Watering down the mislabelled “aquatic ape hypothesis”

The so-called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) is very well known. Ask an audience of people interested in human evolution if they’ve heard of it and practically all of them will put their hands up. If you then ask them if they think it’s a good idea, almost all of them will put their hands down again.

Now, if you ask them to tell you what it actually is… it is interesting to see how many put their hands back up again. I did this in December 2004 at the ASHB (Australasian Society for Human Biology) conference in Canberra, Australia. A few did indeed put their hands back up until I qualified the question a little by saying that I didn’t mean “what you think the hypothesis is” but “whether you could remember reading a paragraph in the literature where it was unambiguously defined”. After that, no-one had their hand up. So, basically the situation regarding the AAH appears to be something like this: It’s an idea about human evolution that everyone has heard of, that most people think is rather silly, but no-one can tell you, unequivocally and authoritatively, what it is!  Now I do not think that is a very strong basis for a refutation. Indeed, if you spend time looking through the scientific literature for that key refutation, that winning argument as to why it is wrong or a single piece of evidence which even implies it might be wrong (forget the notion of disproof in matters to do with paleoanthropology) I predict you will have a frustrating time.
There are very few pieces in the scientific literature (in English only, I’m afraid, I wouldn’t dare comment on other languages) which discuss it properly, a clear minority of which attempt some kind of rejection. The most significant, volumnous and balanced is still Roede et al 1990. It includes 22 papers, pitching 11 in favour of the AAH against another 11 critical of it, rather as if it symbolised some ‘grand final’ football match. Overall, the conclusion of the authors was against the AAH but readers should understand that, if this was a football match, it was no thrashing. A closer analogy would be more like a 1-0 win after a hotly disputed penalty decision in injury time that crept over the line after hitting the goalie and both posts.
Apart from the 11 papers in Roede et al against the AAH, I’ve only found 5 others that attempt some kind of critique, and none of them are very good. (Click here for details.)  In comparison there are over 40 pieces of literature by proponents (excluding the 11 in Roede et al 1990) and at least another 4 papers that are neutral. In science there is no concept of ‘majority rule’ or democracy but even so, with less than 30% of the entire published literature on the AAH critical of it (and most of that just uses straw man arguments) it’s difficult to see how the ‘aquasceptic’ view appears to have won primacy. One is tempted to ask: How did that happen? And on what basis were the three rejections made?
It is the purpose of this web site to suggest that this hypothesis has simply been misunderstood and as a consequence exaggerated from the start. If one forgets the images of primate seals, or mermen and women which presumably must have flashed in the minds of most critics and, instead, simply take the original proponent, Sir Alister Hardy, by his word and ask the question ‘Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?’ (with the emphasis on the word more) it is my understanding that the idea is perfectly plausible. After all we do swim better than our nearest relatives the apes. We do have some traits which are unusual in primates but quite common is some aquatic species. Apes do tend to move in shallow water in the same way we do on dry land… bipedally, a characteristic almost no other mammal shares with them.  I’ve spend much of the last ten years of my life studying this area back in academia and the more I do the more convinced I am that the idea might well be right, if only one’s impression of what it’s actually claiming is scaled back a little. Of course the evidence we have indicates that there never was an aquatic ape (in the sense that a seal is an aquatic mammal), but who really ever thought there was? I didn’t. I’ve always taken the AAH to mean that our ancestors lived next to water and, occasionally waded, swam and dived, that they were merely more aquatic than our ape cousins. People have tended to assume that only very strong selection pressure could have caused the differences between apes and humans that we see but no-one seems to have questioned whether the same profound changes might have resulted from even very slight levels of selection.
The risk of drowning (and hence the likely selection of traits to reduce that risk) is disproportionately high compared to the percentage time one needs to spend in water for it to happen. This, I think, is the key point about this idea that everyone, both sceptics and proponents, have misunderstood most.
I have become convinced that the so-called “aquatic ape hypothesis” has been unfortunately mislabelled and as a result understandably misunderstood, and then quite outrageously misrepresented. My aim in building and maintaining this web site is to try to help correct this trio. Firstly, “it” should be renamed. And, already there we come to a problem. It is not an “it”, it should be a “them”, as in the plural. One key misunderstanding of the this idea is that there is just one hypothesis when, actually, there are several. They vary in the proposed timescale for a “more aquatic” phase or phases, the specific habitat or scenario being proposed for this, the degree of selection required and the specific evidence used to support it. This makes it quite a challenge to define but, at least they are all based on selection from moving through water so, I think, it is possible to find a kind of “lowest common denominator” of them and take it from there. So, I suggest we rename them “waterside hypotheses of human evolution” (as first suggested, I think, by Philip Tobias) and then defining this umbrella label as clearly as possible. Hopefully, as a result, it will no longer be misrepresented and instead, at last, some decent science will actually be done to test it.

Waterside Hypotheses Defined
So, let’s start, at last, with a simple, testable definition of what these kinds of ideas actually are.

Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution:
Assert that wading, swimming and diving for food have acted as an agency of selection in the evolution of human beings more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins both before (and hence causing) the split between these lineages and after. It notes that even very slight levels of selection can still result in profound and rapid phenotypic changes.

Algis Kuliukas
January 2015


  1. Mary Ballon

    Thank you very much for your perseverance on this topic. Reading on line, 56 years after Elaine Morgan’s book, I was dismayed to find so little support for what seems so logical.
    I am 73 and I live south of Vancouver BC. My task in my retirement is to figure out when and how our ancestors learned to “think” and by this I mean use imagination in problem solving. The prolonged infancy of the essentially premature infants born to these women at the river edge or seashore allowed the development of language between mother and child. Recent work by Stanley Greenspan and Stuart Shanker gets it almost right but does not examine why the early mother child bond for early humans was so unique.
    If you have time I would love to converse on these topics with you.

  2. algiskuliukas (Post author)

    Thanks Mary. Yes, me too. I still am waiting to hear one half decent argument why Elaine was so wrong. You’ve set yourself quite a task there, Mary. I agree the mother infant bond is key to much of human evolution. Keep in touch. All the best

  3. David Chan


    It looks like this is becoming mainstream.

    Like the previous poster, I was attracted to AHH in the 90s after hearing Elaine Morgan. Despite some trashing by experts, no one really came up with a good refutation of the hypothesis.

    I suggest that a period exploiting waterside resources will be a main factor in human evolution. It is already gaining some traction as even Sir David Attenborough is broadcasting 2 40 minute radio programmes on this topic.

    The fact that it has taken so long before this hypothesis is taken seriously just reinforces the idea put forward by Thomas Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” that it needs the old guard to retire before new hypothesis are taken seriously. This happened to Weggener’s Continental Drift theory and I can see this happening with AHH or Waterside Ape theory.

    1. algiskuliukas (Post author)

      The wading argument is pretty irrefutable, in my opinion. It’s evidence is head and shoulders above anything else that’s been published.

      We have been long overdue a paradigm shift on this but the problem is a whole generation of scientists have been taught to sneer at the idea. Alice Roberts seems to be a classic example.

  4. Bernard

    My mum said, ‘watching you learn to walk by holding onto the rails has given me an idea.’ She explained there was probably no missing link. Humans developed upright walking by being supported in coastal water, eating fish and diving fir shells. That was in 1964!
    Mum was a very creative thinker who loved to talk about things with me at a deep level.

    1. algiskuliukas (Post author)

      Good for your mum!

  5. Strangetruther

    Aha! So it was you and Tobias who changed the name back!
    Good move.

    1. algiskuliukas (Post author)

      “Aquatic Ape” was always an ironic term. (of the apes, which are most definitely not aquatic, we are the most aquatic) Astonishingly the irony seems to have flown over the heads of an entire field for over 50 years! I thought we need to relabel it and redefine it so that excuse can no longer be made.

  6. Diego Ferioli

    I came to this site after following the recent controversy around the BBC broadcast “The Waterside Ape”, which was immediately fiercely opposed and criticized by leading anatomist prof. Alice Roberts. I’ve always been fascinated by the theory and I totally agree with you that it has been grossely exaggerated and misunderstood. What I think is crucial though, is not whether it is TRUE or not, but rather why we need it and cannot afford to dismiss it. For me it is more of a cultural issue than about the actual evolution of mankind. What Ellen Morgan originally wanted to do was criticizing a strong bias in the culture of her time, i.e. the idea of “man the big game hunter”, that failed to account for what the woman was actually doing. Early men could possibly be hunting big game, but if women at the same time were gathering seafood, which of these two activities was most decisive to determine our evolution? Our brains got larger because of one thing only: Omega fatty acids, found either in animal brains or in fish. Most probably early humans ate both, and for sure they had to face periods of drought, but it is undeniable that being able to gather large amount of food resources with little or no mortal risk connected to hunting large and dangerous animals and competing with other predators was a very important advantage to both early men and women and their offspring. Timing is also a crucial factor in this: WHEN did we evolve to adapt to a waterside environment? It is very well possible that we didn’t stand up on two legs because of wading through rivers, but that whenever we did start wading, our upright gait was an advantage – determining the pattern of human (read: Homo Erectus) spreading around the globe along the coast.
    So, why do we need this theory? We need it to remind ourselves of the biases that we are still carry with us about our idea of early society. Early men were not necessarily fierce killers who would risk their lives on a regular basis to feed their idle home-staying wives and offspring. They were indeed able to harvest food from a wider range of environments, and given the importance that water plays in human society compared to other animals that can survive much longer without it, water had to be ALWAYS around.

    1. algiskuliukas (Post author)

      Thanks, Diego. Good point. It depresses me when I see strong, intelligent women like Alice Roberts backing the old man the mighty hunter (or should that be man the mighty marathon runner) model even today. Dear Elaine would be turning in her grave!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *