Stanford studied the great apes, especially chimpanzees, and came to the conclusion that among primates, meat is a valuable commodity both nutritionally and socially. Although many other foods are nutritionally desirable, meat is unique in its social desirability, and for males, it represents power:

Underlying the nutritional aspect of getting meat, part of the social fabric of the community is revealed in the dominance displays, the tolerated theft, and the bartered meat for sexual access. The end of the hunt is often only the beginning of a whole other arena of social interaction.

In Stanford's view, females play a crucial role in keeping groups together and cementing individual relationships. Meat plays an important role in the way males fit in to a society, and the ability of males to get meat readily may very well explain their societal dominance. These conclusions are not liable to be nearly so controversial as the way Stanford gathered his data--he drew broad parallels between chimps and modern hunter-gatherer societies. Stanford also admits that a lack of fossil evidence supporting his meat/brain link is problematic. The Hunting Apes is an interesting look at what is likely the worthwhile center of a discredited evolutionary theory. --Therese Littleton

Product Description

What makes humans unique? What makes us the most successful animal species inhabiting the Earth today? Most scientists agree that the key to our success is the unusually large size of our brains. Our large brains gave us our exceptional thinking capacity and led to humans' other distinctive characteristics, including advanced communication, tool use, and walking on two legs. Or was it the other way around? Did the challenges faced by early humans push the species toward communication, tool use, and walking and, in doing so, drive the evolutionary engine toward a large brain? In this provocative new book, Craig Stanford presents an intriguing alternative to this puzzling question--an alternative grounded in recent, groundbreaking scientific observation. According to Stanford, what made humans unique was meat. Or, rather, the desire for meat, the eating of meat, the hunting of meat, and the sharing of meat.

Based on new insights into the behavior of chimps and other great apes, our now extinct human ancestors, and existing hunting and gathering societies, Stanford shows the remarkable role that meat has played in these societies. Perhaps because it provides a highly concentrated source of protein--essential for the development and health of the brain--meat is craved by many primates, including humans. This craving has given meat genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting parties and organize entire cultures around hunting. And it has given men the power to manipulate and control women in these cultures. Stanford argues that the skills developed and required for successful hunting and especially the sharing of meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the past 200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is shared within primate and human societies to argue that this all-important activity has had profound effects on basic social structures that are still felt today.

Sure to spark a lively debate, Stanford's argument takes the form of an extended essay on human origins. The book's small format, helpful illustrations, and moderate tone will appeal to all readers interested in those fundamental questions about what makes us human.

I was taken aback by Stanford's approach. "This has yet to be shown. But the notion that a high-quality diet frees the metabolism of an evolving hominid to develop a larger and larger brain is extremely appealing because it would explain both the trend toward greater encephalization and toward more meat in the diet of the evolution of the human lineage (p50-51)." Appealing? (Also, I never knew that evolution had a diet.) "Surely bonobos and gorillas ought to make use of such a valuable resource whenever possible." (p95) Come on, you guys, get with it, what's the matter with you, why don't you eat hamburgers, like God intended us to? I wish Stanford would just come out and say, "Eating meat is good for you, because I was raised on an American diet with plenty of meat, and I know what I want to hear and what you want to hear. Therefore, I am going to prove that eating meat is good for you, and what's more, it's good for all of us. Dumb gorillas, don't know a valuable resource when they see one!" Stanford's method reminds me of the half joking advice to young scholars: "Put forth your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, and throw away everything that does not agree with your hypothesis." I was also aware that academics prefer not to give credit to Ardrey's African Genesis, which effectively kicked off evolutionary psychology. Nonetheless, I was surprised to read on page 182 that "In their search for evidence that modern people operate on a cognitive plane shaped by a long history of natural selection, evolutionary psychologists have erred in their level of analysis. There is no reason to consider the cognitive domains by which we respond to our social environment to be uniquely human." I thought that was the whole point of evolutionary psychology, that our congnitive domains are NOT uniquely human.

In short, if you wish to learn something, I suggest you read The Wisdom of the Bones by Walker and Shipman, Moral Animal by Wright, Lemur's Legacy by Russell, or any one of a large number of books that are more tightly reasoned than this one.


Well-written overview with intriguing hypothesis   December 22, 1999
 3 out of 4 found this review helpful

I found this book very well written, easy to read and full of substantial information. This was a new topic for me, and I particularly found the contrasting information about hunting vs. scavenging was interesting. While the book is certainly about "hunting," it really isn't -- it's more about the politics behind meat, and about the move from being scavengers. Actually, the information about scavenging was most valuable.