Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NEANDERTHAL
DAWN.
ARCHAEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 2012
2
NEANDERTHAL DAWN.
CHAPTER ONE.
Much has been written and filmed about the early apes and the first human,
reputations made and lost, fraud, and ego going hand in hand and those who
work in the field of archaeology, scratch or shake their heads at such going
skulduggery, but brave as they are, even foolhardy they struggle on seeking
Thirty years of research, notes scribbled here and there, papers have finished
or not at all I still seek, I find and now I put it all together as my research here.
things, three that are important to me; The study of archaeology is life though
I look at the dead and rattle bones, history often repeats itself and the human
hidden bones and clues to early man like the Neanderthals who led us into
This research starts with the dawn of the Neanderthal but must also
3
in passing deal with those great pretenders, the early upright apes who many
call Homo and yet cannot claim that they were or are human but some still do.
Neanderthal man is like a salmon coming back to the river where it was first
an egg in gravel, then a fry followed as a fingerling and migrated to the sea for
years and turned silver then became known as the fish of knowledge. The
man, the first, keeps coming back like the salmon of knowledge but not living
just to haunt us and is little more now than a wisp of wood smoke.
That is what happens when your mind is left open because no matter what
else you have been doing over the years the seed of early humans has been
planted and you keep going back to it, looking at it finding out more, deleting
rechecking and that is what I have done over the years. It may come to
nothing or little but it has opened doors into the world of early humans and de-
cluttering the mind of this researcher. Now all that is left to do is write it up
and from there when and if it gets finished what to do with it.
4
PART ONE.
What is it with archaeology and bones that in the past causes so many
debates, some very heated on the subject of bones of past apes, ape men
and the first humans? It is not a question that can be easy answered because
there are two sides, or two answers to it and maybe as this research of mine
will show both wrong because of dating and interpretation of the subject.
There is in my mind and my own opinion that the walking apes of Africa in the
past were not and never were 'human' until the time of the coming of the
Neanderthals and it is at this stage that the change took place, not through
the well-known and broadcast opinions of experts but because the human
beings from that time to now are the result of mutations caused by some
Thirty years of study and research has brought me to this final conclusion.
What has been put forward in the past on early upright apes, the research
into their bones and the thousands of books and papers written on that
It was not in any way a useless study because it did for the most give us a
better understanding in the evolution of apes which I should point out stopped
This research does not just look at Early Humans as humans but as I
the supporting evidence there is little point in going back further in history like
Zing above or other apes. They will of course be mentioned from time to time
but only in passing. What moved out of Africa at two points was not apes
though some of the upright apes did migrate long distances but never went
and advanced culture of Homo and it was much later that Cro-Magnon and
the Neanderthals crossed paths even for a time living almost side by side.
Then something went wrong and the Neanderthals died out either by disease
or killed off.
What I discovered about past research that in many areas of humans data
there is a lot of science jargon but little wisdom involved and each paper
written is repetitive.
That is because most of other peoples research is in fact copied from others
and no field work done that would at least present some evidence that would
stand up without it being 30 thousand years each side of the recorded data by
progress is a very long time which to be left in the dark of what happened how
many years later but both thinking humans rather than apes with sticks and
stones in Africa.
What therefore migrated out of Africa by two suggested routes were apes,
followed by some Neanderthals, a small group in fact and Cro-Magnon did not
come from Africa though I will suggest and of the opinion that some small
Cro-Magnon where they did show up came from the NE of Europe which
leaves the question still unanswered today where in Europe or Asia did they
come and why if they are being linked to early humans why were they hairless?
Old bones and skulls will only give part of the answer but without background
research of a site and area that is all you have in the long run, old bones that
can be dated sometimes yet no evidence looked for or found of who this tribe
As a child in Ireland my first reaction of seeing a black man in1948 was that
he was from Africa and a good friend of Tarzan the Ape Man and when I was
told that he did in fact come from some islands of South America and his
family in the past may have come from Africa but as slaves I was more than
disappointed. Later when I was told another man came from India I was again
disappointed because he did not look like any Indian I seen in the cinema and
wore not a single feather in his hair and did not carry an axe or bow and arrow.
7
For a boy such events were indeed rare but always ended up as a wet squib
and put out of the mind quickly as other things took over.
Without knowing it at the time, the seeds had been sown and my interest in
I therefore plough on, research and re-research and make some journeys to
CHAPTER TWO
to early apes and early humans most deal with what others have found in the
way of bones and of course naming such a find at a named site. Their finds
for the most deal with the apes classified by some as Homo meaning
Hominid genus which it is said that Humans belong. Early apes were never
human so the name Homo is misleading and wrong and because an ape
stands upright, face and neck forward of the spine, uses stone tools, like a
world which runs from as far East in, Asia Teshik Tash, NW to Denmark,
Norway and Sweden, SW to Morocco and a thin belt of North Africa taking in
the Mediterranean Sea, SE to the Persian Gulf. Therefore included within the
boundary are the countries of Italy, Israel, Crimea, France, Germany, Croatia,
I call this the Research Project Areas or RPA to keep it simple for the reader
Forty years of start and stop research, scribbled notes, hidden notebooks,
scribbles and drawings, marked text in old books, maps and field research in
Borneo, and India, Museum and University visits and last but not least,
computer research all massed a wealth of material chaff that had to be sorted.
Sorted it now is and the research project is the result. I have named it for
reference as ;
BONES OF CONTENTION PROJECT 2012 and for good reason as you will
see.
Homo species mentioned by others and their dates suggested as well as early
9
Apes because to do so would take away the main points of my own research
for debate on my and other findings over the last forty years.
The forensics within this research (2011/2012 may not always agree with
others in the same field but at least I hope it will give food for thought that
for fiction in field archaeology and less so when it comes down to dating of
bones and bone fragments and looking at the dating of the past of such in
some cases it does suggest guesswork of the worse kind along with slap
published in scientific journals and magazines to help build the human ego.
In my research this is not the case because I dont need approval or praise
from others much younger than me. What I do need and except for this
research and points made where I may have gone down the wrong track.
Research into the Neanderthals will of course continue by others long after I
evidence into the human Neanderthal then I will feel that after many years I
APES.
FAMILY; Oreopithecidae
10
Apidium 30 mya
Oreopithecus 30 mya
Pongidae.
limnopithecus.
Aegyptopithecus 30 mya
Africa
(Includes; Sivapithecus,Proconsul,Bramapithecus.)
Gorilla, Recent.
Hominidae.
( Includes Kenyapithecus)
(Includes Paranthropus,Plesianthropus.)
Homo.
NOTE;
To the layperson the above data presented by Young may mean little or
nothing except for the mention of Orang-utan, chimpanzee, gorilla and Man
11
which can be identified with as known yet to many others the jumble of
there could well be many more discoveries there. I am of the opinion still after
seeing a small female nude in the rainforests of Borneo a few years back that
The skulls above show the small size compared with a skull of resent past
history and it is not of a child but full adult, more than likely and aged person
as shown below. The female I seen and have had reports on when I was back
She was not alone judging for later reports and local Borneo tribes did still talk
about them and were I felt staying well away from the areas that they may
The other problem I have with this is that I always did feel that there were two
or even three different stages of human progress in all parts of the world
rather than just the one that was always being pushed towards Africa as the
I do agree that Africa had ape like creatures that may well have progressed
towards an evolution path but not human but I disagree strongly that this was
Asia and South East Asia is I feel a major source of human kind and more
The human apes died away as did some aspects of early man but the small
tribes in Asia were still around 300 years ago and also in the rainforests of
Borneo, a few groups still remain, for the moment untouched by western
12
minds and thinking but there at the sources of many of the rivers. Missing
Tribes is not a Myth. It is a fact though in some cases reported the evidence is
The rainforests of Borneo are for the most still hidden from public gaze in
most of the areas. They are hard to get into and most of the time travel by
boat is the only highway to even get to the edge of the wilder and remote
parts of it. Once you are inland from the coast you do enter a world of
rainforest, high moist temperatures, rain most days with a thunder storm
thrown in just for the fun of it, leeches which can be found almost everywhere
even away from the rivers and streams, crocodiles that can and will eat you if
given the chance, all types of bats and snakes, and plants that cure or kill.
materials, fresh water in the side streams is plentiful and if you want to live a
life well away from other more advanced tribes such as those on the coast,
you can lose yourself and never have to worry about being found if you dont
want to. The KG Walau area is a good example of this if you move west and
the TAWI TAWI groups of islands because these people could and did move
I am talking here about four or more Pigmy Races of Tribal peoples who were
located in and around Borneo and other Islands and though a few tribes will
have died out or killed off, there will be still survivors and genetic links to be
found. There will also be bones somewhere and the real possibility of DNA
extraction from these to match with other samples from living tribes.
tribal intuitions. There would also need to be up front funding over a few years
borders and into the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia, mainly by the
to be recruited and work on results fast because of the rainy seasons. Local
people would need to be involved from the beginning and from local tribes.
Without their involvement the project would not get off the ground and
therefore fail.
My last trip in 2004 involved an 18-hour flight from the UK to Sabah, a boat
ride and a lot of walking. You gain more information from tribal elders than
you will from any local city resource unless it deals directly with archaeology.
Books of the area are useful to a point but communications with elders is
more useful.
Many of the tribes in Borneo that are known, were and in some areas still are,
fond of removing the head of anyone who offends them and I have seen
skulls that belonged to invaders from Japan in long houses. Other skulls were
passed down over the years and this includes a number of skulls of people
from the west going back around 200 years + If present day skulls were taken
from Westerners, France, Spain, Europe and the UK then they must be well
hidden but I have no doubt at least a few men have lost their heads over local
tribal women!
My own research into small people and that includes the medical condition of
Dwarfism, showed that the medical condition is totally separate from small
tribal men and women. On looking at tribal similarities in the Asia area I came
up with skull sizes and features but with no loss of human intelligent even
14
though the brain of the human remains found in Asia was small by modern
standards.
Small people in a number of tribes in Africa and SE Asia are known but what
is not known at the moment is what tribes and links are still to be found in
link between them and the pygmy tribes of Africa. To get to Africa they would
have to go by raft or small boat over vast areas of open sea and vice versa.
hopping east and SE then in time they would reach the west coasts of South
America. I feel that this was the case of some of the tribal groups in the
Amazon areas.
Yanomami. Jivaro.
Let us look at Borneo and the blowpipe and dart use. In my own observations
the blowpipe is a useful and deadly weapon in the right hands, the poison on
the darts is quick acting when it hits the prey and this poison is obtained from
a tree bark and other vines of the same species off tree.
The groups in South America are the same and their poison works in the
same way.
The blowpipe is shaped and made as in Borneo and there is no way that the
making and use of a blowpipe here was a matter of luck in its design. It had to
be passed on and the only way that could happen is by contact within the two
Proof of this would require DNA testing in all groups and the remains of past
humans in such groups but I am sure that there will be evidence of inherited
traits in both groups though they live thousands of miles apart with the Pacific
Though there may well now be a spoken language barrier between the Asia
spoken language and again the only way to test this is to take a member of
one group and place them with another to see how well communication works.
I know that many will disagree with these findings but until they come up with
a much better theory then we all need to act in conserving the tribes of small
people and of course their remains. What they dont need is religion brought
NOTE.
That in fact is one of the many questions in my research when it comes to the
Neanderthals because the human race today and more so the educated
well aware of such and is I believe doing its best to find solutions of enforced
tribal relocations while some countries, including the USA and the UK make
noises but do little to help sort out this official genocide which is taking place
even as I write.
If there is oil, timber, gold, silver and many other materials that would make a
company rich or a country better off than jungle and forest habitats, so be it
because to them it means little. Great amounts of hard cash finds a way into
the hands of officials to pave the road into tribal areas, to bribe tribal elders
and to hire protection for work groups who are intent on taking the land, what
CHAPTER THREE
This research Project ( DATA RED CODEX 2011) has now been updated in
2011 and though changes have been made to my files folders and research
work over thirty years I am still of the opinion that early apes were not early
humans as so often put forward as fact. We know much about early apes,
very little about early humans and nothing at all about how it all came about
except the word Evolution is the word used to explain everything and yet
I have now included some of the research carried out by others so that at
least some sort of intelligent debate can restart, something that has been
lacking in archaeology writing for many years now. My opinion, with evidence,
is that an early ape is just that, not in anyway, 'human' or for that matter
17
progressed into human form. They were stand up apes that used tools but the
true humans as now known, were the result of genetic and gene mutations.
Apes today still used tools at times but they have not moved forwards as
much as humans have and this on its own is a good indicator that if humans
and apes were linked then apes today should be able to speak in a language,
write, draw, play music, plant a crop and tend it. There is no evidence
anywhere that early apes or today's apes were into crop growing or farming,
history.
of humans but no such evidence for pre-history apes even today. By that I
mean 'organised' agriculture and not a ape burying fruit or fruit seeds in their
natural habitat.
There has been much debate about skull and brain size in the cases of early
large skull and brain as we know, or should, does not mean a high IQ if many
This should also be applied to all bones discovered along with the skull.
different age groups and through the growth stage process; a fixed point is
therefore established.
A common one is the line connecting the anterior midpoint of the foremen
magnum, the hole that is large where the spinal cord exits the skull, to the
From here all other measures are taken from this point to other anatomical
19
points on the FACE and BRAINCASE. The spot on the mid line between the
display the results a trace of profiles of all skulls known are aligned on a
registration plane. Therefore a classic image shows the skull as onion, with
the younger and smaller skull profiles contained within the older and larger
ones.
This Homo Sapiens Neanderthal is the main part of all my research and I still
feel, with confidence that new finds could be made in the caves of Borneo and
which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of
Hominidae which includes the great apes.) Hominids are included in the
superfamily of all apes, the Hominidae, the members of which are called
hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the
The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to
ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus,
fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the
orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common
20
ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago,
and probably in the lower end of that range (Lewin, 1987). Ramapithecus
The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as
(the study of ancient life forms) and anthropology (the study of humans).
Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record
except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name
lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity.
Ardipithecus ramidus
al.1994; Wood, 1994). It is the oldest known hominid species, dated at 4.4
million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests
that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm
(4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A.
afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth
more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus
indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause modification
of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link
21
discovered a skeleton which is 45% complete, but have not yet published on
it.)
Australopithecus anamensis
This species was only named in August 1995. The material consists of 9
fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly
teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al.1995). Anamensis
existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive
features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws
are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the
two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedalism, and a lower humerus
(the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and
skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.
Australopithecus afarensis
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an
apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and
no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity
varied from about 375 to 500 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee,
except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than
those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans,
and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the
parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more
closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were
Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were
22
Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and
toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands
are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Some
scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to
likely in my opinion that this species did both and there is no room for
doubting that. A nest or bed built off the ground at night would be good
Australopithecus africanus
afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size
may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a
little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not
advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little
bigger than in afarensis, the front teeth a little smaller. Although the teeth and
jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more
similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). The
shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the
as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than
modern humans.
23
Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is
known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker,
and a couple of other lower jaw specimens which may belong to the same
mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410
cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive,
face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known
sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles
attach.)
Australopithecus robustus
A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more
robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The
massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has
relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw.
Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse,
tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530
cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have
A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to
robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some
about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the
same species.
Homo habilis
with him. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very
projects less, and the back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than
in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger
than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc,
overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and Homo erectus at the
high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area,
essential for speech, is visible in habilis brain casts, and indicates it was
Habilis has been a controversial species. Some scientists have not accepted
it, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the
Homo erectus
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis,
the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and
a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early
25
erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of
about 1100 cc (Leakey, 1994). Some Asian erectus skulls have a sagittal
crest. The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying
greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender,
like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of
Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy
skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than
modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of
australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and
is found through Africa and Asia (and was probably in Europe, but no
unambiguous skeletal remains are known from there). Evidence from the
Peking Man site in China indicates that erectus used fire, and their stone tools
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The
term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo
erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and
smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is
more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust
than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large
brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line
between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000
and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
Neanderthal man existed between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. The
26
average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450
cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case
however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked
bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and
receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The mid facial area also
adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern
humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and
of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neanderthals mostly lived in cold climates,
peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men reached about 168 cm (5'6") in
height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle
standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A
large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than
those of Homo erectus. Neandertals are the first people known to have buried
their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old.
Neandertals are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western
European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes
1979)
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago. Modern
humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises
sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is
27
prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the
more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and
antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and
sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of
cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey, 1994)
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller
molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth
of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust
than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to
30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are
more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those
areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time.
This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the
This diagram shows roughly the times during which each hominid species
lived. Ages are in millions of years, with each character position representing
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | |
| | A.robustus ****** | |
28
| | A.boisei ***********| |
| A.aethiopicus **** | | |
| | | | | |
A.ramidus * | | | | |
A.anamensis **** | | | |
A.afarensis ********** | | |
| A.africanus *********** | |
| | | | | |
| | H.habilis ********** | |
| | | H.erectus **************** |
| | | | Neandertals *|
| | | | modern H.sapiens **
| | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic
reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard
The list is sorted by species, going from older to more recent species. Within
Each entry will consist of a specimen number if known (or the site name, if
many fossils were found in one place), any nicknames in quotes, and a
species name. The species name will be followed by a '?' if suspect. If the
fossil was originally placed in a different species, that name will also be given.
The following terminology is used. A skull refers to all the bones of the head.
A cranium is a skull minus the lower jaw. A braincase is the cranium minus
the face and upper jaw. A skullcap is the top portion of the braincase.
KP Kanapoi, Kenya
TM Transvaal Museum
Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Bernard Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994)
in 1992 and 1993 at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years.
The find consist of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but
there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and arm
ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single
30
Howells, 1967). This is a worn fragment of a lower left humerus which is about
with all its teeth which is about 4.15 million years old.
missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.0 million years old. It
Australopithecus afarensis
Edey, 1981; Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million
years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete knee
an adult.
Edey, 1981; Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.2 million
years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton
was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to
have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species)
(Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find
specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they
species of Homo. If this was the case then this so called primitive species
should also have turned up elsewhere and of course named. In this case I am
of the opinion that there is not enough evidence, yet, and this should be
looked for
The trail consists of the fossilized footprints of two or three bipedal hominids.
Their size and stride length indicate that they were about 140 cm (4'8") and
120 cm (4'0") tall. Many scientists claim that the footprints are effectively
identical to those of modern humans (Tattersall, 1993; Feder and Park, 1989),
while others claim the big toes diverged slightly (like apes) and that the toe
lengths are longer than humans but shorter than in apes (Burenhult, 1993).
species is known from that time. I suggest that it may well not have been A.
afarensis prints because we are still in the dark of what else in the form of
apes, were around in the same time line as suggested by others and that the
Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Kimbel
large adult male, easily the most complete afarensis skull known. According to
its finders, it strengthens the case that all the First Family fossils were
and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually
dimorphic hominoids.
The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endo-cranial cast of
the brain. It is probably between 2.5 and 3.0 million years old, but it and most
other South African fossils are found in cave deposits that are difficult to date.
The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it
is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that
the Taung child was about 3). The brain size was 410 cc, and would have
been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded brain, canine teeth which
were small and not apelike, and the position of the foramen magnum(*)
convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named
until the mid- 1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils.
(*) Anatomical digression: the foramen magnum is the hole in the skull
through which the spinal cord passes. In apes, it is towards the back of the
female, but there have been recent claims that it could be male. It is the best
Estimated age is about 2.5 million years. This find consisted of a nearly
complete vertebral column, pelvis, some rib fragments, and part of a femur of
a very small adult female. The pelvis is far more human than apelike, and is
strong evidence that africanus was bipedal (Brace et al.1979), although it may
not have had the strong striding gait of modern humans (Burenhult, 1993).
age is 2.5 million years. This find is an intact, almost complete cranium. The
brain size is very small for a hominid, about 410 cc, and the skull has a
puzzling mixture of primitive and advanced features. (Leakey and Lewin, 1992)
1938). It consisted of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal
with a brain size is about 530 cc. This was the first specimen of this species.
Louis Leakey briefly considered this a human ancestor, but the claim was
Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1969 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. This find
was a complete, intact cranium lacking only the teeth (Lewin, 1987).
Estimated age is about 1.7 million years. The brain size is about 510 cc. (see
also ER3733
such as the lack of a sagittal crest. The estimated age is about 1.7 million
years. The brain size is about 500 cc. Most experts believe this is a case of
sexual dimorphism, with the female being smaller than the male.
Homo Hablis.
and a few hand bones. Estimated age is 1.9 million years, and the
for the back of the heel and the tips of the toes. Estimated age is about
35
1.8 million years. The foot bones had most of the adaptations to
arch, and the big toe is alongside the other toes instead of diverging, as
of the upper jaw and a cranial fragment. Estimated age is 1.7 million
cattle before he could be excavated, and much of his skull was lost).
Estimated age is 1.7 million years, and the brain size was about 640 cc.
consisted of a badly crushed skull and seven teeth. It is about 1.8 million
1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis
skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at
nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time
it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had
supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin,
1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The skull is surprisingly
modern in some respects. The braincase is much larger and less robust than
any australopithecine skull, and is also without the large brow ridges typical of
Homo erectus. It is however very robust in the face. A number of leg bones
36
were found within a couple of kilometres, and are thought to probably belong
complete left femur, both ends of a left tibia and the lower end of a left fibula
(the smaller of the two lower leg bones). These are quite similar to the bones
of modern humans.
Estimated age is 1.85 million years. This find consisted of much of a heavily
built cranium containing many teeth. Its brain size is about 600 cc. Some
features, such as the sagittal crest, are typical of A. boisei, but the teeth are
too small for that species. (Willis, 1989; Day, 1986) Various workers have
This specimen is similar to 1470, but is much smaller, with a brain size of 510
cc. Estimated age is 1.8-1.9 million years. Some scientists believe this a case
australopithecine. Like the previous skull, 1805, this one is in the "Suspense
and Shreeve, 1989; Johanson et al.1987). Estimated age is 1.8 million years.
The find consisted of portions of skull, arm, leg bones and teeth. Almost all
the features of the skull closely resemble habilis fossils such as OH 24, ER
37
1813 and ER 1470, rather than the australopithecines. But the estimated
height is very small, maybe about 105 cm (3'5"), and the arms are very long in
proportion to the legs. These are australopithecine traits, and in fact the
skeletal bones are very similar to those of Lucy. This find is significant
because it is the only fossil in which limb bones have been securely assigned
to habilis. Because of the small size, this was almost certainly a female. As
Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain,
but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick
skullcap, a few teeth (which may belong to orang- utans), and a femur found
about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc.
Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur
is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this.
Estimated age is between 400,000 and 700,000 years. This find consisted of
a lower jaw with a receding chin and all its teeth. The jaw is extremely large
and robust, like that of Homo erectus, but the teeth are at the small end of the
erectus range. It is therefore identified as erectus on the basis of its age, but
Between 1929 and 1937, 14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth,
some skeletal bones and large numbers of stone tools were discovered in the
Lower Cave at Locality 1 of the Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing,
Upper Cave in 1933.) The most complete fossils, all of which were braincases
or skullcaps, are:
Skulls LI, LII and LIII were discovered at Locus L in 1936. They are
Skull 5: two cranial fragments were discovered in 1966 which fit with
(casts of) two other fragments found in 1934 and 1936 to form most of
more modern than the other skullcaps. (Jia and Huang, 1990)
Most of the study on these fossils was done by Davidson Black until his death
in 1934. Franz Weidenreich replaced him and studied the fossils until leaving
China in 1941. The original fossils disappeared in 1941 while being shipped to
the United States for safety during World War II, but excellent casts and
descriptions remain. Since the war, other erectus fossils have been found at
to but less complete than OH 9, and smaller, with an estimated brain size of
only 750 cc. It is estimated to be between 600,000 and 800,000 years old.
consists of an almost complete cranium, with a brain size of about 1000 cc. It
is the most complete erectus find from Java. This skull is very robust, with a
slightly projecting face and huge flaring cheekbones. It has been thought to be
about 800,000 years old, but a recent dating has given a much older figure of
nearly 1.7 million years. If the older date is correct, it means Homo erectus
age is 1.7 million years. This superb find consisted of an almost complete
cranium. The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is similar to some
of the Peking Man fossils. The discovery of this fossil in the same stratum as
ER 406 (A. boisei) delivered the coup de grace to the single species
hypothesis: the idea that there has never been more than one hominid
Kenya (Brown et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993).
major omissions being the hands and feet. (Some scientists believe erectus
matured faster than modern humans, and that he was really about 9 years old
erectus, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was
40
880 cc, and it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood. The
boy was 160 cm (5'3") tall, and would have been about 185 cm (6'1") as an
adult. This is surprisingly tall, indicating that many erectus may have been as
large as modern humans. Except for the skull, the skeleton is very similar to
Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward, 1921). This was a complete cranium that was
very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is
erectus, and also has some Neanderthal characteristics. The brain size is
1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with
part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones. The lower left
arm had been broken in life, and as a result the bones of the left arm were
smaller than those of the right. Fuhlrott recognized it as a primitive human, but
Shipman, 1992)
41
(There were actually two earlier Neanderthal finds. A partial cranium of a 2.5
year old child found in 1829 in Belgium was not recognized until 1936. An
Spee) d'Orneau in Belgium. Estimated age is about 60,000 years. This find
skeletons established that they were very old, and largely discredited the idea
Croatia. This site yielded significant remains from two to three dozen
individuals, and teeth and jaw fragments from dozens more. When Gorjanovic
published on his finds in 1906, it confirmed for once and for all that
Saints in France. It is about 50,000 years old, with a brain size of 1620 cc.
the fossil, popularizing the stereotype, which would last for decades, of a
stooping ape-man shuffling along on bent knees. This specimen was between
about 30 and 40 when he died, but had a healed broken rib, severe arthritis of
the hip, lower neck, back and shoulders, and had lost most of his molar teeth.
The fact that he survived as long as he did indicates that Neandertals must
42
the Shanidar cave in Iraq. They are thought to be between 70,000 and 40,000
years old. One of them, Shanidar 4, had apparently been buried with offerings
complete, with only the back of the cranium missing. It is dated at about
35,000 years old, and is the most recent Neanderthal known. This find was of
special interest because it was found with tools that had previously only been
associated with the Cro-Magnon culture, instead of the usual Neanderthal tool
kit.
28,000 years. The site yielded skeletons of about half a dozen individuals,
along with stone tools, carved reindeer antlers, ivory pendants, and shells.
The Cro-Magnons lived in Europe between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago.
They are almost identical to modern man, being tall and muscular and slightly
more robust than most modern humans. They were skilled hunters,
toolmakers and artists famous for the cave art at places such as Lascaux.
Alternative Taxonomies
The above list has used a fairly conservative naming system. Recently a
43
Many people are now using the genus name Paranthropus, originally given to
aethiopicus). This change makes sense if all these species form a clade (all of
the species descended from a common ancestor) but it is not yet known if this
1470 and some similar fossils. The smaller habilis-like specimens such as ER
Some scientists have also proposed splitting Homo erectus. The Turkana Boy
and 3733 fossils would then become Homo ergaster (Tattersall, 1993). H.
erectus would have a larger average brain size than ergaster, and the brow
ridges may have a different shape, flaring out to the side more (Burenhult,
1993).
It has also been proposed that the names Homo heidelbergensis and Homo
There are a number of other recent discoveries which may change current
780,000 years, would be the oldest European hominids, but it is not yet
44
New finds in Spain and Croatia suggest that Neandertals may have
years ago.
Four australopithecine foot bones dated at around 3.5 million years are
the oldest hominid fossils yet found in South Africa. They seem to be
human features.
Summary
There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor
tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines
between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early
Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern
sapiens.
Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone
are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether
anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on
from Homo habilis, but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the
45
specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens. The problem with this I found
that many researchers past over the Neanderthal era to quickly and more in
depth research is needed including DNA sampling from across Europe and
into Asia.
The usual creationist response to these fossils is to claim that there are no
some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range,
heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a
projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike
teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some
This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other
hand, creationism was true, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into
humans and apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where
to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is
placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more
similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.
In 1950, Wilfred Le Gros Clark published a paper which definitively settled the
morphological study (based on the shape and function) of teeth and jaws,
since these formed most of the fossil evidence. By studying human and
modern ape fossils, Le Gros Clark came up with a list of eleven consistent
(the only australopithecine species then known), he found that they were
possibly closer to the apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). White et al. (1994)
did not judge A. ramidus by these criteria, but it is clear that ramidus is even
more chimpanzee-like than afarensis. The ramidus arm bones also display a
debate in the 50's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else
(Johanson and Edey, 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they
closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et
fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe
the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects
which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not.
many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate
that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.
perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other
scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states
47
that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough,
but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and
assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to
This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's
two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of
Sivapithecus.
Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding,
as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the
human manner".
"Australopithecine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk
upright."
have been knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the
of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, and A.
afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards,
Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been discredited. In what is
who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey
soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that
Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox
opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis
australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987)
Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He
quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike
the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy
afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well
adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By
contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly
adapted to bipedality, while the hands and wrists show no adaptations to any
Gish writes as if showing that A. afarensis did not "walk upright in the human
bipedality; that final step could have occurred later. As Stern and Susman
(1983) state:
appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road
are about the only exceptions). "Certain clues suggested" doesn't mention
that the whole find screamed "bipedality" to every qualified scientist who
looked at it. "a little more erect", when everyone believes that Lucy was fully
erect. "the partial hip bone and a knee bone", when Lucy included almost a
complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the
denies that Lucy was bipedal. The debates are about whether she was also
arboreal, and about how similar the biomechanics of her locomotion was to
that of humans. Given that we have most of Lucy's leg and pelvis, one has to
australopithecine bipedality.
To support the idea that australopithecines are just apes, Parker says:
"In their critique of the Leakeys, Johanson and White (1980) noted:
1982)
Parker has taken their quote out of context in a way that almost reverses its
meaning. Leakey did not call A. africanus a chimp, nor did Johanson and
White accuse him of doing so. They criticized Leakey's definition because it
was imprecise enough to also include chimps. Of course, such a criticism only
that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at
two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two
51
separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact
that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey, 1981) has photos of both fossils:
AL129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This
was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who
had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop a number of other
foramen magnum at the bottom of the skull. Gish (1985) criticizes Dart's
reasoning that the Taung baby walked upright, based on the position of its
foramen magnum. Gish correctly states that the position of the foramen
magnum is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it
moves backwards during growth), and concludes that Dart was unjustified in
analyzing this feature on a juvenile skull. This is the same criticism that Dart
originally faced from scientists, but Gish fails to mention that later evidence
Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that "[Dart]
pointed out the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some
features of the skull, and particularly of the teeth, were man-like". (Note the
misleading implication that the apelike features really exist, while the
pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish
does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them
and human teeth. When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly
accepted.
habilis fossils are never analysed, but the few creationists who do mention
The skull ER1471 was discovered in 1972, and publicized as both amazingly
seized on the statement of Richard Leakey, its discoverer, that 1470 "wipes
out everything we have been taught about human evolution [this proved to be
wrong], and I have nothing to offer in its place". Creationists sometimes give
the impression that it is a modern human skull. But despite some modern
750 cc. Gish (1979) points out its small size, but states that its age and sex
are unknown, presumably seeking to imply that it might belong to a child. That
1470's face is very robust, and as large as that of a modern Cro-Magnon skull,
despite a much smaller brain size, and the cranium has a markedly different
often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject larger-brained
to have reversed that opinion, and was suggesting that it should be placed in
the genus Australopithecus (as have some scientists). His reasoning for this is
that another habilis fossil OH 8 a set of foot bones) had been claimed by
used to justify placing all habilis fossils, including 1470, into the
determining 1470's status. Gish implies that his earlier evaluation of 1470 was
Gish based his earlier opinion were published as early as 1973. Gish gives no
new information about 1470 that would justify reclassifying it from a human to
an ape.
If 1470 was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far
larger than that of any ape, with the exception of a few very large male gorillas.
The braincase is far more rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the
Cronin et al.(1981) list nine features of 1470 which are either shared with A.
include another section from the same paragraph listing other features of
is not intermediate between human and ape, yet one of them thinks it an ape,
Homo, but the maxilla [upper jaw] and facial region are unlike those
(Wood, 1991)
Shortly after 1470 was discovered, anatomist A. Cave said in an interview that
it was, "as far as I can see, typically human". Creationists interpret this to
mean that it was the skull of a modern human. More likely is that Cave was
merely saying that the skull belonged to, and had features typical of, the
genus Homo.
enough for the brain size to be directly measured, but it seems to be very
close in size to 1470. However this child had teeth which were larger than
those of Homo erectus, which are in turn larger than those of Homo sapiens.
To support the claim that 1470 is human and other habilis fossils are apes,
Lubenow quotes from a paper by Falk, which states that the endocast of 1470
has a human pattern, while that of 1805 is apelike (these were the only fossils
discussed by Falk). However Tobias (1988) shows that other habilis fossils
It is lightly built, with a rounded skull and no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow
combined with a jaw and teeth that are similar to but larger than those of
modern humans. Another transitional fossil! Because its brain was far smaller
than any human, creationists have no choice but to call this an ape, despite
the fact that 1470 looks more similar to 1813 than it does to a modern human
skull.
In fact, despite its larger brain size, Cronin et al.(1981) consider 1470 to be
more primitive, with more australopithecine features, than 1813. The teeth of
1470 (as inferred from the sockets) were australopithecine-sized, while 1813
the exact relationships of these fossils is very difficult, but it is clear that all of
them are similar, with a mixture of Homo and Australopithecus features. There
The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse, 1983;
Morris and Parker, 1982; Taylor, 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man
56
apes, although Lubenow (1992) considers both human even though many
(although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to) that they are
degenerate humans:
"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat
Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to
Neanderthal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also
erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been
of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it
explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why,
given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile
One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish (1985)
almost completely modern. Gish suggests that except for the brain size, all
major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that
were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to
that species. That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy skull is a typical erectus skull,
differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is
57
more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the
Peking Man skullcaps, than it is to modern humans. The skeleton also has a
Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois
in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human
skulls at nearby Wadjak at the same level and had kept them secret; that
Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not
come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of
countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at the same level": the Wadjak
skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was
found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer, 1993). Dubois had briefly
reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications around 1890, but,
recognizing that they were modern, devoted all his attention to Java Man once
it was found. Based on his own theories about how brains had evolved and
wishful thinking, Dubois did claim that Java Man had the proportions of a giant
gibbon, but never said that it was one, and never stopped believing that he
Lubenow, 1992).
Creationists are right about one thing. Most modern scientists agree that the
femur is more recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human. Some
of the teeth found nearby are now thought to be from an orang-utan, rather
the skullcap:
"Now we see that the skullcap is very apelike; notice that it has no
58
forehead, it's very flat, very typical of the ape. Notice the massive
Despite this, the skullcap definitely does not belong to any ape, and especially
not to a gibbon. It is far too large (940 cc, compared to 97 cc for a gibbon),
and is similar to other Homo members that have been found. One of these is
Java Man as either an ape or a human, calling it a human is easily the best
choice, but Lubenow (1992) seems to be the only creationist who has done so.
faunal evidence to show that it is the same age as the Wadjak skulls.
Pleistocene in age."
Lubenow is saying that since this species of tapir was found in both the Trinil
[the site where Java Man was found] and Wadjak faunas, these fossils may
be of the same age. This conclusion is reinforced by three other quotes from
Hooijer, all of which describe difficulties in using faunal methods to date Java
evidence that Wadjak Man and Java Man were the same age. The most that
could be claimed was that the ages of both were unknown. And Hooijer never
59
said that the faunal methods were useless, or that the Wadjak and Trinil
By far the simplest resolution of the tapir discrepancy is, as Hooijer stated,
(Lubenow does admit this possibility). This is consistent with the rest of the
evidence. The Wadjak fauna is modern, and hence Wadjak Man is considered
to be less than 50,000 years old, and more probably about 10,000 years old.
The Trinil fauna contains many more extinct species, and is hence older.
Basically, Lubenow argues that Wadjak Man and Java Man are the same age
because a single species of tapir is in both faunas, ignoring that there are
many other species not shared between the faunas, and that the extinct
Lubenow claims that Dubois concealed the Wadjak fossils because the
discrepancy of the tapir would have contradicted his claim that Java Man was
far older than Wadjak. This seems implausible because Dubois was one of
the earliest collectors in Java, and detailed information on the Javan faunas
Incidentally, the tapir was probably not singled out for mention by Hooijer
interest because this species of tapir is still living in South East Asia, and is
not, as Lubenow states, extinct. Hooijer only stated that it was extinct in Java,
not elsewhere.
Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) expresses puzzlement that Johanson (1981)
"bad science". (He seems to be of the opinion that it was an ape, but does not
60
say so explicitly.)
Peking Man is another favourite target. Creationists claim that the Peking Man
fossils are the remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans; that the
original fossils may have been disposed of to conceal the evidence of fraud;
that only models of the fossils remain; and that they are distorted to fit
drawing most of his material from Boule and Vallois (1957). This book, which
was almost 30 years old when Gish wrote, was a light revision by Vallois of a
Gish, citing the "fact" that the bases of the skulls had been bashed in so the
brains could be extracted, states that "All authorities agree that every one of
the Sinanthropus [Peking Man] individuals had been killed by hunters and
eaten." That may have been true in 1957 (although Boule and Vallois do not
say so). Boule and Vallois do discuss the claims of various evolutionists that
cannibalism). Gish ignores the latter option and declares that since humans
were responsible, Sinanthropus could not have been our ancestor, and must
have been a giant ape. This is of course incorrect. Both can and did coexist.
the idea that Sinanthropus was hunted. The missing skull parts are the most
fragile parts which are least likely to be preserved. It is most probable that the
skulls were the prey of hyenas, the bones and faeces of which were often
no proof, or even good evidence, that the Sinanthropus skulls were eaten by
anyone, let alone modern humans. Even if they were, it would still not
61
Gish's claim that the skullcaps are of apes is similarly farfetched. The largest
skullcap, about 1225 cc, is twice as large as that of a large male gorilla. Any
ape with a brain that size would be enormous, but no such ape has been
found at Zhoukoudian or anywhere else, and the jaws of Peking Man are
much smaller than those of a gorilla but larger than one of which is attached
to a body that even Gish recognizes as human (the Turkana Boy). Clearly it
makes more sense to assume that Peking Man belonged to the same species
Gish claims that "The features of the lower jaws described by Boule and
Vallois were all apelike except for the shape of the dental arcade...". In fact,
but state that there are more of both. They agree with the conclusion of
Weidenreich, who said the lower jaws present "a veritable intermingling of
Gish similarly claims the teeth were apelike, "with very few exceptions". Boule
and Vallois do state that the teeth are apelike, though not as emphatically as
Gish does. They list 6 features, 3 apelike, 1 humanlike, and two others whose
significance is unclear.
Gish does not mention the few skeletal bones that were found, probably
because Boule and Vallois' discussion shows that they were all similar or
identical to the same bones in modern humans, although the limb bone
fragments were very thick. Boule and Vallois suspected that they might not
belong to the same creatures as the skulls, but modern finds have confirmed
that Homo erectus does have a primitive skull combined with a robust but
the apelike features of the fossils, and downplaying the human features. This
conclusion is not supported by Boule and Vallois, any of the other authors
considers it an ape. Boule and Vallois state that Peking Man has "physical
characters intermediate between the group of Anthropoid Apes and the group
of Hominines", and that many characters of the skull "which, if they do not yet
conform exactly to the human morphological type, are singularly close to it".
Another claim is that only models of the fossils remain, which, because they
appears to be confused about the words "cast" and "model", once using them
almost exact duplicate. Excellent casts of the Peking Man fossils were made,
and are mentioned in many books, including that of the creationist author
Lubenow (1992). The models of complete skulls Gish refers to may partly
reflect the subjective views of their maker since missing information will have
had to be guessed at, but the primary evidence of Peking Man's affinities
remains the casts and extensive documentation of the original material, not
reconstructed skulls. Gish's statement that "All we have available are the
Boule and Vallois, differs glaringly from their earlier text descriptions, and from
a model of Java Man shown earlier in the book. Weidenreich's model (which
does look more humanlike than one might expect from Boule's description)
was made using parts of at least 4 different individuals. By that time all of the
63
Peking Man material had been found, and almost all portions of the skull were
for example, was precisely known and is clearly far more similar to that of a
modern human than any ape. The Java Man reconstruction relied on fewer
probably also due to the Java Man skulls having a flatter, receding forehead
compared to the more convex Peking Man skulls (Burenhult, 1993) (and, in
fact, a flatter forehead is the major difference between what Gish says are
more apelike than it really was. Gish, in asserting that Peking Man was an
ape, is adding to Boule's bias, rather than correcting for it. Gish nowhere
Weidenreich and his work often use words such as "meticulous, "compulsively
careful", "detailed", and the casts he made of the Peking Man fossils are
systematically fabricated not only the skull reconstruction, but his entire body
of work. Even this would not be sufficient, as some of the earlier fossils were
ever saw them. Many scientists also saw the original fossils. Unless there was
worked on, photographed and saw the fossils, they are genuine. As a
testimony to the accuracy of the casts, some skull parts found in 1966 fit
Boule and Vallois' claim that Peking Man is intermediate between ape and
man could hardly be rejected. Therefore, these fossils are, according to Gish's
The other source used by Gish is "Science of Today and the Problems of
Genesis" (1969) by Rev. Patrick O'Connell, a Roman Catholic priest who was
in China during the 1930's. O'Connell claimed that Peking Man was a large
scale fraud, which presumably would have had to involve most of the people
working with the fossils, and that the fossils may have been deliberately
never saw the fossils, apparently had no relevant expertise, and if he had any
evidence for his wild claims, Gish does not give it. Gish, while not endorsing
Gish also states "Boule had visited Peking and Choukoutien and had
examined the originals." C. Loring Brace, in a debate with Gish in 1982, called
this "pure invention". Boule never visited either place, and worked from photos
and descriptions. Despite this correction, Gish has repeated the assertion in
The effort Gish expends in discrediting Peking Man seems totally wasted, as it
course, and, although he must have been familiar with Gish's criticisms,
with a surprisingly apelike lower jaw. Later fragments found in 1913 and 1915
also seemed to have a mixture of ape and human characteristics, and quelled
suspicion that the original bones were from two unrelated creatures. In 1953
and an orang-utan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling
anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific
of Piltdown, and justifiably so. A number of scientists had made what were in
human skull would look like. In fact a number of scientists did believe that the
cranium and jaw were not from the same creature, but no-one had suspected
forgery.
humanlike teeth found in 1922. As creationists tell it, evolutionists used one
him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to
66
a pig. The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett, 1984; Gould,
with an English scientist, and was done for the Illustrated London News, not
ancestor. Some, including the finders, identified it only as an ape of some kind.
scientists.
sounds; pig cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the
claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes
Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was
presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even
involved were mistaken, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode
was actually an excellent example of how the scientific process should work.
which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked
Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they
bone disease'"
67
were just plain people, no more different from people living today
than people than one living nation is different from another" Parker
brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists
believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo
claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases, and they were
wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of
history.
have been found with signs of these and other health problems. But
Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these
diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on
even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience
Last century the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that
the first Neanderthal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and
Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been
the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are
68
undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are slender and weakened.
The bones of the first Neanderthal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than
claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were
caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter, and
wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined
it is clear from many sources (Reader, 1981; Tattersall, 1995) that the
cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the Neanderthal Man had had
old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the
least.
Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering
would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably
The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are
mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always
hypothesis.
Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down
69
Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed
overturned the stereotype, created by Boule, that the Neanderthals were Ape
Men with a shambling gait and a divergent big toe, and showed instead that
"This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit
after the flood and Babel, perhaps the features are primarily due to
advanced age...".
old people, least of all powerful bones and muscles. This argument is
Whoever wrote this presumably also thinks that Neandertals are arthritic
modern humans.
At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neanderthal
to have sunk without a trace, except among creationists. Gish goes even
further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these
claims:
(Gish, 1985)
clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some
of its other denizens". This may be a source of the creationist idea that
Neandertals are "just plain people" (Morris and Parker, 1982). Note, though,
that this is not what the quote says. Anyone who has travelled the Big Apple's
subway will probably agree that Neandertals could look quite odd and still
meet Straus and Cave's rather lax criterion. Gish (1985) distorts this quote by
claiming that a Neanderthal in a business suit could walk down a city street
and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement that is
probably false.
Johanson and Edey (1981) extend the example by saying that if you put
him". Put Homo habilis on the subway, and "people would probably move to
the other end of the car". Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and
evangelists."
71
The following quote from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) refutes claims that
Neandertals differ no more from modern humans than living races do from
each other:
If you know what you are looking for then from a genetic point of
view some of the features stand out in both males and females.
of their presumed ancestors in the fossil record. Taylor (1992) contains a long
researchers have suggested as evidence that the various "missing links" were
I suggest for the moment that the evidence is lacking on this but more
research is needed.
Many of these cases are various hominid fossils which appear in the correct
position in the fossil record. Some of these have already been mentioned: the
Petralona specimen, 1470, the Turkana Boy, and the Krapina specimens.
between these and modern human footprints, but often neglect to mention
their extremely small size and the fact they are similar to the feet of the
72
debate).
bone, Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. Lubenow
quotes a number of scientists who state that KP 271 is very humanlike, but
not Feldesman (1982), who found that KP 271, "far from being more 'human-
reasons for it. The lower humerus of chimps is quite similar to that of humans,
known to fall within the human range. Patterson and Howell (1967) state that
both KP 271 and the australopithecine upper humerus were, based on their
humans, while the upper humerus is only "quite similar, based on visual
australopithecine fossil.
Swanscombe Man:
England, and a third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit with the earlier
73
ones. The bones are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and modern
features, and an estimated brain size of 1325 cc. They are probably from an
archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible with their estimated age of 200,000
Fontechevade Man:
Vertesszollos Man:
a few tooth fragments, and part of an adult cranium. The cranial fragment is
very thick and broad, with a mixture of modern and primitive features. This is
also considered to be probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age,
which has variously been estimated to be from 160,000 to over 350,000 years.
(Day, 1986)
Of the other "anomalous" hominid fossils, most are of fossil humans that have
since been discovered to be intrusions, i.e. they have been buried in deposits
This was a modern-looking jaw that had come from very old deposits.
However because of strong evidence that it was a modern jaw that had been
"planted", probably by de Perthes' workmen, who were paid for good finds,
few scientists have ever accepted it as genuine. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992)
Oldoway Man:
a skull and skeleton found by Hans Reck at Olduvai Gorge in 1913. In 1932 it
was shown to be a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older
74
deposits that had been exposed by faulting (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989).
burial", when in fact this explanation has been unanimously accepted (even
discovered by Louis Leakey in 1932, and claimed by him to be very old. The
dating however proved to be uncertain, and both are probably modern bones.
Castenedolo Man:
Morris and Parker (1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary rock
[i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5 million years]
were found in Castenedolo, Italy back in the late 1800's...". An official report
on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were
impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from
Guadeloupe Man:
1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The
excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been
found with other skeletons (all pointing in the same direction) along with a dog
and some implements, indicate that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has
last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was confirmed in
Henry Morris has claimed (1974) that since 10,000 year old Homo erectus
skulls were found at Kow Swamp in Australia, erectus cannot be the ancestor
of modern man. The logic is faulty, since there is no reason that a population
of erectus could not have survived long after Homo sapiens first appeared.
Morris also has his facts wrong. Characteristics of the Kow Swamp skulls led
the quote Morris gives from Thorne and Macumber (1972) clearly states.
Morris' claim that they are erectus _skulls_ is incorrect. It is now thought that
the most prominent such primitive feature, flattened foreheads, may have
1993).
Lubenow (1992) makes a stronger case that the Kow skulls are H. erectus,
claiming that the pathological or cultural causes suggested for them could
equally well be applied to much older erectus skulls. Lubenow claims that the
Kow skulls meet many criteria for H. erectus, but gives no documentation for
this, other than showing that they are more primitive than modern skulls. It is
possible that the Kow skulls are primitive by modern standards, without
Lubenow gives no evidence which would exclude this possibility. His claims
are flatly contradicted by Gamble (1993) "There is no doubt that all the people
who have ever lived on the continent [Australia] would qualify as anatomically
shown conclusively that all are of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens".
76
Thorne and Macumber (1972) mention that the frontal bones of the skull are
particularly archaic, being very similar to some of the Java erectus skulls. By
implication, the rest of the skull is not, particularly since it is also stated that
Kennedy (1984) shows that the femurs of the Kow skeletons are identical to
Homo erectus.
contemporaneously with Homo habilis and erectus, above another layer which
erectus, if they are all found together? And how could erectus be the ancestor
of modern man, if traces of modern man are found below it? There are a
robust, and are not considered as ancestors of Homo. Even if they were,
there is no reason why they could not coexist with a descendant species.
Finally, the claim that the stone circle is an artefact has been dropped. It is
only a rough arrangement, and could have just as easily have been formed by
water or other activity at any time in the past. Even if it was artificial, there is
making it.
Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not
large people tend to have larger brains. As a result, women on average will
have smaller brains than men, and Pygmies will have smaller brains than
Zulus, but the average intelligence of all these groups is, as far as we can tell,
77
the same.
Note: for convenience, I use the term "brain size" instead of "cranial capacity".
Because the brain does not fill the cranial cavity, the brain size is smaller than
the cranial capacity, but the latter value is, obviously, the only one that can be
Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between
sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc. The following figures should
convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult
(1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040- 1595 cc, and that
the extreme range is 900-2000 cc. S.J. Gould, in "The Mismeasure of Man",
reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of 600 skulls which ranged from 950
figure of 950 cc is, if anything, lower than it might be for 600 randomly
selected humans). Morton also catalogued his skulls by race, with the lowest
Various sources, some of them creationist, give lower limits for human brain
size of 900 cc (twice), 855 cc, and 830 cc. Normal humans are found with
values smaller than this, but they are very rare. Microcephalics, who are
Compare this range with that of the 5 measurable Java Man skulls. These
average 930 cc (less than the minimum of the 600 modern skulls cited above),
with the smallest being 815 cc. Moreover, unlike modern humans with low
brain sizes, these skulls are very robust, with flattened braincases and large
brow ridges.
78
These figures also show how extraordinary the Turkana Boy is. As an adult,
he would have been over 183 cm (6'0") tall, large even by modern standards.
Modern men of that stature could be expected to have a brain size of at least
1500 cc, but the Turkana Boy's estimated adult brain size of 910 cc is smaller
than all but a fraction of 1% of modern humans of all sizes and both sexes.
Lubenow (1992) states that the normal human range is 700-2200 cc. Part of
the reason for this wide range is that we have a huge sample size, compared
to any extinct species. Obviously, skulls at the extreme ends of that range will
750 cc, is "well within the normal human range", when it is well below what
most people consider a minimum size for normal modern humans. One might
equally validly claim that 4'0" (122 cm) is a normal adult height on the grounds
that some people are only 3'6" (107 cm) tall. The probability of finding an adult
human skull as small as ER 1470 is very remote (probably less than 1/10,000).
It is far more probable that 1470 was a fairly typical member of its population,
rather than an extreme case. This is what we find: other habilis fossils, very
similar to 1470, are even smaller, well below Lubenow's lower limit of 700 cc.
Chimpanzees have a brain size between 300 and 500 cc, with an average of
400 cc. Gorillas have an average brain size of 500 cc, with large individuals
going up to 700 cc, or even 750 in one instance. Hominids are best compared
with the similar-sized chimpanzees than the much larger gorillas it is said but I
feel human emotion gets in the way of this data as Chimps have more human
Lubenow states that "the crucial element is not brain size but brain
79
small gorilla brain". That is true, but many of the H. habilis fossils that
Lubenow, and all other creationists, claim to be apes do come close to the
human condition: the insides of their skulls show that they had many modern
features (Tobias, 1988). Some of them also had brain sizes between 600 and
700 cc; smaller than any human, but much larger than any chimpanzee, and a
Between species, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size
brain and body size, both of which are difficult to estimate for most fossil
probably a bit smarter than, chimps. Homo habilis and erectus were
intermediate between chimps and modern humans. Walker and Leakey (1993)
and Tobias (1988) have good overviews of attempts to estimate the relative
because they overlap one another in time. I have used this book as part of my
research and it well used and getting past its sell by date.
Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new
for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of
its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect
because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from
the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no
80
ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for
sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living
This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution but
all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into
evolutionists, since it would follow that the number of living species could
never increase.
The argument is also contradicted by real world examples, such as that of the
compelling evidence that these are descended from a common ancestor that
extinction. This does not happen, of course, because they all live on different
foods.
For example, Lubenow claims that Homo erectus overlaps the entire time
range in which Homo habilis is found. The oldest dated habilis specimen he
lists is about 1.9 million years old (with a possibility that another was as much
81
Lubenow criticizes Klein (1989) for showing a graph in which habilis is shown
preceding erectus in time, when none of the habilis fossils discussed by Klein
are dated before 1.9 million years ago. In this case, Lubenow has not read
Klein carefully enough. Klein does, on page 133, and in a graph on page 112,
mention the presence of habilis-like fossils found at about 2.3 million years.
Ethiopia, and dated to 2.3-2.4 million years (Howell et al.1987). They are
relatively unimportant, and it is not surprising that Klein would not give them
But there is no reason to believe that fossils have been found over the entire
range of time for which habilis existed. Almost all habilis fossils have been
found in the rich deposits of Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora (less than 2
One might expect further fossil finds to extend the time range in which H.
habilis is known, and that is what has happened. Hill et al.(1992) have
as belong to the genus Homo (though not to erectus or sapiens), and have
dated it at 2.4 million years. And Schrenk et al.(1993) have announced the
discovery in Malawi of a hominid lower jaw, UR 501, that they have attributed
Similarly, Lubenow claims that humans are found up to 4.5 million years ago,
before any australopithecines. Before 2 million years ago, the evidence for
this consists of only two fossils, the Laetoli footprints and the Kanapoi
82
argument, because both fossils are, arguably, from humans. The problem is
that there is not enough other evidence to exclude the possibility that both
skeletons, could prove the existence of humans, but so far, all such evidence
There are more fossils which Lubenow considers to be sapiens, but which are
as old as the earliest erectus fossils (about 2 million years). These consist of
some undoubted habilis fossils such as ER 1470, and some fossils usually
assigned to erectus or habilis. These fossils are all of body parts which are
difficult to classify, because other Homo species are both poorly known, and
not that different below the neck, as far as we know, from modern humans.
When one reads creationist literature about the human fossil record, there is a
When I say selected that is what happened, because knowledge being what it
was at the time, the more profile examples were used and therefore much
may have been missed in the left out sampling of fossils of a lower order.
ape-men", discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the
83
Neandertals, and the original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus
dismissing it as an ape. Taylor also makes misleading use of the past tense to
an implication which is totally incorrect. For H. erectus, only Peking Man and
the original Java Man fossil are mentioned in the main text.
Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) claims that "all the candidates once
proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list", and
then proceeds to give the list, which is inexplicably lacking H. erectus (it is
lumped in with Java Man) and H. habilis, and the gracile australopithecines.
Gish (1985) discusses Java Man, Peking Man and ER 1470, but almost totally
Lubenow (1992) alone appears to be aware of all the fossil material, and
comes closest to addressing the evidence, but he fails to discuss some of the
(because his book is about the human fossil record, and he considers most
avoid the absurdity of claiming that the Java Man and Peking Man fossils are
apes.
Creationists appear to avoid discussion of the fossils that are the best
3733 and Sangiran 17 (human but with primitive features), Sts 5 (apelike, but
84
with some modern features) and OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, and ER 1813 (so
work that does not mention Nebraska Man (Lubenow is the one exception),
despite the fact that it was at best weak evidence for human evolution even
during its brief heyday 70 years ago, the year of my first birthday and Piltdown
Man, despite the fact that the hoax was discovered over 40 years ago.
Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably
because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying their
impression that these fossils have been shown to be either ape or fully human.
inability to agree on which fossils are apes and which are humans: which is
even of the fossils they do discuss. Typically, they will flatly assert that a fossil
could judge for themselves whether the fossils are transitional or not. If, as
most of them claim, Java Man is an ape, a comparative photo of an ape, Java
Man and a human would be an easy way to demonstrate it. If they are
confident in their interpretation of the data, why do they not show the evidence
to their readers?
85
advantage, while ignoring any contrary opinions. Scientists used in this way
include Oxnard, Zuckerman, and Ivanhoe. Their results are often treated as if
they were authoritative, when in reality they are very much minority opinions
past. Getting it right of course is much more difficult not only that we tend to
forget all too easy or dismiss it out of hand the psychology and the
paranormal side of such beings. Early man did have a brain but I have to
aspect came into the picture. The brain of course would need a stimulus for
such thinking and dreaming but first let us look at the modern human from the
present day backwards to when the missing link was supposed to be. It all
starts with the brain and within the brain of course and its function, lies hidden
into the brains of many of our past families along at times with some forms of
86
mental illness.
With very early man then they would have been concerned only with the dead,
basic astronomy, seasons, and rituals of a bloody nature, food, fire and
shelter.
There would have also been forms of mental illnesses much as we have
today as well as bone disease because of the high intake of vitamin A from
the livers of carnivores which they would have also killed and eaten as food.
Very early man had one thing in mind at all times and that was to survive as
long as he/she could before dying from disease, being killed by a wild animal,
starvation, accident or killed by its own kind for food. Death was an everyday
event and it was kill or be killed but whatever was killed was eaten.
From a psychology point of view and early mankind things are not as easy
clear-cut.
THE MIND.
CONSCIOUSNESS.
consciousness and the aspects of change. There is no doubt that early man
was aware of external and internal stimuli of his/her environment from the
times unless there is a sudden change in it. We walk through the woods today
with someone and a group of children and we are aware of the talk and the
noise but most times unaware of birds singing unless we stop and listen or go
Early mans attention and ours was and is selective and all events that are
important to our own survival have a top priority. Take pain in a part of our
body. If it becomes severe then we block out all other awareness and lock in
on the pain and all other consciousness is put on hold until we deal with the
pain.
All that was going on around early man on daily and from his storage and
memories of past events, his attention would have been focus on only a few
stimuli at any given moment and like us, he would ignore, select and reject all
In todays human, many of the memories as well as past stimuli that are not
memory banks is one of the reasons from a paranormal point of view, that
Alien Abduction has occurred and you have missed time even though you
were awake.
It is not that all the people who claim alien abduction or seeing and feeling
ghosts are lying, though some do, but because of past stimuli that your mind
Someone is driving along a dark country road at night somewhere in the UK.
Woods surround the road and it is raining, the headlights on, the window
wipers scraping across the glass of the car and a hare runs out, stops for a
moment caught in the headlights then dashes into cover as you speed by.
Your mind tells you that it was a small rodent or a hare but some of you will
confuse it with a rabbit. If it was a deer dashing across the road in the night
rain you would see a much larger mammals and if it was lacking antlers then
when it had passed out of sight you would question and wonder was it in fact
88
a deer and not something else? After all where you passed there is no
reports of deer in that area so why should a deer turn up and maybe on
thinking on it, the grey brown body, sleek with rain may have beenYou start
to question and reason as you drive on, look in the rear mirror now and then,
grip the wheel tighter and wait for something else to run across in front of you.
Then your car splutters to a halt. The lights stay on and you curse under your
breath and try to restart the engine. It turns over but nothing. You switch off
the lights and now you are in darkness and try again, this time it gives a
cough but again fails to start. You dont like sitting there in the darkness alone
and with wet trees all around you. There are no lights to be seen, no other
cars, just darkness, rain and you alone at 9.34pm on a wet night in November
in a wooded countryside.
Your mind now starts to operate overtime, your heartbeat quickens, and your
mobile phone is still back at the house because you forgot to bring it with you.
You look out at the woods in the headlights. Something is in there watching
you. Right now there are eyes on your lights from deep within the wet woods.
A nose twitches, the eyes alert and it moves forward a little then stops. You
can see it but they are there. Not one but a few. All watching your headlights.
You fear the dark and what might be lurking there, what might harm or even
kill you and you try the engine again and this time it splutters into life and you
roar off burning rubber glad to be away from that place. Over the hill the lights
of a village and you start to relax while the mice in the wood watch your tail-
Eyes can see many things but the mind does not always get it right at that
moment in time. Take a look at the examples below. Your modern mind will
try and work it out and more than likely come up with a number of answers
What we see at first is real enough to us but if we look again we see the same
picture but with a different meaning in the here and the now. Come back to
the pictures and again you have the same problem. Which is real and which
do we want to be real?
Is it possible that we humans live in two mind worlds, at times crossing over
here and there? I suggest this is more likely in vivid dreams than when we are
awake but sometimes what we see and hear during the day because our
attention has been drawn to it suddenly is not always at first as it seems, until
Shapes and sizes all take on different meanings to us humans but with early
mankind it was much the same except that it was in a much more limited form
When it comes down to the unconscious mind some memories, impulses and
desires are not accessible to the consciousness and painful memories and
fearful ones are diverted into the unconscious storage place. These of course
affect us indirect and in very disguised ways. This will happen in dreams,
impulses are the cause of many of the mental illnesses of today as well as
brain injury or disease. Brain injury with trauma injury or disease is a common
If we are dealing with early upright man we are not talking about ape like
creatures because it is my view that the apes that walked upright and even
the most primitive human like creatures did in fact live side by side, one a
vegetarian with broad flat and chewing teeth, the ape-like ones, and the
carnivore type with teeth of the cutting sort but absent of long canines like a
wolf or a dog. There had to be cross breeding of that I am sure and many
thousands of years down the line, the more human type of homo appeared
because of gene mutation, the new DNA makeup the result that the ape like
creature was bred out and replaced by homo in a more human form. With that
human form came a larger brain and advanced consciousness and the
unconscious thought but also hints of mental illnesses and vivid dreams.
