Earlier I reblogged a post about the aquatic ape hypothesis and until I received a few messages about it, I honestly forgot 1.) how intensely polarizing a topic it is, especially in biological anthropology circles, and 2.) that most people are unaware of the hypothesis in the first place, let alone how controversial it is. It’s... difficult to put my thoughts about it in writing, in large part because it’s deeply entwined with broader thoughts about the history of anthropology and the way Western science sees itself.
An attempt to make a long story short: I’m not a biological anthropologist and have never read the original papers outlining the theory, and I very highly doubt that they are perfectly accurate. But in that case, the pure savannah hypothesis as it was perceived at the time isn’t thought to be perfectly accurate anymore either. I don’t really know how to finish this, because I don’t have a solid opinion on the issue myself. But whether or not the theory is accurate, I don’t think the debate about it can be completely divorced from the politics of academia.
