An alternative model of chimpanzee social structure, with implications for phylogenetic models of stem-hominid social structure

• Main Author: Nall, Gregory Allen
• Other Authors: Ball State University. Dept. of Anthropology.
• Format: Others
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: Primates > Behavior.; Chimpanzees > Behavior.; Social behavior in animals.; Human evolution.; Human behavior.; Animal models in research.
• Online Access: http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/184512; http://liblink.bsu.edu/uhtbin/catkey/845924

The following research paper was concerned with five basic objectives:(1) outlining the major theoretical and methodological approaches used in the reconstruction of early hominid social behavior/social structure as a context in which to view Richard Wrangham's and Michael Ghiglieri's phylogenetic models of stem-hominid social structure.(2) examining Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's models of stem-hominid and chimpanzee social structure.(3) indicating how theoretical and methodological aspects of structure essentially represent an extension of the theoretical and methodological approaches the same researchers applied to their models of chimpanzee social structure.(4) addressing the theoretical and methodological deficiences of Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's models of chimpanzee social structure.(5) providing suggestions for improved phylogenetic models of early hominid social structure.The first objective was achieved by: (a) reviewing Tooby and Devore's (1986) and Wrangham's (1986) evaluations of the major theoretical approaches and methodologies used in the reconstruction of hominid social behavior/structure (b) defining, classifying and evaluating Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's phylogenetic approaches within this context.The second objective was accomplished by outlining, analyzing, and comparing/contrasting Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's phylogenetic models of stem-hominid social structure (i.e.Wrangham 1986; Ghiglieri 1987, 1989) and Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's models of chimpanzee social structure (i.e. Wrangham 1975, 1979; Ghiglieri 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989).The third objective was achieved by recognizing how Wrangham and Ghiglieri used/stressed principles and concepts derived from evolutionary biology and/or behavioral ecology to develop their models of stem-hominid and chimpanzee social structure. This analysis showed that Wrangham's models of social structure were more favorably inclined toward the method of behavioral ecology than Ghiglieri's models, which favored a sociobiological paradigm. Furthermore, although neither researcher relied exclusively on the above theoretical approaches, the main thrust of their argument often centered around it. For instance, Wrangham's analysis of chimpanzee social structure (Wrangham 1975, 1979) indicated that the ultimate cause of that structure was ecological i.e., patchy food distribution leads to wide female dispersal for optimal foraging efficiency, which in turn favors a male kin breeding group that can maintain a territority that includes several individual female ranges. In contrast, Wrangham's phylogenetic model of the social structure of the stem-hominid (Wrangham, 1986) suggested that phylogenetic inertia may be partially responsible for the shared social features found among African Hominoidea. However, in the same work, Wrangham also suggested that further socioecological analysis of African apes may indicate whether food distribution and its effects on female dispersion/association may partially explain conservative African ape social features.Ghiglieri's phylogenetic model of the stem-hominid (1987, 1989), on the other hand, explained the conservative social features of bonobos, common chimpanzees, and hominids to be primarily a product of phylogenetic inertia and sexual selection. Furthermore, for Ghiglieri the most important sexual selection variable was a male communal reproductive strategy. This, according to Ghiglieri, is the ultimate cause of social structure. Notably, Ghiglieri (1984, 1985) had earlier stressed the overiding importance of a male communal reproductive strategy but was less dogmatic in his insistence that chimpanzees had essentially solved their ecological problems (e.g. that they had solved the food distribution problem by fusion-fission sociality; predators were never a real problem). Nevertheless, Ghiglieri's earlier position similarily expressed the idea that a communal reproductive strategy constituted the ultimate cause of social structure.The fourth objective was accomplished by presentation of an alternative model of chimpanzee social behavior which suggested that structure; the effect of phylogenetic inertia on social structure; chimpanzee social structure is the combined product of ecological and sexual selection forces: female optimal foraging, male mating strategies, and predator pressure. The model was considered by the author to be unique in that it integrated essential aspects of both Wrangham's and Ghiglieri's models and, in addition, provided support for Alexander's (1974) contention that predation pressure is an ultimate cause of ape social structure. The model also outlined scenarios for the evolution of chimpanzee group._ extensibility (fusion-fission sociality) and the capacity for warfare among chimpanzees.The last objective was achieved by a discussion of the implications that the author's model had for phylogenetic models of stem-hominid social structure. In this discussion the author reviewed the following issues as they related to the phylogenetic reconstruction of hominid social structure: the role of phylogeny and/or ecology in the causation of social encountered when using a phylogenetic referential model for the personal biases that enter into phylogenetic econstructions; pitfalls reconstruction of early hominid social evolution; the significance of chimpanzee models of social structure.The importance of the preceding study lay in its ability to stimulate improved conceptual models of African hominoid social structure. === Department of Anthropology