What’s New in African Paleoanthropology?
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 17: 391-426 (Volume publication date October 1988)
Russell H Tuttle
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Mr. Tuttle made for a spirited read. I don’t think I’ve read as many pop culture references in any other review. In speaking about how some “attempts to erect novel genera” often failed and resulted in the groups being lumped together, he wrote that the new genera (Bodvapithecus, Graecopithecus …) were lost “faster than Zsa Zsa changes mates.” He goes on to refer to the trend of splitting/creating new genera as “splitomania.” In closing out a discussion of hotly contested issues he writes, “For now, recalling our radio days, only ‘The Shadow knows.’” When writing on whether the individuals unearthed at Hadar represented more than one species, Tuttle makes use of a Biblical reference: “ Truly, that a flash flood sealed two species of hominids (and few other vertebrates) together in Hadar sediments is scarcely more likely than our finding righteous Israelites among Pharaoh’s finest under the Red Sea (Exodus 14).” Perhaps adding to this vibe was the fact that Tuttle refers to himself in the first person. The writer of the previous review, also published in 1988, did the same. Was all this a trend in the 1980s?

The section that discusses the Laetoli footprints is titled, “The Laetoli Trails: Facts, Fabrications, Phantoms and Folderol.”

folderol: (from Wiktionary)
1. (uncountable) Nonsense or foolishness.
2. (countable) A decorative object of little value; a trifle or gewgaw.

Tuttle writes about an academic dispute in this section. He had been invited by Mary Leakey to study the Laetoli prints. He writes that(Tim) White and (Gen) Suwa “bumptiously” accused him of academic shenanigans regarding his conclusions about the footprints.

bumptious: Obtrusively pushy; self-assertive to a pretentious extreme. (From Wiktionary)

Others join in with “invidious” public statements and “umbrageous” sources. Tuttle’s language and style in this section left me LOL. It seemed such a good example of the academic dispute language and style that I noted when reading Dean Falk’s review (“Hominid Paleoneurology” and the Dispute That’s All Inside the Taung Baby’s Head).

invidious: Prompted by or expressing or adapted to excite envious dislike or ill will; offensively or unfairly discriminating. (From Wiktionary)
umbrageous: Having shade; shady. (From Wiktionary)

I read in a short bio that Tuttle’s interest include social prejudice in physical anthropology. That interest seemed apparent in this review in several instances including a short remark regarding “man the hunter.” He writes that “observations of hunting, meat-eating, tool-making, and tool-assisted foraging by chimpanzees … and documentation that females are more adept and persistent tool-users, slew the ‘man the hunter’ hypothesis, which, in retrospect, appears to be little more than a corporate male fantasy.”

So, it’s late and I don’t really have a pithy way to wrap this up, so I’ll leave it. Perhaps I will try again next week to write a little earlier.

Ever yours,

S.

No related posts.