Muleskinner Book recommendation # 26

In search of the Dawn Monkey

;Unearthing the origins of Monkeys, Apes and Humans

(by Chris Beard)

(Univ. of California; 348 p.)

[Recommendation # 26 
; (4 / 2010)]

From recommendations part, this time the selection is for a research/book from study of primates excavated fossil record and archeologic field (ao). Probably it's still relative new knowledges or studies from it's kind, I'd guess. Similarly like some of our preceding selections (of books) it maybe is relative popular study, if not precisely can be described as any 'popular readings'. Like most archeological/anthropological stuff, not the easiest or simpliest readings either, but feels like it contains a good part of what I did find of interesting and worth the trouble. (However, now it's actually already some time since I read the book, so I just refer to some of the main themes that I happen better recall from it...)

Personally not having any very intimate relationships for any archeologic (study) and even less having had the chance to better familiarize with the newest "break-throughs" or "discoveries" from the origins of man, I find this an inspiring book (From various view-points, trying to list those briefly in the following paragraphs...). 
The paleontologist field of study apparently has a lot advanced with the help (ao) of new finds during recent years/decades. And even that I'm a little uncertain whether this book might hold any very latest information, or if the views represent generally any accepted consensus at the moment...anyway, the book (probably famously) represent some views from (the assumed) earliest Anthropoid-origins, and along that makes a good 'walk-through' from various early notes of the roots and begins of some older (1800s) archeological study as well. 

...From the same point-of-view, on this also (probably) can be mentioned that  books naming (hunt for the Dawn monkey) seems hold some funny references and/or ridiculating on terms and past views that sometimes used to be recognized as firm scientific beliefs (on begins of the archeologic study, which held sometimes rather racial views derived from intentionally interpretating Darwin's evolutionary theory) – for the name seems refer to an early 20^th century Dawn man-theory from Anthropoids origin (formulated, ao, by Henry F. Osborn 1857 – 1935). But that more precisely is described in the books latter chapter.

...Or at least something like that I'm inclined thinking from having read the book. (The mentioned recent advances of the Paleontologist researches I'm not too well aware from, but at least some years back it was newsed from the famous discovery of the skull that belong to Sahelanthropus Tschadensis (excavated...probably on 2003), an early hominid ancestor that situates (probably) among earliest recognized ancestors of the lineage. Quite typically (in case of the paleontologist discoveries), that seems said have given rise for some debate from whether that mentioned hominid rather did belong for a lineage ultimately leading for the human species or whether it merely represented some early ancestor from the gorillas  lineage – or something like that(?); I assume the general view then later settled it merely for a candidate of some of the earliest hominids, ie on lineage that later may have produced our own species. Likely there's also been some other new advances and theories since, but much from what is known of the human evolutionary past remains probably still much disputed and discussed.

...Which is of course not too surprising, especially on a field of study that tries to solve some matters from the aspects having happened some millions years in the past, during some periods some more millions of years, etc. People also tend to have very varying opinions from the anciety of their own distant relates, so similar variety of opinions from the early origins of the whole species is very expectable, of course. In that sense, perhaps, some words from Beard's book quite hit to the point concerning our manner  of seeing the man's place on the nature, or more particularly how is described the 'mechanics of evolution' (; I couldn't invent any better term to describe this briefly...):

“[Popular accounts] ...often depict the evolution as an endless struggle for existence among species (plants and animals) […]However, species that never interact, because they inhabit different regions, cannot engage in any meaningful struggle for existence. Accordingly, geography has the potential to throw wrench into the stricktly Darwinian machinery of evolution, inserting an element of chance into what might otherwise be constantly escalating arms race between evolutionary competitors. Making matters even more unpredictable, geography itself evolved through the long span of Earth history due to plate tectonics, continental drift, and the rise of sea levels. [...Sentences then continue to explain what this has to tell related for the presented what known from the Anthropoids origin]” (From. p. 57)

Noticing the vast scope of studies devoted to human ancestry – them been published in the past and present days - it's also not very surprising if many from the aspects represented on Beards book would still be somewhat disputed (in science the general view and theories tend be on continuous development while any new knowledge appears). And even that the book focuses on origins of the Anthropoids – ie not discusses the more recently evolved hominids (hominid means basically the man and his extinct ancestral relates, evolved from since ca 8 – 2 Million years ago[Mya]) – there's still much 'undiscovered chains', or not resolved things also in the study about origins of the Anthropoid lineage (ie the very earliest begins of the  lineages leading for current Monkeys, Apes, Man not excluding their extinct relates). Anyway, that origin on this basiss seems supposed date back even as far as sometime between 50-35 Mya in the past. 
(By overall view, seems also that in terms the modern primates - mentioned in the preceding - are usually associated for the same as Simians and the groups of the earlier evolved genera appear usually called Prosimians. Prosimians consist from, ao, Lemurs, Loris, and some other resembling families. Like appears generally known the prosimians, except on a few places at the world have been displaced from the way of the Simians during  past evolutionary periods. So, reconstructing the past evolutionary history from the development of these  groups on basis of archeologic record is rather specialized field by itself, obviously...)

Appears also, by somewhat, matter of an opinion, of how far one wishes to think about Anthropoid origins, ie their various lineage that might have preceded the appearance of Hominids - and therefore one feels little cautious of how far in time even the modern advanced sciences can reach... But the books very informative packet from this maybe little less popular fields of study – one fx learns that until the preceding decades, theories about Anthropoids usually assumed them having separated either from (now extinct) genera of Adapiforms, or from (equally extinct) Omomyids (the appearance of earliest Anthropoids having happened probably about some 15-20 Mya). Together all these (probably), can be referred by term basal primates. Beards theory on the Dawn monkey suggests as a newer view that actually the Anthropoid branch, probably did co-exist within the mentioned genera already since a lot more distant period of past times, at least from about 35-50 Mya.

...If all that's nowadays most widely accepted general view or if there's a lot differing (possibly newer?) theories from it, I have not too precise idea. (Anyway, book also arguments interestingly that  this “early origin” or branching of the Anthropoid-lineage probably took place closely after the period of separation of the Tarsier-branch from the early simians or prosimians lineage.) 

Myself I'd have not much of difficulty from believing that those earlies Anthropoids maybe weighed only some few hundred grams, actually that feels almost too logical – and even less I'm surprised if it being like said that the Anthropoids by origin might have first appeared on Asian continents (than on Africa, like is said been formerly more common belief, on basis that the hominids are known to have later evolved there.) – ie sometime around Eocene, closely that ca 50-35 Mya. ...Yet, according my own feeling, wouldn't appear too surprising if them might even have evolved in the S.Americas, although what I learn from this book the excavated fossil record quite uniform is said make such view a practical unpossibility. 

 

But of course there's quite a lot more in the book than these few aspects picked from, and the story is fx a lot more precisely argumented and presented with wide range of examples from early Anthropoids fossil record, mostly a stuff that exceeds my current knowledges...so an interested does better reading from that of the book itself. More generally, it can be mentioned that book is told by very enchanting language, with (if perhaps little usual) archeologist story-telling manner, and also gives a lot knowledge from the past developments of that Anthropoids-study history (at least for someone common observer like me). It was also very useful from representing many renown (or less better known) past figures and their theories which formerly may have lot affected on the general views of this subject/field of  science. Interesting for someone curious from past science history, there's fx referred past theories (like some from plate tectonics, findings from excavations, etc) and mentioned are fx some following figures; Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832), Johan Gunnar Andersson (1874 – 1960), William Diller Matthew (1871 – 1930) ; Jacob Wortman (Wiki's /The net didn't seem show us his lifespan...), ao. With their many findings, excavtions, etc.

However – I feel of some importance to notice – it's also good that book contains there's theat final chapter, since it describes with a few sentences some of those less admirable sidepaths  from the science-histories. Mainly that renown fake-story, nowadays probably mostly forgotten stuff, but some that earlier was a corner-stone on theories about human origin - that of course meaning the Piltdown man, counterfeit made partly from human skull and partly of an apes jaw-bone (or smth like that). It prevailed and affected for the directions and views about humans origin for about a period of almost half the century (on the early 1900s). (Pithecopfobia, like is the term with which Beard refers to those prejudiced past sciences and some similar theories rooted on the anti-darwinist and racial interpretations of the fossil record known at that time.) Important to notice, since, makes sense always be a little cautious from whatever there's concluded from human early past (origin) and history...

…However, the archeology in itself represents also rather  time-taking field. Or rather 'dry' topic in itself (but interesting...) So, one has to have some interest to read all those very meticulous argumentations of the subject (even that them told with  such compelling languages / captivating plot like in this story). Therefore, I guess we'll (on this serie), shall now satisfy for this as an example of the (popular) archeologic literatures.  I also notice a lot from our former 'serious' science-recommendations been from books by N.American writers, so for any of the following should rather be from authors from elsewhere of worlds. (W-G.)