> I also saw the advertising of  this book "the descent of woman" by Elaine
 > Morgan.
 > did someone read it and could summarise what her woman perspective is
 > bringing or revolutionising to our  mostly male understanding of human
 > evolution .?

Hi Jean-Claude ---

I read it many years ago (more than I'd care to admit, actually), but I
recall her unusual thesis quite vividly.  Morgan theorized that the
evolution of our species included a long sojourn at the African seacoast
during periods of drought and famine on the savanna, and that humans
developed several characteristics during that time which link us more
closely to aquatic mammals than to primates, e.g., our relative
hairlessness, a healthy-sized layer of subcutaneous fat, the ease with
which we learn to swim, specific nutritional needs (iodine, for example)
that are easily satisfied by small, coastal fish and shellfish.

This theory becomes more female-specific when Morgan declares that the
survival of any species would be determined more by the ability of
mothers to protect and raise their infants than by the ability of great,
big, hairy, chest-thumping males to sally forth, kill huge beasts, and
drag them home.  She postulated that the seacoast society she envisioned
was one in which this was more likely to happen --- our ancient
water-loving, well-adapted Grandmommies could quickly snatch up their
babies and find safety in the water from many predators (the ones who
wouldn't swim, that is).  And coastal paleos would have been easily able
to feed themselves without a lot of fuss, bother, or unnecessary danger
--- fish and shellfish were there for the taking.

I found this book an enjoyable, offbeat, thinking person's investigation
into some of the anomalies and mysteries of human evolution (hair on our
heads, for instance --- why so little body hair, but all that hair on
our heads?  Morgan suggests that it provided an easy handhold for those
little water babies to cling to their swimming mothers, which I find
rather a cute and appealing idea ---  but I'm just as glad my own kids
never tried this (owie-ow-ow!)), with a large dose of radical 60's and
70's feminism --- it's quite fun to read, but not what you'd call "hard
science" in any way shape or form.

Pat