's a fault of the narrative or of myself but for me it wasn't a favorite read but it also wasn't bad.
I'd say if you're really interested in this area of science go ahead and read it, you'll probably get something out of it, but if yours is only a passing interest it's not that essential a read.
It was a decent read and I gained some valuable tidbits of information that makes it worth the time spent. If this is your area of interest I think it's probably even a good read. That said, for me it was less engaging than I was hoping for. I'm not really sure if that's a fault of the narrative or of myself but for me it wasn't a favorite read but it also wasn't bad.
I'd say if you're really interested in this area of science go ahead and read it, you'll probably get something out of it, but if yours is only a passing interest it's not that essential a read.
November 29, 2014
Finlayson summarizes the work of geographers, ethnographers and others as he describes how the requirement for water shaped the development of the human animal over the millennia. An interesting read until the last two chapters where he becomes very subjective. My opinion...early hominids were not more conservation minded than most modern humans, there were simply fewer of them. The human animal has succeeded in establishing itself as the dominant species, perhaps this success contains the seeds of its own destruction.
December 30, 2014
If you seen a documentary on the evolution of the human species, then there is not much to read from this book other than the author telling that he has been to places where it all started with archaeological and palaenthological importance
September 15, 2014
Excellent revision of the pre-history of humans and neanderthals. Well written, full of details and fascinating for anyone interested in how we evolved as a species.
October 1, 2014
Super book with anew hypothesis on the role water played in human evolution. Fun to read and the arguments are easy to follow. I only wish it was more detailed.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews