1. Hilyard 1
Wyatt Hilyard
M. Scoggin
ANTH 410
March 8, 2013
Position Paper
Introduction
Primatology, a subdivision of biological anthropology, has many definitions and uses. To
some, it is a study of primates on their own, separate from human evolution and ethology. Most
modern and historical primatology research, however, is linked to human evolution behavioral
studies. One of the major interests of this kind of research is human/primate communication. In
this paper I will argue that the great apes are capable of understanding and utilizing human
language to some extent. The degree to which each species is ultimately able to communicate
with humans will be shown using case studies.
A Brief History of Primatology
Before we talk about primate language studies, it is important to understand the history of
the relatively new science of primatology. Many consider Robert Yerkes to be the founder of
primatology, publishing several animal psychology works in the early to mid 20th century. In the
early 1920's, inspired by a recent trip to primate research facilities in Cuba, he bought two
chimpanzees from a local zoo in Pennsylvania and raised them in his home. The methods he used
are viewed by many as unscientific and unethical, but there was little objection at the time. He
founded the first research laboratory specific to primate research in 1929. Being primarily a
psychologist, Yerkes' most notable work was outside primatology. In the mid 1910's, he created a

2. Hilyard 2
series of alpha/beta tests that turned into IQ tests given to the U.S. Army, and ended up being
used to fuel the debates on immigration restriction in 1924. Yerkes claimed his tests measured
native intelligence, but the way they were formulated unintentionally relied on a certain amount
of education and cultural knowledge. His personal and professional views on hereditary eugenics
and intelligence make him unpopular today. His work is often discredited due to the inherent
influence those views had on his research and interpretation of his findings. Regardless of both
areas of politically-incorrect research, he is still viewed as a sort of pioneer of primatology. The
Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center is still fully-functioning, and his name has been used
in tribute to refer to a form of symbolic primate language, Yerkish, which will be discussed later
in this paper.
“Leakey's Angels” is a term used to refer to three pioneering female primatologists: Jane
Goodall (chimpanzees,) Dian Fossey (gorillas,) and Birute Galdikas (orangutans.) All three
recieved a substantial amount of funding and publicity from Louis Leaky, a major figure in
archaeology and paleoanthropology. Goodall was the first of this group, and probably the most
publicized primatologist to date. She started her field work in 1960 in Tanzania, then
Tanganyika. She is often criticized by modern primatologists for her training and methodology.
She had no scientific field training; she was a secretary. In her field work she greatly
anthropomorphized the individuals in the group she studied. This drew popularity to her work
(people love stories of cute chimps running around and creating mischief,) but was a hindrance
to the emerging science of primatology. For decades after it was impossible to get funding if your
field work didn't have some sort of tie to human evolution. I think part of that stems from the fact
that Louis Leakey's work was human evolution, and that concept was unintentionally attached to

3. Hilyard 3
the first major steps in popular primatology. That, coupled with anthropomorphization on the part
of the scientists, hurt the discipline's reputation as a science. Although unpopular, it is now
possible to do research on primates without tying in human evolution.
Frans de Waal, a Dutch primatologist and ethologist, is one of the most popular active
primate behavior scientists. He has published numerous books on the subject, which focus
mainly on the social lives of primates. He links the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos to
human behavioral traits. An issue I personally have with de Waal's bonobo field work in
particular is that it was conducted at the San Diego Zoo. Factors such as unnaturally high stress
levels are consequential to a captive environment, meaning the behavioral observations he made
are skewed. His research has contributed to the slogan “make love, not war” based on his
observations that bonobos use sex instead of fighting to settle high-tension situations. This is
true, but due to the fact his studies were conducted in captivity, the rates he recorded are not the
same as the natural ethology of bonobos. I would have no objection if this distinction wasn't
overlooked by the general media and had affected view the public now has of the species.
Through my brief history of primatology, I have pointed out one common flaw of each of
the aforementioned players: anthropomorphizing their research. De Waal's approach is the same,
and has even spoken out against its resistance, calling it “anthropodenial.” He offers the analogy
of a brick wall; people in anthropodenial attempt to build a brick wall separating humans from
their evolutionary ancestors. “They carry on the tradition of René Descartes, who declared that
while humans possessed souls, animals were mere automatons. This produced a serious dilemma
when Charles Darwin came along: If we descended from such automatons, were we not
automatons ourselves? If not, how did we get to be so different?” (de Waal, “Are We in

4. Hilyard 4
Anthropodenial”). According to this analogy, a brick is pulled from the wall each time one of
these questions is asked. He attributes our “anthropodenial” to parsimony, “that we must make as
few assumptions as possible when trying to construct a scientific explanation” (de Waal, “Are
We in Anthropodenial”). Personally, I agree with this idea, and liken it to the legal concept of
“innocent until proven guilty.” The reason behind a given behavior must be tested, not
immediately explained by our own reason for similar behavior. And this sort of testing has been
applied in certain circles of scientists, but isn't over yet.
Language Studies of the Great Apes
When it comes to experiments dealing with apes' abilities to learn and understand human
language, there have been a few different approaches: sign language, physical tokens with
symbols, and an asymmetric form of communication that utilizes drawn symbols. Each has its
own theoretical and methodological advantages and setbacks. The degree to which the
communication is two-way is important, as well as the ability for the ape in question to retain the
taught information.
Signing
The most famous sign language experiment has to be Koko the gorilla, who has gotten an
incredible amount of media attention over the years.
Greenberg, Joel. “Koko.” Science News 114.16 (1978): 265–270. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3963439>.
A fairly early sign language experiment was on Washoe the chimpanzee, which started in
1967.
Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrice T. Gardner. "Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee." Science

