More on Tool-Use Among Primates

that the course of cultural evolution, like that of bio-evolution, is strewn with the wreckage of ingeniously functional dinosaurs. This does not deter us from inquiry into the func­ tional relationships which account for the adaptive radiations of extinct forms. Low-energy agrarian cultures are undoubtedly doomed, not because they are negative-functioned, but because there is selection in favor of more efficient techno-environmental and techno-economic arrangements. Bennett renders a disservice by trying to cram my article into a synchronic functionalist mould. He is baffled by my suggestion that the inefficiencies of the system are part of its functioning. \V'hy is this so difficult to comprehend? In comparison with tribal cultures, the ecosystem of contemporary India is a radical evolutionary advance. (How else shall we describe the huge population?) In comparison with high-energy industrial systems, on the other hand, the whole ecosystem seems drastically inadequate in terms of the survival and well-being of its human com­ ponents. The CA* discussion which followed my article emphasized the possibility that the ecosystem in question is deteriorating. It seems obvious that the efficiency of the whole system is in decline as a result of population pressure. There are too many people and hence too many cattle. The wretchedness of both the human and cattle populations intensifies our ex­ pectation that evolutionary modifica­ tions in the traditional ecosystem are about to take place. This does not mean, however, that the system as it stands, even with all of its conse­ quences in terms of hunger, disease, and suffering, has ceased to be functionally superior to the more primitive systems from which it emerged, I do not subscribe to the theory that cultural evolution occurs only through the advent of otherwise insoluble crises. Most evolutionary modifica­ tions consist of the replacement of functioning features by better-func­ tioning ones, If Bennett shares this view of evolution, then he must take aCCOunt of the remaining strengths of the positive-functioned aspects of the Indian cattle complex, Applied an­ thropologists have the professional obligation to be certain that their intended innovations are functionally superior to what they are trying to replace, It would be convenient if the cattlc complex could be regarded as a product of silly superstitions and ignorant mismanagement. Under such circumstances anything that would work would be better than nothing. Indeed, many experts seem to think that this is the case, .My article refutes that point of view. Although I certain­ ly did not intend to become involved with the question of development priorities, I can see how the article might be useful in that connection. It might help to create an understanding of the vast scope and intricate nature of the modifications which are re­ quired if the survival and well-being of the Indian people is to be ad­ vanced in fact as well as in theory, To my dismay, Bennett declares that the program suggested by Harris' findings .would seek small but signi­ ficant modifications in the existing regime to make cattle more directly related to cash agrarian economy. Since my article was not concerned with cultural change (but rather with the relation between ideology and ecosystem)} any such suggestion is strictly Bennett's responsibility, But since he makes applied anthropology the fulcrum of his critique, I wish to disown his proposal whether or not my article suggested it to him, His program strikes me as just the kind of desultory tinkering-a result of tOO much expertise and too little general theory-which is associated with the recently confirmed increase in the gap between the developed and under­ developed nations, Bennett says that my paper illustrates some of the dangers of applying microcosm theory to macrocosms. Let us ignore the erroneous association between eco­ systems, tribal studies, and microcosms. (The concept of ecosystem is not a product of tribal studies, and studies of ecosystems are usually rather macro­ cosmic compared with studies in which a single species or population is the focus.) The experts, it seems, are interested, not in the kind of overview which is contained in my article, but in the local variation in cattle manage­ ment, How can we expect anything more than local results from local measures? What my article should have suggested, if anything, is that it is too late for patchwork. A whole new ecosystem is needed. India, contrary to Bennett's advice, needs both steel and more food, It will get neither, it seems to me, if its population continues to expand and our aid program con­ tinues to operate without a general theory of cultural evolution, More on Tool.Use Among Primates' by S. L. PHYLLIS WASHBURN' C. J A Y* and Berkeley, Calif ~ U,S.A, 16 vn 66 It is unfortunate that Kortlandt's comments (CA 7,215-16) on Hall's paper, Tool-using performances as indicators of behavioral adaptability (CA 4,479-94) were published without alteration after Hall's death. Surely Kortlandt would have preferred to put his criticisms in a general form rather than address questions to the dead, We will never know how Hall might have answered, but, since there an:: important evolutionary issues in­ volved and since we think that Hall was correct, we would like to reply to Kortlandt, Kortlandt objects that Hall judged the evidence Kortlandt and his collaborators had collected inadequate and did not accept the evolutionary model that they proposed (Kortlandt and Kooij 1963). In supporting Hall's position we will consider first the nature of tool-using, then Kortlandt's evidence, and finally Kortlandt's evolutionary dehumanization hy­ pothesis. Interest in hU,man evolution and the wa y modern man uses tools has distorted the way in which manipula­ tion of objects by non-human primates is described and evaluated. We agree with Hall's assessment of the evidence: -that object-using to a very limited extent occurs in a variety of animals and is not necessarily a mark of particular intelligence. Oakley (1954) I This paper is part of a program on prima[e behavior, supported by United States Public Health Service Grant MH reviewed much of the evidence for tool-use and came to the conclusion that it is skill, not merely use, which characterizes man. In spite of the fact that all primates have hands and feet adapted for grasping and manipula­ tion and use the hands a great deal in feeding, the chimpanzee is the only primate aside from man in which any substantial item of the diet is obtained by the use of a cool (Goodall 1965). Object manipulation by non-human primates is limited almost exclusively to agonistic displays, and it only causes confusion to label the object used in the dlsplay a «tooL For example, in addition to the gestures, postures, running, vocalizations, etc of display, the gori!1a may pull grass or other vegetation and throw it about (Schaller 1963); ·chimpanzees may pull off branches and wave them or pick up rocks and fling them (Goodall 1965); orangs drop branches (Schaller 1961)j and many species of Vol. 8 . No.3. j,me 1967