Monday 17 October 2011, 16:39
Filming for Origins gave me the opportunity to do something I've never done before: to observe our closest cousins, chimpanzees, in the wild.
Earlier this year, on 5 March, I met up with a crew I knew very well - we'd filmed before on Incredible Human Journey - in Heathrow's Terminal Five.
We flew to Entebbe in Uganda, then drove some six hours to Kibale - the famous wild chimpanzee research station.
We arrived at the research station at dusk.
We were given a very serious health and safety induction which included: how to behave if a chimpanzee charged at you (stand up tall and wave your arms); how to behave if a forest elephant headed straight for you (stand aside); how to deal with army ants (don't stand on them).
The next day, we set off around 7am, walking into the forest, up a dirt track at first.
We were led by field guide Francis, who had worked at Kibale for 19 years.
On our team, assistant producer Mags Lightbody had been there in those early years, helping to habituate the chimpanzees to human presence.
Dr Alice Roberts holds a chimpanzee at the Uganda Wildlife Education Center. Strict rules in the National Parks mean that no one ever touches a wild chimpanzee in Kibale.
Five field assistants came with us to help carry all our gear into the forest. We turned off the track, down a steep and narrow path.
The forest was dense but the paths were well-used - by animals but also researchers.
Still, there was some pushing through undergrowth and our porters carried machetes to clear awkward or dangerous branches.
The forest was wet and getting steadily warmer as the sun climbed higher above us.
I was getting steadily warmer as well, as we trekked up and down through a series of thickly forested ridges and valleys.
At the bottom of the valleys, we would find ourselves splashing through small streams, or almost getting mired in boggy patches, which had been made even boggier by elephants, their massive, round footprints forming deep puddles.
Climbing a steep slope, Francis paused and whooped loudly, and I heard an answering whoop not too far away.
He was calling to the field assistants who were already out in the forest, with the chimpanzees.
We were very close, and in fact, when he pointed to the top of a tall fig tree just over the crest of the hill, I could see movement amongst the leaves.
Leaving the porters and the bulk of our gear behind, we carried on, as a smaller team, and came across the four field assistants and postgraduate students, all armed with notebooks.
Six or seven chimpanzees were high in the tree, eating a breakfast of figs.
They lay in the crooks of forked branches, reaching out to pick the fruit, and occasionally moving to a new branch, with a rustle and a small shower of falling leaves.
After about half an hour, they started to come down from the tree, and then they were off, knuckle-walking at a fast pace through the forest, and we followed them at a discrete distance.
They didn't stay move as a group. They came down out of the tree singly, although little ones stayed close to their mothers, jumping onto their backs for a lift once on the ground.
They kept in touch with each other with occasional grunts and pant-hoots as they dispersed in the forest, but they also seemed to know where they were headed.
Francis said the fig tree was a favorite place to start the day, but they'd stop off at other trees throughout the day.
They liked eating fruit in the morning, and ate leaves on the ground in the afternoon.
There were about 1800 chimpanzees in the whole forest; the group we were tracking comprised around 50 chimps, but this was also broken up into smaller groups of 15 to 20.
And all the time, groups would be splitting and fusing, with individuals moving between groups - chimpanzee society is very dynamic.
As the chimpanzees moved between trees, they were all around us in the forest, and would often pass by very close, sometimes a metre or two away - which was both terrifying and exciting.
Francis was very aware of where the chimpanzees were around us and would warn us - "There's someone over there," he would say.
The Kibale chimpanzees aren't hunted for bushmeat, and they're never fed by the researchers in the forest, so these chimpanzees viewed humans neither as a threat nor as a source of food.
Getting so close to the chimpanzees whilst they effectively ignored us was a huge privilege.
They were behaving naturally, just getting on with chimpanzee things, whilst we watched them.
Observing chimpanzees in this way is valuable and fascinating in its own right, but it also helps us understand ourselves.
We start to see where the real similarities and differences lie, we can identify the things about humans that are truly unique, when we compare ourselves with our ape cousins - with whom we have a common ancestor, going back some six to seven million years ago.
We had a good day's filming; cameraman Paul Jenkins was delighted that he'd been able to capture so much footage of the chimpanzees.
So, while it was still light, we started to head back to the research station.
We may only have been about a mile away from the compound, as the crow flies, but it took about an hour and a half to get in and out of the forest.
We were all happily tired at the end of the day, and settled down for a well-earned beer and a hot supper.
Going to bed early, I made sure that my mosquito net was safely tucked in under the mattress, and listened to the sounds of the forest again as I dropped off.
We'd be back in the forest again in the morning.
Dr Alice Roberts is the presenter of Origins Of Us.
Origins Of Us starts on BBC Two on Monday, 17 October at 9pm.
For further programme times, please visit the upcoming episodes page.
Comments made by writers on the BBC TV blog are their own opinions and not necessarily those of the BBC.
All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.
Thursday 6 October 2011, 14:00
Wednesday 19 October 2011, 10:45
Get the views of cast, presenters, scriptwriters and crew from inside the shows. Read reviews and opinions and share yours on all things TV - your favourite episodes, live programmes, the schedule and everything else.