5. 165.3894 (1969): 664-672.
<http://www.psych.yorku.ca/gigi/documents/Gardner_Gardner_1969.pdf>.
Tokens
David Premack's primatology work dates back to 1954 when he joined the Yerkes
National Primate Research Center.
Premack, David. “Human and Animal Cognition: Continuity and Discontinuity.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104.35 (2007): 13861–
13867. JSTOR. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25436587.pdf>.
Premack, David. “Is Language the Key to Human Intelligence?” Science 303.5656 (2004): 318–
320. JSTOR. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3835976.pdf>.
Premack, David. "Language in chimpanzees." Science 172 (1971): 808-822.
<http://karen.stanley.people.cpcc.edu/docs%20for%20EFL%20074/Animal
%20Communication%20rev.doc>.
Symbols
The names Kanzi and Panbanisha don't elicit the same response from the general public
as Koko, but they are also well-known apes in this field. The project they are under, the Great
Ape Trust, is lead by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, whose approach is very controversial.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue et al. “The Capacity of Animals to Acquire Language: Do Species
Differences Have Anything to Say to Us?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 308.1135 (1985): 177–185. Web. 15
Feb. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2396292>.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue, and Duane M. Rumbaugh. “Ape Language Research Is Alive and
Well: A Reply.” Anthropos 77.3/4 (1982): 568–573. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/40460489.>.
Continuing Issues Within the Field
Since this paper assesses the capacity for the great apes to learn human language, it would
seem these two viewpoints, “anthropodenial” and anthropomorphization, are contradictory when
argued in the same paper. I think both aspects have their place and it is vital that they remain
separate. In terms of public perception, the de Waal camp is certainly predominant. However, if
other taxonomic studies like ornithology and ichthyology are more or less free of these concepts
that alter scientific perceptions, why can't there be a section of research carved out for

6. primatology that is ideally un-anthropomorphic?
That is probably the largest problem with these kinds of behavioral experiments,
choosing a theoretical side. Being categorized under anthropology, there is an inherent
anthropomorphic viewpoint to primatology. The extent to which you mix that with the
methodologies of “hard science” will determine what kind of primate behavior research you do,
as well as the kind of criticism you receive from both academia and the public.
Conclusion

7. Works Cited
de Waal, Frans B. M. “Are We in Anthropodenial? | DiscoverMagazine.com.” Discover
Magazine. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.
<http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jul/areweinanthropod1180>.
de Waal, Frans B. M. “The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus),
Compared to That of Chimpanzees.” Behaviour 106.3/4 (1988): 183–251. Web. 15 Feb.
2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4534707.>.
de Waal, Frans B. M. “Complementary Methods and Convergent Evidence in the Study of
Primate Social Cognition.” Behaviour 118.3/4 (1991): 297–320. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4534969>.
Fouts, Roger. "Chimpanzees And Sign Language: Darwinian Realities Versus Cartesian
Delusions." Pluralist 6.3 (2011): 19-24. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 7
Mar. 2013. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=ofm&AN=527178775&site=ehost-live>.
Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrice T. Gardner. "Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee." Science
165.3894 (1969): 664-672.
<http://www.psych.yorku.ca/gigi/documents/Gardner_Gardner_1969.pdf>.
Greenberg, Joel. “Koko.” Science News 114.16 (1978): 265–270. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3963439>.
McGrew, W. C. “New Wine in New Bottles: Prospects and Pitfalls of Cultural Primatology.”
Journal of Anthropological Research 63.2 (2007): 167–183. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371148>.
Patterson, Francine. “Review of Savage-Rumbaugh's Ape Language: From Conditioned
Response to Symbol” Man 22.2 (1987): 361–362. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2802870?origin=JSTOR-pdf>.
Premack, David. “Human and Animal Cognition: Continuity and Discontinuity.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104.35 (2007): 13861–
13867. JSTOR. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25436587.pdf>.
Premack, David. “Is Language the Key to Human Intelligence?” Science 303.5656 (2004): 318–
320. JSTOR. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3835976.pdf>.
Premack, David. "Language in chimpanzees." Science 172 (1971): 808-822.
<http://karen.stanley.people.cpcc.edu/docs%20for%20EFL%20074/Animal
%20Communication%20rev.doc>.
Rodman, P. S. “Whither Primatology? The Place of Primates in Contemporary Anthropology.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1999): 311–339. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/223397>.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue et al. “The Capacity of Animals to Acquire Language: Do Species
Differences Have Anything to Say to Us?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 308.1135 (1985): 177–185. Web. 15
Feb. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2396292>.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue, and Duane M. Rumbaugh. “Ape Language Research Is Alive and
Well: A Reply.” Anthropos 77.3/4 (1982): 568–573. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/40460489.>.