Some of these vivid dreams were drug induced in some tribes, the dream
time is a common factor in some tribes of native Americans and tribes from
Everyone dreams even if they dont know it during their REM-sleep period and
those who sleep soundly do not always recall their dreams. Not everyone
knows they are dreaming and it has been proved beyond doubt that those
people who have lucid dreams all events in that dream seem real and normal.
When it comes to sleep walking it occurs only during the NREM periods of
sleep and it happen in the first third of sleep in the night. The eyes are open
but unseeing, and many teenage sleepwalking in the 1600s/ 1700s seen at
night walking in the garden or on a road at night were looked on from local
people as being possessed or witches and at times put to death along with
their family. A sleepwalker of course does not remember what they have done
or where they have been and some modern killers claim that the did so while
unaware of it and asleep but because an act of violence was carried out then
contact had to be made, even a struggle and the sleepwalker would have
If we look at PSI PHENOMENA then early man would have been better
too many people are easy led up the garden path when it comes to ESP,
enquiry to very unusual phenomena. The first rule of course is evidence that
will stand up as acceptable. There has also to be controls and safeguards and
inadequacies plague all of the sciences in the natural world we live in. Anyone
studied to more than a basic limited psychology, biology, physics and geology.
92
With early man it was inbred in order to survive and by the time it was passed
down through the family genes to man in the moment much of the powers
had been badly diluted or discarded. A few people, a very few, do have some
type of paranormal powers which has been passed on through the genes and
with that comes fragments of past knowledge, a bit like a roll of 16 mm black
and white film with a few frames along it exposed. When we talk of prehistory
[5] A subject and control subject of the same age and sex, born on the same
[6] Subjects not over the age of 14 years of age and living in different
Finding such subjects is not impossible but finding two subjects who have not
been pre-exposed to todays media hype would almost be. I have been lucky.
If and it is a big IF I can link up the sent information over the next year with
that of the other person then it will be possible to explain, at least in part,
some link in recovered memory banks even though the two people involved
With early mankind we always have assumed that the world as we know it
was a joined mass of land with two poles. We know the mass broke up, some
93
of it sinking and some drifting as todays continents. However what has not
been looked at is the real possibility that a few million years ago, the earth
was knocked of its rotation by a meteor strike and reversing the poles to
Early man movements before the earth tilted and a change in the
If this was the case and I do believe there was an Earth tilt two million years
ago because of some solar storm then it would help explain the lost bones of
bear, wolf, hippo, crocodile, elephant and jungle like plants found in mud and
coal faces, soil and rock and in sand dunes and chalk.
Homos dating back 2.2 mya and 1.3 million years ago have been found in ice
well above the known ice age movements and under it even as far south as
the Alps on the ice fields there. Todays climbers on ice know all too well the
dangers of falling into a snow covered crevasse and being lost for years but in
the end the ice moves slowly downhill and gives up the dead. The same thing
happens when a climber falls from a height into deep snow and is killed. He/
she may not killed outright but die from hypothermia and found in the snow
and ice many years later sitting with their back to a rock or ice block. The
same can be said for very early man for not only did many die from cold and
buried by snow and ice but they also return to the surface many thousands of
years later. Such bodies though rare do and have turned up as like the ICE
MAN below.
94
mummies can be well preserved for many years and somewhere out there in
an icy wasteland is the mummies of very early man that is not ape-like in
nature.
Artificial mummification came about in Egypt around 3,000 BC but that was
with human dead bodies and I suspect that the process was going on a long
time before that with animals like cats and dogs. They and others believed
that the soul re-enters the body and therefore important that the body be
preserved.
It was not only in Egypt that this process was carried out but also much closer
to home with sun drying the bodies of the gauchos of the Canary Islands.
With burial in permafrost like the bodies of the Siberian burial mounds of
Pazyryk in the Altai Mountains and the bodies lay in ice filled wooden grave
chambers. Even horses were found entombed with the dead and this Scythian
nomadic group who came there in 500 BC. Bodies found in the ice in
Greenland were also well preserved with no sign of grave wax because of the
cold.
If I look at the ICEMAN and his culture above I find that he lived sometime
between 8M BC and 3M BC, used tools, cultivated plants, and kept cattle and
sheep. He was also armed with a bow and a small cutting knife, wore clothes
that he made or was made for him and walked a lot on foot. The bow was
made of yew; the knife handle of ash and the shoots of the Wayfaring tree
were the arrow shafts. There is no doubt in my mind that he lived on the low
lands of where he was found but what took him so high in the mountains
where he died?
95
If he was hunting there then it could have been Red deer but only in summer
above the tree line, Elk but also in summer, Chamois and found in the
mountains up to 3500 M, Alpine Ibex, and the Mouflon, a type of goat. I doubt
very much if he went that high in search of small game like members of the
modern man from an archaeology point of dating. Nothing can change that or
Which brings us to what lay before him as a Homo and the missing link.
brain, massive brow ridge, receding chin and of a heavy muscular build and
In years we are talking 150,000 to 30,000 years ago and sometime around
30,000 years ago or a few thousand years before, Homo sapiens turned up
First let me make it clear that no Alien spacecraft arrived with modern Homo
clones that were left on Earth to breed with their own kind and also cross
breed with the Neanderthals. There is not the slightest bit of evidence
anywhere in the world that this was indeed the case. If modern man were an
Alien then they would have been more advanced with their technology and
Remember we are talking only 30,000 to 35,000 years ago before the
Neanderthals started to die back as a race and even now there are
First off I have to disregard the entire ape like creatures that walked upright as
They were not human in any form though they did have some human traits
like the use of tools but even todays chimps and apes use tools in their
everyday lives. Chimps can be taught to use tools and press buttons for a
reward; they have family groups, leaders of groups, aggression and in some
They also kill and eat small mammals as well as feeding on berries and fruit
but they dont do artwork in caves or on rocks, nor do they build homes to live
in. They build nests in the trees each evening in order to sleep off the ground
but they do not or ever will have a thinking culture. They are not human.
The link between them all is the size of the brain, the long bones and the
height as well as posture when standing upright. Mating for early man took
place from the back, as is still the case in some tribal areas of the Earth but
this did not take place at random as is the case today. The sex drive of males
was driven on by stimuli, be it smell, body posture and of course most times a
bond between male and female. Today we use the word Love or I should
say misuse because the whole point of the exercise is to produce children or
off-spring but with bonding as a family unit. Todays humans also enjoy sex if
there is a bond.
Also humans have sex when and if they want it. It is a fun thing for most, a
power thing for males and females and is used at times as a form of control of
In many cases there is no real life long bond to one partner and others are
sought out for the dual purpose of sex only. This today is showing up by 40
97
million cases of AIDS reported and also STDs, HIV/AIDS worse of the deadly
disease spread by sexual contact with a carrier and the percentage in Africa,
the place where it is said the first upright Homo came from, though I feel that
is wrong or mistaken. Mankind with his uncontrolled sexual drive may in fact
destroy his race with a virus rather than by a war and by the year 4000 cease
HIV/AIDS like viruses have been recorded in Chimps and other African
With the family groups and possible tribes of Neanderthal Man roaming parts
There was a developing culture and it is here that we must look at what
evidence there is that Neanderthal was stocky, not an ape and had a brain
that functioned as a thinking brain as well as a creative brain. It was their main
There were also the use of tools and it may well be that this first early man
was more in tune with nature and the afterlife than we care to give credit for.
The paranormal events were in the mind and in their everyday lives, the moon
and sun also played an important part of their culture and they believed that
the dead, if a family member went to that other world. That is unless they
I write here of Neanderthal Man, a human type creature that roamed parts of
Europe, Africa and SE Asia. In file three you will see why I know that this early
man species was important to us and may also have passed down the genetic
We tend to ignore the genetic mind funnel of our past because our minds are
cluttered with todays noise, stimuli and we block out any idea that we were
If early man, and by Man I mean a Homo who looks, walks and thinks like a
man/ woman, then they migrated from Asia into Europe and North America
99
and not the ape like groups from Africa as is often put forward as our direct
ancestor. It is more than likely that there were two groups of Ape like
creatures but the ones in Asia were more advanced and progressed faster as
AL 129-1a/b
Species: Australopithecus
afarensis
years
Date of 1976
Discovery:
Discovered D. Johanson
the top bone that rises above the knee. There is a definite
in a straight line.
101
AL 200-1
Species: Australopithecus
afarensis
years
Date of 1975
Discovery:
M. Taieb
known. Locality 200 in the Afar provided the undistorted palate to the
This palate shows that the dentition of early humans was essentially
ape-like. It had broad "spatulate" incisors -- wide front teeth that are
the cheek teeth were arranged in sub-parallel rows, giving the dental
also the presence of a diastema, or gap, between the canine teeth and
the outside incisors, again similar to apes and not humans. In the
lateral view (middle photo), we can see the protruding premaxilla, the
bone between the teeth and the nose. The protruding, or prognathic,
lower portion of the face, which sticks out beyond the nose and eyes,
Cro-Magnon 1
Discovery:
France
During construction for a rail road in 1868, a rock shelter in a limestone cliff
was uncovered. Near the back of the shelter, an occupation floor was
skeletons, one infant, and some fragmentary bones. The condition and
that the skeletons were intentionally buried in a single grave in the shelter.
probably middle-aged (less than 50 years old) at his death on the basis of
the pattern of closure of cranial sutures. The bones in his face are
noticeably pitted (see top photograph) from a fungal infection. The skull
was complete except for the teeth, which are reconstructed in the cast
photographed here.
The skull of Cro-Magnon 1 does, however, show the traits that are unique
to modern humans, including the high rounded cranial vault with a near
vertical forehead. The orbits are no longer topped by a large brow ridge.
Analysis of the pathology of the skeletons found at the Les Eyzies rock
shelter indicates that the humans of this time period led a physically tough
104
found at the shelter had fused vertebrae in their necks indicating traumatic
injury, and the adult female found at the shelter had survived for some time
with a skull fracture. The survival of the individuals with such ailments is
convalesce.
Associated tools and fragments of fossil animal bone date the site to the
ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH
The trouble with past archaeology is that it was a closed field of study to many
and very few people were experts or claimed to be experts and that left the
few that were to rule the roost without question. Thankfully that now has
changed and such people who have been blinked are dragged into 2011. For
105
their own survival they either had to look at archaeology in the new light or live
in the dark with fixed ideas of their subject, or be left alone and alone with little
or no progress.
that a sprinkling of myth, and religion, some history of the earth and the
Universe, pathology and common sense and you have the whole canvas.
My field of study in the main has been early human kind. That is not to say
that all other fields of archaeology are not linked because they are but the
study of bones and the main bone, the skull offer me a larger scope into what
When it comes down to searching and with evidence of that all elusive
missing link I have to say that in the beginning of my work thirty years ago I
That thinking has now changed because I have opened and closed doors of
the past and in my research found that if we look carefully enough and keep
an open mind, some of the answers are there. Even at that I am left with
many un-answered questions for the moment and I may never find all the
answers.
The good news is that I have made progress even though it has been a slow
misinterpreted as fact. This spiders web had to be fought through and fame
and fortune cast aside for unlike many others working in my field I have no
do I care if others reject or accept my own findings. I know my bones and the
shape of bones and I also know that if early human like creatures are to be
106
accepted as a link between todays humans then what also must kept in mind
is when they got the power of thought and speech. Once we establish that
factor then we can say without doubt when they walked into the world of the
The grand search for THE MISSING LINK has went on for well over 200
years with claims and counter claims by archaeologists worldwide but with
very little evidence that supports any of the finds as nothing more than wishful
thinking. A few people have come close. Many were off the mark and
acceptance, future funding for more research, fame in the University of choice
and of course ego. All could be lost at the simple word written or spoken.
study and findings of early man but even more when it came to finding or
This Missing Link was proving to be just as hard to find as an Alien being in a
flying spacecraft or evidence of The lost City of Atlantis as fact. Then there is
the theory that Aliens came from deep space and started to interbreed with
the local half human females which means they had to deal with unwashed
and lice ridden females, not to mention aggressive behaviour towards them
from the half human males. We can rule out that myth right away. We are not
the by-product of a per history female and a big brained Alien being from deep
space.
That does not mean that we could not have been the by product of a mutation,
the trigger being some virus or chemical that did get to some parts of our
planet a few million years ago and that a gene was the reason of what we
107
When it comes to skulls and parts of skulls of human like beings and apes 3
to 8 million years ago we only have fragments to work on that had to be glued
together and filled in to give us a rough shape of that the face was like but
also the amount of brain tissue held within the skull cap.
intelligence has gone on for many years and it is all to do with our skull and
brain.
Creative interpretation in science and more so in the study of early man is well
known but it also happens today when it comes down to the myth of Alien
UFOs, Alien abduction, Alien cross breeding with humans, Alien buildings
and ley-lines and so on. It is the interpretation that is at fault and to put a
name to our theory of visits from deep space, many of us become very
creative indeed but without evidence or facts that will stand up in the cold light
of day. Many of the people who claim such visits from deep space and the
abduction of human females for implants do not seem to grasp that in their
Let us say that in the near future a blood sample from me and
tagged Ronnie Carleton Born 5th Jan 41 then the sample placed into a
computer and a few instructions typed on the keyboard to start DNA testing
108
into my own family history and where that family first came from.
We now type in DNA + past history going back to 30,000 years or even
50,000 years.
Press RETURN and the screen comes up with WAIT then starts the process
which takes about an hour to download and would read something like this;
= Homo sapiens.
Australopithecus, robustus.
+ Pithecanthropus.
Human like.
+ Sinanthropus.
+ Atlanthtopus.
like.
With skull size also comes brain size and it is here that we can get into a maze
with a built in mine field and no map of where they really are.
It is of course the map of the brain inside any of the skulls from early man to
the present day that gives us the clue to parts of what is termed as the
Missing Link but we have modern brains trying to deal with what we think
This area is believed to be the speech generating area but I have found that it
does not always function during linguistic use and may not in fact be linked.
(Carleton 1980)
What made early man human? We know that he/she used tools of a very
primitive form but so do apes in Africa and India today. We know that once fire
was discovered to be useful that it was put to good use but apes today dont
use fire as a tool and when did early man become a thinking mammal and
The owner of the skull below may have been a thinking mammal in the past for
its own basic survival but its reasoning was more than limited and it would
have used all its natural senses when alive. There would have been no
language but grunts may have been emitted and communication between such
It was rash of many people in the field to conclude, wrongly, that the owner of
this skull found in Africa may have had speech even though it would have been
limited speech. This is not the case but there had to be a form of
communication.
Future generations of the same mammal species may have begun to use a
form of mouth communication but we are talking 500,000 years down the line
and just after basic art work on rocks and cave walls. Such art work would not
112
have been as advanced as the cave and rock drawings that we know of today
and without doubt in my mind the creature above would have been more
carnivore and cannibalistic than even early upright man that was not ape like in
shape and size. That does not mean that early man was not cannibalistic and
ate his own kin and kind. He/she was and would have eaten dying or dead
members of their own tribe rather than waste the meat. To them there was
That X factor, the Missing Link lies between Homo erectus, Neanderthal/ Cro-
Magnon Man and as for the rest of the early ape like creatures in my mind
have now no place to play in the debate on such a missing link except for
some species produces hybrids and mutants as seen in modern man in some
societies.
