Elaine Morgan (1920–2013)

Basically, her proposition is that hominid evolutionary thought is all male-centered and thus ignores obvious physiological and behavioral evidence that suggests a semi-aquatic hominid period during the millions of years of Pliocene drought. I don’t know enough evolutionary biology to pick a side, but I love reading her sassy and well-considered retorts to conventional evolutionary models.

I can't say I am convinced Morgan's innovations on basic evolutionary theory are completely show more convincing, but I appreciate that they are imaginative, cogent, and thought-provoking. Wedding feminism and primate development, still to this day Morgan's images of semi-aquatic apes losing their hair in watershedding patterns and anacient mothers embedding a genetic fear of spider-like motion from crabs nearing her young still stays with me and strikes me a decade and a half after I read this important work.

As I say, I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to fact-check or challenge her, but this second reading of the book is still a complete joy to ready her smart and sassy, imaginative and piercing attacks on the theories injected into primate evolution by men thinking only of men and when thinking of women, thinking of the only in subordinate roles. This feminist critique of classic Homo Sapiens evolution is an enlightening and entertaining read. show less

What struck me the most in this book was, not the feminist angle, but the Aquatic Ape hypothesis. The aquatic evidence is convincing, and it makes more sense than the usual weak explanation of -- he stood up in a field of tall grass to stalk his prey.

The Aquatic ape hypothesis is this idea according to which we would have evolved not from apes having conquered the land, but an aquatic environment - or, at least, semi-aquatic. A few decades ago the idea had a few ears among the general public. It was then defended vigorously by Elaine Morgan, author of a few scientific books despite not being a scientific herself (she had a degree in English).

Well... It certainly did echo among the general public, but what about the scientific community? show more Bluntly: they never took it seriously. Out of disdain? Nope. Out of a lack of evidence.

No evidence? Oh dear! Elaine Morgan, therefore, put it then into her stubborn head to line up some in this book, insisting that many of our anatomical features have more in common with aquatic mammal than anything else.

Now, I get that similarities can be striking; but similarities are just that: close enough... But no. Her own interpretations to explain various features of our anatomy can be seductive in themselves; yet others have proved as seductive as hers, and, with one crucial and key difference: these other interpretations are actually backed by evidences. Evidence are indeed by the plenty when it comes to establish our lineage with 'land' apes; there is still none linking us to any aquatic specie if they ever existed. It's all here very simplistic, and, as with everything way too simple to be true, it all come down in her narrow logic to only one and only cause (that's a red flag in itself!): an aquatic environment. Would that qualify as reductionism?

No need to debate. Her final attitude says it all: she doesn't end the book by challenging and counter-arguing her opponents on each of their claims, but, on the contrary, digs herself in by portraying herself as a victim of the scientific community - that she accuses of being arrogant and scornful. Well... Beware of people locked up in echo chambers.

Here's a nice read to know why some would believe in such a fancy idea. Apart from that, here's yet another 'just so' story, leading nowhere, and so not worth much in terms of scientific credibility. show less

I was intrigued by the references to this book in Peter Dickinson's [A Bone From a Dry Sea]. While Dickinson's story only nibbled at the edges of the theories of Morgan's treatise, The Descent of Woman delves fully into a feminist interpretation of the evolutionary and cultural aspects of human evolution.
For my money, the science behind the author's premise was flimsy, perhaps even the source of unfounded speculation that wound its way into Morgan's narrative. Interpretations and theory in show more human evolution have sparked tremendous controversy, as different agencies favour their preferred view point. Using the biblical Genesis story does little to promote credibility for how the females actually lived. And therein lies a great flaw to a supposedly academic text.

One never 'proves' a theory and my reading of this book begs the question why were other interpretations of the evolution of humans not discussed? Those may counter the author's point of view, but there was nothing written to convince the reader that Morgan's ideas have superior merit. The attitudes expressed came across as an agenda to promote female equality, yet the ancient historical record is not of the quality to establish the life females lived on the basis of a societal culture. show less