Conceptual Frameworks and Criticisms

Conceptual frameworks for organizing and interpreting hominin-baboon comparisons include models, analogies, and scenarios. These concepts are described in general terms, variations are considered, and efficacy is discussed. The concept of models is problematic because it has been defined in so many different ways. Scenarios are very subjective, though useful if constructed carefully. Analogies, especially those adhering to strict rules, are most consistently useful. The use of baboons to reconstruct early hominin adaptations has been rejected by some scientists and other interested parties. Objections can be classified as absolutist (baboons are irrelevant) or relativist (other comparisons are better). Absolutist arguments are faulty and/or have been resolved by ongoing research. In some cases, the determination to dismiss baboons is so strong that it can be termed Papiophobia. Some relativist arguments were also faulty, but many offered constructive criticism and/or worthwhile hypotheses. Among primates that are useful for reconstruction of early hominin behavior, only chimpanzees stand out to the same extent as baboons. Chimpanzees provide possible homologies with hominins, but baboons are a stronger referent with regard to the variety of environments ultimately experienced by early hominins—from forest to dry savanna. Baboons reinforce some chimpanzee perspectives on hominins and provide alternative hypotheses in other cases.