We humans share 98.7% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest relatives in the diversity of life on this planet. The common ancestor to all three of us existed around six million years ago. Chimpanzees and bonobos split into two species around two million years ago. This split appears to have coincided with a drastic reduction in the flow of the Congo River.
Today, chimpanzees
are mainly found north of the Congo River in equatorial Africa. In the wild bonobos
are found exclusively south of the river in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Why do the
two species remain apart? Because of the Congo River.
Chimpanzees
are reluctant, or unable, to swim. Bonobos are also reluctant swimmers,
although they do sometimes forage waist deep in water.
The Congo
River is the deepest river in the world, the ninth longest, and the third
largest by discharge volume. It is also very wide, up to 19km across at its
widest point. No wonder reluctant swimmers, such as chimpanzees and bonobos,
have not crossed from one side to the other during the past couple of million
years. But that drop in flow about two million years ago was just enough to
enable a band of their common ancestor to cross the river.
Thus, for
the past two million years, chimpanzees and bonobos have been evolving along
separate trajectories. They may have had a common ancestor but nowadays they
display dissimilar behaviours and identities.
Chimpanzees
have been studied for much longer than bonobos and hence less is known about
bonobos than chimpanzees even today, especially in the wild. As we have a
common ancestor with chimpanzees from six million years ago it has been
tempting to identify some of our human behaviours as similar to that of
chimpanzees, and to trace these comparable behaviours back to that common
ancestor.
These
studies suggested that our levels of violence and male dominance have their
beginnings in our common ancestral heritage. We have been seduced into thinking
that such behaviours are innate in our DNA.
However, more
recent studies of bonobos are calling this innateness into question.
Bonobos
have sometimes been labelled as the hippie chimp. Bonobos do tend to
display less aggression and a greater degree of egalitarianism than their
chimpanzee cousins. This rigid distinction however, is simplistic. The reality
is much more nuanced. Bonobos do become aggressive, although their aggression
usually does not go as far as killing one another, as it can do with
chimpanzees. Furthermore, bonobo aggression in the male of the species is
normally restricted to male-on-male aggression. Chimpanzee males, on the other
hand, more often direct their aggression towards females. Chimpanzee males are
also likely to coerce females into sex, whereas male bonobos do not.
A further
distinction between the two related species is in the manner in which they go
about reconciliation after such violence. Bonobos use sex. In bonobo society
sex is used to build close relationships, to calm one another down, and to resolve
conflict. Sex is also used by bonobos as a way of greeting strangers.
Bonobos
can be thought of as xenophiles, whereas chimpanzees act more from a xenophobic
stance. Bonobo clans enjoy meeting another, sometimes unknown, clan of bonobos.
It is often the females of each clan that initiate this contact, usually with
sex.
The ways
in which chimpanzees and bonobos deal with power and sex are noticeably divergent.
So much so that the noted primatologist, Frans de Waal, quipped that ‘…(chimpanzees)
resolve sexual issues with power, while (bonobos) resolve power issues with
sex.’1
All of
this, of course, raises questions about the level of violence, and male
aggression towards females within our own human societies.
Can we, as
was once time thought, blame our genetic coding for male violence within the Homo
sapiens species? Has our evolutionary history predetermined that men should
be dominant over women?
When we
consider the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos, the answer is clearly
not.
We
(chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans) have a common evolutionary path, yet we find
that the two species that split most recently (two million years ago) have
developed quite distinct behavioural traits. This suggests that male violence
and male dominance is not innate. It is instilled in large part culturally.
If
culturally imparted, then it can be culturally immobilised.
Let us
hope that it does not take another six million years for that to happen.
Notes:
1. Frans de
Waal, Our Inner Ape, Granta Books, London, 2005

No comments:
Post a Comment
This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.