Comments on the blog must follow the House Rules.
Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.
Subscribe using:
"A hope that one day you’ll just slide through time"
Philippa Gregory on translating history into novels and television
BBC One | BBC Two | BBC Three | BBC Four | Actors | Actresses | Arts & Culture | Comedy | Current Affairs | Directors | Documentary | Drama | Food | Health | History | Music | Nature | Science | Sport | Presenters | Producers | Writers | More tags...
Comment number 1.
Recourse17th October 2011 - 23:02
I tried to watch this program and I couldn't. It started all wrong. What we need to know is where the apes came from i.e. the origin/beginning of things. Either scientists admit that they don't know, that God exists and he created the universe. Your version of human evolution is not going to repair the damage caused by scientists that black people are apes, the insults which you are aware of. You will still have to explain how the different races, languages came about, ended in specific places. Unfortunately contrary to scientific belief the bible answers this simply and clearly whereas science does not have a simple and straightforward explanation/starting point. Its all about fossils, dna, genes
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
Recourse17th October 2011 - 23:18
All white people in Africa came from Europe if they knew that they originated from the dark continent they would know it whereas the bible traces everybody clearly from Israel how they split up and ended up where they are now. I am not a religious fanatic but it makes sense to me and unless scientist offer something more believable I'm sticking by it. There are bound to be similarities between humans and animals but it does not mean that we came from them. I think scientists must despise the human race to think so low of them.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
Jan17th October 2011 - 23:28
Interesting to hear how the different parts of the body are different from those considered our nearest relative, so I felt I did learn something interesting and useful. However, I was disappointed, although not surprised, that the Aquatic Ape theory is ignored and simply covers the Savannah theory. Of course it is very difficult to cover all the questions we are likely to raise and there are so many different theories. Would like to see a programme covering some of the alternative theories though. As always, good try BBC!
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
Gearoid17th October 2011 - 23:39
Lizzie I'm afraid the problem appears to be as you say: "I tried to watch this program and I couldn't."
Lizzie, I would implore to actually watch a lot more of these programs - the cosmos, evolution of the earth, evolution/extinction of species on it. It's fascinating stuff and, most importantly, backed up by lots of evidence that makes it factual. So much evidence that it would be impossible to demonstrate it in just one one-hour documentary. It's far more inspiring than the evolution of an idea over 2,000-4,000 years that came from the minds of influential spiritual leaders / prophets - ideas that have been reshaped, segregated and contradicted themselves over that very short time in human history.
Unfortunately none of this evolution evidence was available 2,000 years when humans became evermore inquisitive about the stars above, the world around them and how they came to be. They needed answers as much then as we do now but today the answers are far more convincing and proven. The most exciting part is we can always add to that and there's more yet to be learned.
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
Alan18th October 2011 - 0:09
Now I’ve watched the programme. I do not mean to be disrespectful and have appreciated where science was presented as science however please allow me to express my problems in understanding. It seems that we started to run and therefore developed the necessary physical characteristics to run and because animals such as lions were around in our Savannah environment at the time we needed sweat glands so that we could endurance run so we developed sweat glands which enabled us to outrun the lions and so we survived (then why was Dr Roberts afraid as she walked in the Savannah?). Then we started to use tools so we developed thumbs that could grip - so that we could use tools. All this twisted logic and leaps of faith and way- out conclusions of what happened without even a hint of being able to explain the mechanism by which we made such changes take place! Would this not have involved impossibly dramatic changes in our DNA? The excuse that “it took millions of years” still does not explain the mechanism. Then we only saw a handful of remains - compared with the millions that should have been found by now exhibiting the claimed self-motivated gradual changes to our present form. Were it not so sad it would be comical. Some scientific answers please Dr Roberts, not pure conjecture – or be honest and humbly accept that we are fearfully and wonderfully made!
Comment prior to watching:
Whilst I enjoy the variety and general production quality of BBC science and nature programmes I feel it necessar,y in the interests of fair representation
and truth, to comment on an underlying and unwarranted bias.
Comment prior to screeing:
As I write "Origins of Us" has not yet been screened but, based on the annotated picture of a skeleton on p39 of the radio times, I anticipate a continuation
of the BBCs rigid support of those who, in the name of science, claim evolution as fact rather than as a theory.
In the picture, similarities in skeletal structure are taken as reasons for jumping to massive conclusions. A time period of 2 million years
since "our ancestors Homo erectus" is quoted. Since we have presumably found the remains of Homo erectus then presumably we have also dug up millions
of remains which clearly prove that the gradual changes claimed to have taken place have indeed done so. If this is not the case, then presumably the possibility has been proven by
scientific demonstration. If neither are true then it can only be claimed as a theory - and a very tenuous one at that!
This bias is not without implications and hence responsibility. The theory of evolution ultimately leads to a lack of absolutes, moral chaos and a meaningless existence.
It would appear that the BBC chooses to ignore that body in the scientific community which recognises that the beauty and complexity of nature are not the highly unlikely
product of chance but point to a creator and hence the opportunity for finding true meaning in life.
Are you willing to present the other side and recognise the right of licence holders to unbiased programming?
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 53