Researching the skulls below it was easy to see that they were of different
shapes and sizes and therefore a crossover by breeding had to take place.
Somewhere in between and after A. africanus came Homo erectus but it does
113
not explain that even today we tend to get throwbacks in a genetic form in
some modern humans who have the skull shape and features of Homo erectus.
throwback features of early man and though it is claimed to be rare, it may not
Ireland, parts if India and if you know what you are looking for or at then it
jumps out at you. The brow ridges, forehead, hair and shape of the face like
misses the point that it could in fact be a genetic throw back which I believe
strongly it is. It is these human beings that carry the past with them into our
future and somehow many people missed the link. With DNA tracing and
114
recording with the permission of such people with the condition as well as
the hair and skin. The face will be large with heavy features, prognathous jaw
and course thick hair sometimes over mostly of the lower body and back. The
frontal sinuses are prominent with the eyes deeply set and if the mouth is
examined the lower teeth and jaw project beyond the upper ones. I have seen
many human beings like this but what I also noted that the feet are large and
sometimes clumsy, the back slightly bent and the hands reaching almost to the
top of the knees. The lips I found were also large in nature and on examination
of the scalp it will be found that the skin is furrowed or corrugated. At seasonal
times of the year there may well be increased sexual excitement and the
chances in the basal metabolic rate are not constant but during the active
Seasonal sunlight hours may well have something to do with this increased
sexually activity and in early man I feel that mating took place in order that
children were born in a warmer time of the year and that food was more
plentiful.
If we look at the gestation period of humans we get around from the time of
conception to birth, 9 months with a child being born between 6 lbs. and 7 lbs.
Early mankind would be much the same except for the time of conception and
In part two I will look at the bones of contention that exist between our own
human origins and those of apes. Because of the infighting and sometimes-
115
more at odds with themselves than with the subject matter that should have
concerned them. There has been lost opportunities because of this in Africa
and as it is an unstable continent some of the known sites of early man are
surrounded by politics with research being slowed down. The eyes now must
be turned to the SW Far East and the native peoples there as well as from
where they came from because it is from here, not Africa or India that the final
answer may be found of what was human-kind and the missing link.
The human fossil record of early man supports the special creation of man
and the account given in the book of Genesis. This includes the fossils of
people believe that the fossils that have been found support the evolution of
man and his ascent from the primates. This is not correct. What the
anthropologists have done is interpret the fossils so that they seem to show
the correctness of evolution. But the fossils can be interpreted another way
a way that shows that the evolutionary theory of early man is bankrupt and
that early men have all descended from Adam. The problem in the
evolutionary fossil record is not the fossils themselves but the incorrect
If human evolution were true we could expect to see its workings in the fossil
record of humans.
A gradual blending of all the fossils in the line that leads to modern human
116
it would be difficult to tell when one species died out and when the other
began.
As species became better adapted the old ancestral lines would die outold
For evolution to have occurred the fossil record of early man would show
great change and transition over time. In the beginning of the last 4.5 million
years the evolutionary record should show no modern humans in the fossil
a modern human morphology would occur. There would also be many and
This would also suggest that Adam and Eve were ape like and not human if
they came before the Neanderthals and very human if they came later.
created there would be distinct breaks between the human line and the animal
line (primates).
would all coexist at the same time since they are merely variation of the
created kind.
117
Fossils of early humans would exist in very old strata. (No evidence of this)
The fossils of early man when looked at as an overall category all support
special creation. They appear fully formed and fully human in the fossil record.
They appear in the earliest strata as would be expected if they were created.
The various fossil men all were contemporaries of each other for long periods
Human fossils (KP 271) that are indistinguishable (McHenry 1975 & Patterson
1967) from those of modern skeletons have been found in stratum that is
(remember the author does not agree with these evolutionary dates).
This shows that true humans have a lineage that extends at least that far back
have not yet been discovered. In other words, fossils that are the identical to
modern humans have been found that are older than the australopithecines.
Which indicates that the Australopithecus line could not be the evolutionary
Homo erectus fossils have been excavated that range in age from a very
recent 30,000 (Swisher 1996) years ago to more than 1.6 million years. The H.
erectus line has remained virtually unchanged for almost 1.6 million years. H.
erectus have not evolved into anything during this time period, they have
from a more primitive type into a more modern type. In some cases H. erectus
fossils are younger than H. sapiens and Neanderthal fossils. This cannot be
account is correct they are simply variations and they would all coexist at the
same time.
There are no fossils of the primitive primates at the correct time to give rise to
the human ancestral line. These primitive primates would include A. afarensis,
record indicates that when these primates existed that humans were already
modern shaped human foot, and the Kanapoi humerus (KP 271), all predate
these fossils. Therefore these extinct primates could not have given rise to the
human line since humans were already in existence. Interestingly there exist
today primates that are very similar to the Australopithecus line. The pygmy
chimp (Pan paniscus), called Bonobo by the locals is found in the jungles of
Zaire, Africa. This is only a few hundred miles away from where many of the A.
afarensis and A. africanus fossils are being unearthed today. It has the same
body type and is the same size as the Australopithecines it also can walk
bipedally for short distances. In my opinion here, that does not mean that it is
The overall fossil record reveals that even when we use the evolutionists
119
dates (which are incorrect in my opinion (Carleton 2011) and arrange the
fossil according to these dates that no human evolution has taken place.
When it is said that humans appear in the fossil record more than 4 million
years ago, according to some evolutionary dates, they appear fully formed,
already human and they appear abruptly. This did not happen because in my
opinion being human and a thinking human at that came around 50,000 years
ago supports creation and not evolution. But created from what?
support their contention that man has evolved from apelike ancestors. When
evolutionists draw family trees of these relationships they do not include all
Past examples, and many others like it, supposedly shows A. afarensis giving
rise to H. erectus and then H. erectus giving rise to H. sapiens. The total fossil
picture is not shown in these types of "family trees." If the total fossil record is
used a drawing of a family tree is not possible because the fossil do not fit the
evolutionary scenario.
In reality the evolutionists only use the fossils that support their preconceived
bias. There are many human fossils that do not fit in with these biases. If all
the fossils are used in the interpretation of the early human record then the
answer is obvious, man was createdhe did not evolve. This is fully
Carleton 2012
York. 1990.
120
Leakey MG. Spoor F. Brown FH. Gathogo P. Kiarie C. Leakey LN. McDougall.
New hominine genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene
Leakey MD. Footprints in the ashes of time. National Geographic. April 1979.
190:425-431. 1975.
of the complexity of dating early apes and early humans with spot on solid
evidence that would stand up to close scrutiny. As many will know there are in
some cases major gaps in such dating and because of this I needed to carry
out cross reference on such data. From the 1950s to 2011 much of such
There is also, in my opinion that inbreeding took place in some of the early
bones then the data is still lacking and this needs to be treated as a major
the jigsaw but many pieces are missing and they need to be found but without
Researchers into DNA profiling of the two human subjects that I mention
above, is subject to funding of course and this comes in the way of grants if it
ever happens in the future. Once evidence has been established that there
was cross breeding and interbreeding by the two groups we can then expand
121
this DNA family tree which I have outlined below for my research.
Carleton 2012
AFRICA.
From an archaeology point of view we have been informed and except that
moved into Europe as first Neanderthal Man then Cro-Magnon today we are
said to be the end result. With each Species and generations comes of course
the genetic make-up which is passed on again and again through DNA and
also be a mistake to assume, as is now often the case, that all present day
humans came from away back in time, from Africa. Though there may well be
an African linkage ,as I believe there is for many humans today, there is also
122
in the later stages of the worlds history and the genes of such a relationship
passed onto some modern humans today. From my own research and in
order to understand it and put forward the real possibilities of such a union I
have publish my research below for debate, if any, or rejection I'm sure by
many established archaeologists who may well have to bite the bullet in the
future, revise all their dating processes and look at the species list much
closer. As for the people who made such claims about early humans and
early ape data and are now dead there can be no redress by them but still
their data should be re-examined and addressed if the need should arise.
Africa then we also know that all human beings in Europe today have a very
close Genetic heritage to Africa and that DNA, RNA and Chromosome type
have all been passed on and will continue to do so. With the DNA information
together did take a long time but I feel the end results were well worth it then It
I start with Neanderthal man and what set me off on this trail was a question
that bothered me for some time, left-handed humans of today. Being left
handed is not an illness but it is a genetic trait and is passed down through
families. 30% of left handed people go back many generations as in the Kerr
family in the UK, Ireland and the USA. As this is the case with many left
members as well as the Cro-Magnon family would also show this trait and
pass it on. As I stated early on, being left handed is not any form of illness but
could back track from one left handed family here in the UK and Europe, from
123
2005 back to 50,000 years ago then it would be through the Cro-Magnon part
of that family unit and still back or running side by side, with the Neanderthal x
( Research of left hand use IN APES carried out in Borneo, India, Africa and
genes do play a very complex part but if one parent possess a gene of being
left handed, colour blind or have a good musical ear there is a 50/50 chance
that some of their off spring will also. When it comes down to some inherent
diseases then there is a good chance that it will be passed onto any off-spring
of the parent or parents. Unless they breed outside their genetic circle of
course as many are doing today and which I will call outbreeding
mouths. Bitter is not the word for it. In other words if the parents of children
cannot taste PTC then neither will any children. One parent can taste it then
half the children in that family will also be able to taste it too.
When genes' go wrong' or show damage then they show as inherited disease
and if you consider that there are around 4,000 known, some of them rare
births in the west, muscular dystrophy which affects 1 in 5,000 male children.)
the west by the time they are aged 65 to 70 years of age. The victims do have
a genetic makeup and can be revealed in a simple blood test . We know today
that all human type blood is not alike and can be classified into groups as
124
listed below.
A, B,O BLOOD
CLUMPING
BSERUM O A B AB
ASERUM O A B AB
There are 3 groups which read like this; mixed together, O serum clumps A
As this research is dealing with the possible genetic make-up from early man
to the present day and the gene links carried forward, even mutant genes
then I had to look at any and all genetic interpretation from that past into the
present.
B = A Not B or O
O A and B Not O
in half the children who were A (AO) and one half children B (BO).
Group O 44%
Group A 45%
Group B 8%
125
Group AB 4%
These differ between different populations with type B three times more
X and Y CHROMOSOMES. 1 to 22
+ X = 23 female
1 to 22 + XY =23 male.
It is chromosome9 that determines the ABO blood groups in Human Kind and
that started away back around1.2 million years ago. As each human mammal
has 2 chromosome 9, one from our father and one from the mother and if
someone gets a paternal chromosome 9 with an A blood group gene and his
themselves blood group AB. If it is a female who has the AB blood she will
produce eggs that will either have the gene responsible for A group or B blood.
The partner may have type O then he contributes via his sperm, chromosome
9 with the O gene. The children therefore will end up with a genetic A O and
126
have type A blood or will have the genetic constitution BO = type B blood.
There is no relation between the sex of any child and its blood group because
is it true for two genes on the same chromosome, colour blindness and
haemophilia are good examples. They both are found on the X chromosome
O and the wife is A and they ended up with an AB child then the wife has
been having sex with another man, not the husband. So far then it should be
possible to get DNA samples from bones and body material if any f rom the
early standing apes and early thinking humans giving us a starting point
not the case except in many black people in the UK and the USA where in
Africa, the Gold Coast and Gambia, it was uncommon in the black population
there. In the north and south of Africa it is uncommon but the Sickle Cell gene
is found in middle west Africa and very common in the west of Africa. Those
that carry the gene rarely get Malaria because the parasite grows inside red
blood cells and anyone who has the Sickle cell gene does not offer this
parasite a good environment in which to live. Yet in present day white people
chart below.
AS. AS.
MALE FEMALE.
127
SPERM A SPERM S A S
AA AS AS SS
A carrier father has 2 genes, one for sickle Haemoglobin(S) and one for
The carrier mother has the same layout. One child will be born without sickle
cell but all others will have it but have only one sickle cell gene each but will
be carriers and one who will have full blown sickle cell disease.
The survival of early humans in east Africa was in fact a hard road because
not only had they to survive the harshness of day to day living ,attacks by wild
animals but also a number of diseases, some that were passed on down
through a family unit. What should be noted is that such groups were small
and they would have little or no knowledge or taboo's about who mated with
who. In breeding would have been a common factor and the average life span
for any adult would have been30 years only. This is often overlooked in
When it comes down to genetic features of the face of early man too few
studies have been carried out. Europeans have large noses and this was
passed down to us from Homo erectus and the deep brow ridge and stocky
body still found today in some humans across Europe suggest a pass on from
found in today's humans, male and female and a few even show the almost
hidden features of a face that could well be mistaken for Neanderthal Man.
This face feature is not as uncommon as many think and across Europe into
This does not explain the very modern skulls found in Israel and South Africa
in 1980 in caves and datedat100,000 years old because if the dating is correct
then all the data on early humans listed is wrong as well as the dating of other
128
early apes and humans. It also suggests that if a modern type human was
around100,000 years ago, living in caves then they must have been more
advanced than any other early humans, or ape like humans. This of course
creates a genetic nightmare for researchers because for the moment it is not
known where these humans came from. We are told, and wrongly in my view,
that modern humans as we are, only put in an appearance 40,000 years ago.
The 100,000 year old remains found dispute that finding and suggests that a
tribe or tribes of modern humans did function, though in small groups from
Israel and the north of Africa down to the tip of South Africa.
Blood grouping of course is the way forward in such research and gives clues
in some cases to where the human being of today had past family linkage.
The B blood group of true gypsies in Europe can be linked to India where it is
50% as with only 10% in northern Europe. The DNA from African chimps
show that the genomes differ from humans by only 1.6% yet chimps are not
human, though I do suggest that humans did and do have a close relationship
in Africa and elsewhere, that goes beyond the pale. Human male x female
chimp=?This could well explain in Africa two things. A genetic link to humans
and chimps in the past and a HIV type disease found in chimps in the present.
Who passed what genetic material as well as a virus type is for the moment
unclear but I suggest modern humans started it all off and are still doing so in
controlled conditions today in many parts of our world behind very closed
doors.
129
and compared it with that of humans, a major step toward defining what
makes people human and developing a deep insight into the evolution of
that have arisen in WILDLIFE AFRICA the two species since they split from a
evolution and nature comes at a time when they and other great apes are
under harsh pressures in their native habitat. Their populations are dwindling
fast as forests are cut down and people shoot them for meat. They may soon
disappear from the wild altogether, primatologists fear, except in the few
genes that have changed down the human lineage should hold the key to
Biologists suspect that only a handful of genes are responsible for the major
changes that reshaped the apelike ancestor of both species into a human and
rapid rate.
Nature, takes a first step in this direction but has not yet tracked down the
130
sequence of DNA units in the chimp and human genomes. Most are caused
by a random process known as genetic drift and have little effect. For now,
their large numbers make it difficult for scientists to find the changes caused
But another aspect of the comparison has yielded insights into a different
question, the evolution of the human Y chromosome. The new finding implies
that Apes have led sexually virtuous lives for the last six million years, at least
Some 300 million years ago, the Y chromosome used to carry the same 1,000
exchange DNA with the X and update its genes, in humans it has lost all but
owner's survival. However, the Y has gained some genes from other
chromosomes because it is a safe haven for genes that benefit only men,
since it never enters a woman's body. These added genes, not surprisingly,
whether the Y will lose yet more genes and lapse into terminal decay, taking
men with it. The idea of the Y's extinction "was so delicious from the
predictions."
Six years ago, he discovered a surprising mechanism that protects the sperm-
making genes. Those genes exist in pairs, arranged so that when the DNA of
131
the chromosome is folded back on itself, the two copies of the gene are
aligned. If one copy of the gene has been hit by a mutation, the cell can repair
it by correcting the mismatch in DNA units. That is all well and fine but when I
give this more thought (2011) it is possible that gene mutation may be the
The 16 X-related genes are present in only single copies. Dr. Page and his
colleagues thought the chimpanzee genome might show how they were
protected. To their surprise, they report in Nature, the protection was not there.
The chimp Y chromosome has lost the use of 5 of its 16 X-related genes.
The genes are there, but have been inactivated by mutation. The explanation,
chimps mate with all males around, so as to make each refrain from killing a
The alpha male nonetheless scores most of the paternities, according to DNA
alpha male produces more and better sperm, which out compete those of rival
males. This mating system puts such intense pressure on the sperm-making
genes that any improved version will be favoured by natural selection. All the
other genes will be dragged along with it, Dr. Page believes, even if an X-
If chimps have lost five of their X-related genes in the last six million years
But experts who study fossil human remains believe that the human mating
system of long-term bonds between a man and woman evolved only some 1.7
million years ago. I suggest that it was much later than this.
Males in the human lineage became much smaller at this time, a sign of
132
reduced competition. The new result implies that even before that time, during
the first four million years after the chimp-human split, the human mating
Dr. Page said his finding did not reach to the nature of the joint chimp-human
ancestor, but that "it's a reasonable inference" that the ancestor might have
been gorilla like rather than chimp like, as supposed by some primatologists.
The gorilla mating system has no sperm competition because the silverback
Atlanta said he agreed with fossil experts that the human pair bonding system
probably evolved 1.7 million years ago but that the joint ancestor could have
something else that throws the spanner in the works of ape/human evolution
and in my opinion humans like we see today are not the result of all or any of
the early upright apes cross breeding or gene manipulation by nature. In fact I
would go as far to say that humans today are the result of mutation where
apes and chimps never moved onto the next plane to become human and
The scientists who have compared the whole genomes of the two species say
they have found 35 million sites on the aligned genomes where there are
different DNA units, and another five million where units have been added or
deleted. Each genome is about three billion units in length. The chimp
genome was completed in draft form in December 2003 by the Broad Institute
Statistical tests for accelerated evolution are not yet powerful enough to
identify the major genes that have shaped humans. "We knew that this was
only a beginning, but from a general standpoint we have captured the vast
133
report. The genome of a third primate, the orang-utan, is now in progress and
Somehow I feel that such research has gone down the wrong biological road
and linking a rain forest ape with humans would put humans coming out of
Asia and not Africa if this is correct. That would in fact put the lid on all
humans, some of which may eventually be linked to genes. But this rich vein
of discovery may be choked off if the great apes can no longer be studied in
the wild.
"The situation is very bad, and our feeling is that by 2040 most of the habitat
will be gone, except for those little regions we have set aside," Dr. de Waal
said.
Dr de Waal may well be right in the case of habitat but there are good
There is little point in beating the breast and waving the hands in the air
because besides apes the human being today is hell bent on his/her own
We are like voles and when vole numbers get too high then there is a crash
due to disease and this is fact. Natural disasters to humans are all part of the
cycle and for some reason, with the best of intentions, the human beings
elsewhere jump in with aid and money but little do they understand that they
are not doing human kind any favours when it comes down to world survival
for the rest. If five million people died next month from a disease, hunger and
drought this only makes a small hole in the human population and nature
takes them. Keeping human populations down this way is Natures way of
controlling the human mammal when it gets too high. Not allowing it will result
in a much massive problem in the near future, even into extinction because of
Unlike the Neanderthals who died out because of invaders or small pockets of
disease their world population was not in any way large so they did not all die
out at the same time and were well scattered in family groups. Human nature
compassion levels and we jump in and want to fix it which if we were honest
we do not succeed in saving the world, or a tribe of people, only some of them.
Such natural disasters in a mammal species in normal events is sad but when
political involvement by the country concerned and their need to try and take
closer now the risk is great to the human mammal because of population
growths and immigration as well and major famines which I forecast due to
another round of the Earth climate changes still to come within the next twenty
years.
Climate change and species has been going on for millions of years and no
doubt will continue to do so in the future. We have already lost many species
due to natural causes but also due to human neglect and habitat destruction.
We the human mammal will in fact destroy human kind and we know that
It has been stated, with some conviction that the Neanderthals evolved
from the late form of Homo erectus that had been in Europe during that
bones and mandible had occurred by the end of the middle Pleistocene-
Seven sets of bones found in Germany including one child have been dated
as even older, 230,000 years ago, on the prime site of Ehringsdorf and this I
feel was a split from the linkage of what I now term as modern humans.
age which suggests to me on the evidence that the Neanderthals were around
in the middle Pleistocene here. This is reflected in some of the skulls and skull
fragments we know about. These are of course the fossil records like
into these suggested a number of things and a few questions, and I have laid
this out below. One of course has to remember that fossils like these are
subjected to damage, either by nature and then their removal. Parts of the
skull bones may well be reshaped over many thousands of years, earth
movements, ice, water and soil chemistry all will have played a part. Not
Swanscombe skull.
It should be kept in mind that the skull above was found in three parts or at
least three parts of a skull were found on site and over the years they fitted
together. My concern here is that they almost fitted perfectly as others have
stated but given the time factor from finding part one and finding parts two and
138
three it is possible that the fragments were not all from the same skull.
The dates for the above is 1935, 1936 and then a great jump to 1955.
STEINHEIM SKULL.
Found in a gravel pit near Stuttgart in 1933 and has a much smaller brain size
than Swanscombe skull and was 1100 ml where the skull from Swanscombe
was 1325 ml. This skull is much more round and thinner but narrower in the
forehead part which is low and narrow, a very strong brow ridge while the
upper jaw is flat with a present day cheek hollow though I suggest from a
forensics point of view due to the process of fossilization. The back of this
skull almost matches that of Swanscombe which I am of the opinion and the
evidence presented was a primitive early Neanderthal and may well be also
female. It is in my view much older than the Swanscombe skull and falls in
with the timelines data known or suggested of fossil hominids from Tautavel,
France which could be 400,500 years old. Here was found sixty two
specimens. A hip bone, two jaw bones and a front face with right side of a
GREECE.
The skull discovered in the cave is very large and strong looking and at first
the brow ridges have a double arch shape above the orbits. The cheek bones
are inflated and the nose bones suggest also Neanderthal rather than erectus.
It is suggested by others that the brain case is 1,220 ml and the cast inside
the brain case is much smaller, less flattened at the front than that of erectus.
What I did discover in this skull and the data surrounding it is that it sends out
conflicting messages because the front is Neanderthal, the back looks erectus.
What we have so far in my research is that there is much confusion with past
in 1908 and onwards from that were dated as last interglacial age, around
120,000 years ago but they have to be twice as old or even 100,000 years
earlier than that. There is little doubt that the remains from this site show
Neanderthal characteristics and more so at the back of the skull and most of
all thick skull bones. Of course if we look at the data from the long cold period,
140
years ago which now includes the two Biache skull fragments which are made
up from a upper jaw and back of a female skull. It would seem from my
research that more females are discovered than males for reasons unknown
to me. The front of a possible male was also discovered but the French teams
disagree with the sex of the skull so anything they put forward has to be
70,000 years ago across Europe the land was in the grip of the last Ice Age
that is if people have done their maths right. Even with the ice and snow here
the area was inhabited by Neanderthals only and did so for the next 30,000
years. Cro-Magnon Man had not yet entered the archaeology stage of Europe.
evolution because such data is more than obscure but has very conflicting
We all know what a brush is, we know what a hand brush is and we are very
aware that there is many types of brushes but not always aware what their
use is. It could be said the same for the Neanderthals and that is where we
are today because this human species over many years came in shapes and
sizes, depending where they lived and we are still gathering data and I hope
that we are also interpeting the data correctly as it presents itself. There is of
course that some young bloods, wanting to make a name for themselves, and
juggle the data to suit their own needs rather than for the Archaeology
141
With the Neanderthals what needs to be looked at much more closely is the
reason why they had such larger noses across Europe and what was the
linkage to others not in Europe? Nor does it explain why the native peoples of
South East Asia as far down as New Zealand then to show the same face
profile even today. The Neanderthal gene is in there somewhere and it could
There is, sometimes un-noticed, great change in the fossil records from
around 120,000 years ago and it is only after this time the almost complete
skeltons were preserved for later discovery. Here I am dealing with the
Neanderthals and not yet so called modren humans and suggest that for the
first time some from of death ritual took place such as burial in the ground in
the form of a pit. Yet bodies not buried were left in caves such as in Spain.
Such cave disposal would have attracted the wolf, bear and big cats and it is
very likely if this was the case then full skeltons would not be found.
I should point out from my research world wide the samples of Neanderthal
remains is not large with around 20 skulls, almost complete, and bones of
men, women and children. In Kebara in a cave in Israel a trunk and upper
limb skeleton was discovered. If we put all the finds together we know what
these people would have looked like when alive, what diseases showed and
they were exposed to during their life, and from a forensic point of view,
Of course natural deaths were also happening but it is unlikley that more
Jig-jaw bone fragments tell us little but the skull tells us a lot of these humans
who lived on Earth from 120,000 to 35,000 years ago and such skulls may be
long but flat on top but it is also worth noting that H.erectus also showed such
a flat skull as well as the bar of bone above the eye sockets which both
species have except that in the Nenderthals are two arches with large air
spaces called the frontal sinuses. Such eyebrows were strong also in the
females as in their children from ten years onwards. I would state that the
early apes as reflected in the frontal sinuses. When and if you have a
Nenderthal skull in your hand you know what you are looking at and should
I have placed a number of skulls below and skull fragments for comparrsion.
143
If the mtDNA data is correct then it should show in samples of skulls from
Europe and elsewhere and site conditions, diet as well as climate, should be a
consideration for future research. Like humans today, and we leave out fab
diets and religion, not all the groups of living Neanderthals had the same diet
Such Nenderthal sites are placed now into two main categories;
Open sites and Rock shelters that produce tools and evidence of use.
What should be noted is that the main areas where skeletons and stone tools
were found were in South West France and the Middle East. In the west at
and Ukrainian plains but not as rich for finds as the others but if we are going
to link Nenderthals with the Mousterian culture then I have to include Iberian
peninsula, Italy,Croatia and Greece. Other clues on site are stone tools and
The Middle East caves of Mount Carmel outside Haifa, the Shanidar Cave in
Without doubt such tools were made, as above, by humans and not upright
apes. To make and shape such tools required a thinking brain with purpose,
something todays apes or Chimps cannot do is make and use such tools as
I have already covered the Neanderthal nose and the very possible links to
other tribes in SE Asia down to New Zealand.We also know a little about the
The front teeth were large and well worn which suggests as part of a cutting
or vice like tool that is not used as much by apes or early Homo species and it
is the large size of these front teeth, more so than the other teeth. Micoscope
other words something was gripped in the teeth, pulled away from the mouth
and cut with a stone or flint tool and the direction of the outward marks
suggested that the Neanderthals were mainly right handed when they held the
cutting tool. In time with much use the teeth became shovelled shaped and
the back teeth had extra cusps. Back teeth of the Neanderthals had bull roots
and the same has been found in some Inuit populations today. Any female
with an extra X chromosomes no matter who they are will also produce this
root condition.
146
Nenderthal teeth are in a forward position but there is a few other features in
the mandible that I feel need to be mentioned such as the hole or foraman
which lies in the rear upright part of the ascending ramus. The nerve
concerned here runs to the front of the jaw and I found odd that the bony lip
is only found in two out of three jaws examined and rare in ape jaws and the
modren humans. I should point out that it was very rare in early upright apes
suggest that the function of the bony lip may well be related to a strong pull on
the mandibular ligament which runs from the ear down to the mandibular
foraman. This may well have something to do with holding the jaw steady
when used as a tool but as time moved forwards there came in some of the
base of the jaw but there is evidence in that the chin on the outside, has a
bony ridge on the lower jaw that serves as reinforcement and gives that extra
strenght needed.
In the data I have researched it is said that the Neanderthals had a much
larger brain than Cro-Magnon = N 1400cc and CM 1370cc but I should point
out a larger brain is not always a smarter brain and I suggest not all the
Neanderthals had a brain at 1400cc if you look at the world population at the
time. There is conflict with the brain data and more so what seems to be
pushed time and again that the shape of the Neanderthal brain and that it had
Evidence of course is lacking from many sources that this was in fact the case
and in my research I will show that the Neanderthal brain was fully active as
what is termed a modren man brain would be. They may well have had thick
148
skull bone structure but this does not mean that they were thick in their
thinking. The brain case of course is directly related to the shape of the brain,
much the same as if hot jelly is poured into a mould and left to cool, and this
brain was long, low and somewhat flattened in comparison to a human brain
today.
Knowledge of brain functions sixty years ago was rather limited and as far as
tended to show today the ignorance of learned men of the time. The larger
brain with Neanderthals was not due to evolution as such but more to do with
climate, cold areas in which they lived, sometimes extreme cold. There is
evidence to show that even today human populations living in higher and
much colder conditions tend to show a large brain mass as well as a larger
body mass. Those people that live across Asia in hot climates show a lower
brain mass yet both climate brains function the same. No one living today
has yet to show the unknown significance between the Neanderthal and
Modern brains and that is the rub here. We need to find out if there was or is
one.
We must never forget that the Neanderthals and ourselves are mammals and
belong to the animal kingdom like all land mammals. Organs such as todays
humans have were the same but bone structure did differ in some ways. Diet
also must be taken into consideration because the diet of the Neanderthals
was based on hunter gatherers mode and rather limited to what was on offer
or found. If food become scarce in an area then a small group would have to
expand their area until they found enough food. This may mean that the
hunting group may be away for a few days while some of the women, children
Carleton 2012
Most people with any education knows a little or more about what DNA is and
In case you are reading this or want to skip this part please dont because it is
research also deals with the possible projects that could be undertaken within
acid =DNA it will through some light on the research I would like to see
moving forwards and giving us more information on possible links to that early
DNA is found within the nucleus of every cell and it twists and turns upwards
in spirals and very tightly when it does so which are in fact chromosomes.
This DNA is the major key to all life, a Master and complex structure that can
kick start the making of proteins which are needed in the development of an
What is more interesting is for this research on the Neanderthals ,it forms the
major basis for inheritance and passed down through all the generations with
some or many characteristics carried by genes which are made from DNA.
Proteins in part that are in the body make up the structure of skin as an
Translation = ribosome which moves along the strand of mRNA three bases
at a time and this ribosome attaches amino acids in sequence in the mRNA
triplets.
Body cells in time divide continuously during their periods of growth and to
make up for any cell damage but before a new cell is made the DNA must be
copied or replicated which suggests that the DNA strands unzip along their
small amount of DNA but the cell nucleus which is inherited from both parents
is DNA while Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother. Any
genetic disorders.
Each human has his or her unique appearance but will have also inherited
some very obvious features such as eye colour, height, chin shape from one
or both parents. The Neanderthals also had this inherited factor which rules
put the archaeology myth of the past that they all looked the same. Once a full
set of Chromosomes with its genetic material intact is established, half from
the mother and half from the father and at once the new cell will start to copy
are partly determined by genes that are passed from parents to children or
off-spring.
With this DNA information we at least have a people canvas to work with
when it comes to possible DNA research and Neanderthal blood and genetic
151
lines across Europe, maybe parts of Russia and Asia and down to parts of
North Africa.
Not related to the Inuit tribes but related to the Yuit at Lawrence Island in the
Haida. Population now only 3,600 on the Gwaii Islands Canada. Possible link
Possibility of link
The tribes of the Motu, Dani, Abelam, Huli, Ni-Vanuatu of Melanesia are all
high possibilities.
From this list above I am confident that with the right team and
funding this proposed project would open up many doors into the gene spread
University even better and I see no reason why the Neanderthal Gene Project
There are of course risks in the present data gathered to be taken as fact
and this must not happen to any new finds. Therefore I suggest that a new
computers and all data entered checked and cross referenced. There is very
little point in having any database for the work and research that I envisage
with massive gaps in a timeline of early man or the wrong data put in the
platform for this type of research and holding data. Conversion is easy to do
from Open Office or Libre Office or covert to PDF however the data may not
show as it should.
AND BONES.
Sadly this has been going on since I was a boy and for some reason is still
going on in the circles of academic intuitions and some Universities are the
worst offenders. By offenders I mean staff who work in the field and will not
listen to reason or advice because like most people with a degree or PhD in
the subject that my research is based on they have only three ways of
interpretation and follow it to the rule this being I observed; the right
interpretation, the wrong interpretation and their own interpretation which they
never give ground or even when deep down they know more investigative
work is needed. It is only after they are dead are their mistakes uncovered but
by then the damage is done by the data that they have submitted fast to be
it was fifty years ago I should point out the search is still going on for those
Missing Links that they seek here and there and everywhere, a little like the
UFO- brigade who still seek lights in the skies, aliens who carry out
abductions, and head-bangers who claim that an Alien Force came to Earth
2.5 million years ago and mated with apes, thus, we are the result of that
Not only that, the off-spring of such a Union then went on to build the Egyptian
pyramids and then shot over to South America and taught the local natives to
do the same. This of course in 2012 is what some people still think and what
Early Humans Researchers think when they talk about that Missing Link. The
Missing Link myth is running close second now to the hunt for the Holy Grail
and common sense does not enter into some academic minds that is so full of
chaff and self-importance that they fail to grasp the archaeology nettle.
such dilemmas when it comes to fossil human remains and ape fossils and I
should point out that there are many good ones out there in the field and in
our Universities but no four put together in a padded room will agree to what
Conclusive evidence, one way or the other on the real timelines of the
example of what happens when you jump the gun and dont do your research
right, double check it and then check it again with someone else, you end up
1733 found a long vertebral column with some other parts and all were in that
a man before the Flood. He was so happy about his find and broadcast it to
many people only to find out later that it was a large Salamander and not
But Scheuchzer was not alone in his fool thinking because later a skeleton
from Guadeloupe was found aboard a French Ship being searched by the
Royal Navy in the early 1900s and was said to be, the bones of a man in a
158
fossil state. It proved later to be no more than 200 years old and not what
A headache of course for anyone who makes claims first before checking out
fossilization and because after death remains are not broken down by now
known chemical components, such bones have been hidden away from the
RECENT.?
In the bad old days of hit and miss bone research the tongue test was used
and this was in the early to middle 19th century. If a bone stuck to your tongue
Sadly once the use of hydrochloric acid came into use for testing bone fossils
it was discovered that tongue stick bone in fact contained large amounts of
collagen when in fact it should have been very little if it were a real bone fossil.
Sadly what went before the acid test and slipped through the archaeology net
of possibility was already labelled as fossil and today such items now lie
hidden away in shoe boxes in some dusty vault or have been tossed on a
Today there is a simple field test. Was the fossil found above, below or in with
other bones of long extinct animals? Even then, the evidence of early man
was viewed with suspicion by many in case they were in fact much younger
159
Such archaeology suspicion resulted in the very first fossil remains known to
have been found in the year 1700 at Cannstadt in the south of Germany being
rejected as human and a fossil at that. Through the find was a skull fragment
it lay in a small box for a 136 years afterwards in the Stuttgart Museum until it
was rediscovered in 1882 and turned out to be a real fossil but got very little
This was a sign of the times of course and when fossil human remains were
were also treated with distain. No one who had any knowledge of bones and
fossils were going to stick their German necks out in public and claim human
fossil remains.
across Europe.
Paul Schmerling, 1791-1836 who was the founder of the first Palaeontology
study in Belgium had the same reaction from the public and Universities when
Engis The skulls in question were mixed in with the remains of mammoth and
rhino bones which suggests strongly that they were in fact fossils. His claims,
which were in fact right, were rejected by the experts of the day. It was a hard
blow for him at the time but later it was Charles Lyell, an Englishman, who did
comment on their importance yet it was twenty five years before the experts
at the University of Liege passed the find at true and with evidence of such.
Evidence of such finds that were passed over by experts of the day did not
just happen in Europe but in England. Experts were not really interested and
if a few were they kept their mouths shut and their self-build reputations intact.
160
time and the evidence of flint working tools with the fossils of very extinct
animals in 1829 and was dismissed. A few years later, a skull discovered in
Gibraltar in 1846 was also dismissed by the archaeology community but I will
Much of this could not care less attitude in the west may have had something
Evolution and I have no doubt at all that this was one reason why such finds
were dismissed, and even hide evidence of anything that looked human but
different. God you see, it is said, made Man in his image and the whole idea
that God had brow ridges, a larger un-shapely body and the remains looked
deformed was at this time a non-runner for upstanding Christians. What nailed
the whole thing was that the remains suggested strongly that this thing was
around before Adam and Eve ever came on the scene as humans, like us.
An example of such thinking I give here and it all started with a man
hunting rabbits with nets over the holes, went to get a rabbit out of the net
which had been carried deep into the hole by the fleeing animal.
This was on a hillside outside Aurignac, France and his hand touched
something that was not a rabbit but a large bone. He pulled out the bone,
followed by the rabbit in the net which he dispatched then dug deeper into the
hole. This suggests he had nets, ferrets and a small digging spade and he
used the spade to good effect because he found a cave that was littered with
human bones. As this happened in 1852 the local mayor, who it turns out was
also the local doctor for the area, Dr.Amiel no less, he confirmed that there
was the remains belonged to seventeen humans of both sexes and all ages.
Being a good Christian, the mayor and a doctor he had the power to order a
161
quick Christian burial down in the parish churchyard and as far as he and
everyone else was concerned that was the end of the matter.
Alas that was not to be because eight years later in 1860 when a
palaeontologist; Edouard Lartet asked the Church Sexton about the burial of
the bones, the man shrugged and said he knew nothing of any such burial
and if it happened he would have known. I suggest that he did know and did
not want the matter brought up again or the bones in the mass grave.
In 1844 and in 1858 two books were published that in time tended to throw a
spanner in the works of Early Human Research, such as it was at this time.
author; Robert Chambers 1802-1844 and its full working title was called;
Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, and the second and better known
book today was published fifteen years later by Charles Darwin; The Origin
Of Species and both caused uproar in many quarters across the reading
world.
Wallace, fourteen years younger than Darwin and a poor man at that, who
came up on the same track as Darwin. Wallace did write his book but made
the mistake of sending it to Darwin to read who was now living in Down House,
Down in Kent. The MMs from Wallace arrived with Darwin on the 26 th of June
1852. When Darwin opened and read the book he must have been shocked
because his own baby was still in stage five and both books, still unpublished
seemed to him to be almost replicas of one another. The rub for both men is
that their books had to be read and looked at closely by the committee of the
Linnean Society of London and read. The readings took place on the 1 st July
1858. It could well be that Darwin had friends on the committee where
162
Wallace was not as well-known so it is possible that a nod and a wink was
given to Darwin and was told to prepare for publication and worked on stage
six as we today know it and the book, his book, was published on the 24th
In all from my research there were in fact three such books, published or
unpublished all on the same trail of evolution and all in a hurry to get there
first in the public eye. Darwin of course read Vestiges then slagged it off and
as the author of Vestiges was taking all the public and professional doubts
about content this took the focus of Darwin though he did have his critics.
The relations between Darwin, the public, Church and the apes soured and
science looked like it was in fact opposing religion, the Bible looked like just a
book and read in quotes and even some of the learned people of the day also
condemned Darwin and his book. Darwin had kicked hard, a wasps nest of
objection and his views on Evolution of human kind which I should point out
still lingers today. Soon the debate raged for and against Darwins theory of
Evolution across the world and before anyone could say, Ape Man the
Neanderthals were dragged into the hot debate and for many, classified in the
science world as a gorilla from Africa. No one at that time could of course
explain how a gorilla entered Europe, a small part of Asia and lived in caves
Above are two skulls form an African gorilla and in comparison to any
Neanderthal skulls the difference could not be missed even by the small
Above is the Neanderthal skull (left) and a modern skull (right) so how anyone
could get it wrong even in those far off days is beyond me, unless of course
Any past finds and new ones of Neanderthal skulls should show in part or
whole the larger brain case and of course the brow ridges that cannot be
clearing a deep cave and very narrow ravine in the Neander Valley and where
the Dussel River flows and just a short distance from the Rhine at Dusseldorf.
Though this cave was large getting into it was difficult because it was 20m up
a steep cliff-side with the entrance around a meter. All the bones discovered
where down almost two meters in mud and it was likely that the whole
164
skeleton when found but because they were looked on as modern bones or
animal bones to the quarry men they were dumped with other rocks and mud
It was around seven weeks that a few of the bones were discovered by a
school teacher as well as a skull cap and no evidence of any fossil animals
found with the few shattered bones left. This would mean that the remains
only.
could confirm the remains were human but very old and also he presented his
facts in Bonn on the 4th February, 1857 and three years before Darwins book
The professor was also able to establish that the limb bones were thick with
strong muscle attachments which suggested to him that whoever the man
was he was strong and used to heavy manual work and exercise. The strange
shape of the skull got more attention from him and he was able to say that it
was a normal shape but very different from modern day humans and not from
His comments on the large brow ridges at first suggested large ape but he
knew that what he looked at was not an ape but from some primate human
from NW Europe that had even confronted the Romans when they invaded.
His dating of the timelines is wrong of course but what is important is that he
So what we had then was the first Neanderthal uncovered and classified as
From where had this early human come from and when?
I can only suggest that DNA and RNA do give some of the answers
where we come from, but where the Neanderthals came from and where they
went is still in debate. Current animal and plant classification models are fairly
subjective in how they are set up and scientists had hoped that the newer
consistent results that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree
Science: hit this on the head and a bit of a blow to those that wanted it and
differences in 18s rRNA sequences which show that molluscs (scallops) are
course, this is not too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea
urchin than a shrimp but a Neanderthal seems more human than an ape,
even upright ones from Africa. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop
and sea urchin is not surprising or that past and modern apes still look like
apes not human Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an
scallop. How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod
168
and much less related to the other type of arthropod? Such a troubling
the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time,
However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. If this
were the case are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to
data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation so what do
we have left?
18 of 32 amino acids, but by only 15 of 32 amino acids from the salmon. Are
we therefore more closely related to fish than to other mammals like the pig?
169
It is not I say because if it was re-worked with many other animals, this link
turtle (22 variations). Humans and horses, both being placental mammals,
are presumed to have shared a common ancestor with each other more
cytochrome c of the human varies in 12 places from that of a horse but only in
phylogenies and those based on cytochrome c are well known. If that has got
you confused as it did me when I read this data you are not alone.
common decent. However, there are some who think that the general
perspective. First, the cytochromes of all the higher organisms (yeasts, plants,
up the scale of evolution but remains essentially uniform The following data
creatures:
81. 63.
Horse 88.5 88.5 -- 99.0 94.2 84.6 65.7 71.2 58.6 46.5
6 7
171
81. 59.
Carp 78.6 78.6 82.5 83.5 -- 81.6 57.3 64.1 52.0 44.0
6 2
63. 59.
Maize 66.7 66.7 64.7 66.7 59.2 -- 58.1 57.1 51.5 42.6
7 2
According to the theory of common decent, all creatures living today are
Even the bacteria that remain alive today have sustained mutations over
finer point on it; modern humans of today because we should expect and not
"complex".
creature. The tip of each spoke is equally distant from the wheel hub as well
as many of the other spoke tips on the wheel. So obviously then, even if the
tip of one of the spokes was a single celled creature, like tetrahymena, this
Higher organisms, on the other hand, might be more similar to each other
due to a more recent separation from a common ancestor between them. For
example, humans and chimps are both equally different from bacteria, but
when compared with each other, their cytochrome c proteins are almost
and chimps simply share the same wheel spoke except that this spoke splits
at the very tip with humans and chimps sharing different tips.
The data put forward by others does seem to generally match the theory
There are a few problems with this scenario supporting the theory of common
decent. The problem might arise when one considers that mutation rates are
mutation rate for a given gene in all creatures, is about 1 x 10 mutations per
gene per generation. That would mean that a given gene will mutate only
on average.
E. coli, one might think this would be a long time. Each and every gene in an
E. coli lineage will get mutated once every 40 to 80 years. So, in one million
years, each gene will have suffered at least 10,000 mutations. Therefore if
we work out the data for the Neanderthals from 100,000 years to 30,000
that matches the other suggested data from elsewhere for or against?
of about 600 or so. This would translate into a minimum of at least 1,800
nucleic acids in DNA coding for this sub-unit of cytochrome c protein (3bp per
codon). Note that in the table above, the tetrahymena species are about 50%
different from all other creatures on the table. It seems then that all the
Taking 25% of 1,800 give us 450 mutations so let us say that the average
mutation rate is one mutation per 1,800 nucleic acids per one million
generation it would take about 450 million generations to get a 25% difference
from the common ancestor. With a generation time of 20 minutes (i.e.: E. coli),
that works out to be about 342,000 years. So, for bacteria, the 25%
Functional Differences
The question is then, if bacteria can achieve such relatively rapid neutral
genetic drift, why are they not more wide ranging in their cytochrome c
sequences?
Why are they then so uniformly separated from all other "higher" species
statically different due to the various functional needs of creatures that inhabit
as snails, sponges, and fishes and this split from the common ancestry of the
creatures is said to have happened over 3 billion years ago. About 600
million years ago there was the Cambrian explosion where all the major phyla
All of these creatures have all been around long enough and are diverse
enough to exhibit quite a range in cytochrome c variation. If this was the case
such an orderly hierarchy and why don't bacteria, snails, fish, and sponges
I am going to suggest that the clustered differences that are seen in genes
function that actually benefit the various organisms according to their different
individual needs.
random mutation over time as they are due to differences in the functional
Much the same can be said of most if not all phylogenies that are based on
genotypic differences between all living things but evidence of such is lacking
as fact.
cytochrome c would better serve E. coli bacteria than their current fairly
similar type of cytochrome c, how can an evolutionist say that E. coli would
Then, there is also the argument that the nested hierarchical pattern, by
pattern is present throughout the tree of life. This doesn't seem to be the
case. It seems as though the roots of the tree do not show a nested
pattern. This means that the evolutionary theory has to be able to explain
In this line consider the fairly recent comments from Elizabeth Pennisi in a
1999 Science article entitled, "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?"
the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and
so far produced.
179
explanation.
In 1999, Michael Lynch noted in "The Age and Relationships of the Major
In 1999 Philippe and Forterre wrote an article entitled, "The rooting of the
universal tree of life is not reliable" in which they made the following
comments:
Eukaryota sisterhood."
Just one more 1999 paper by Ann Miller, from the Yale Department of
"Phylogenies constructed on
made."
There is even suggestion that lateral gene transfer (LGT) may be fairly
2007 paper published in Science, Hotopp et. al., argue that there has been
"Tree of Life", are falling apart with additional evidence and I suggest almost
like a bad human post mortem being performed but unlike some researchers
still has a brain before removal. When a given organism has hundreds of
evolutionists are left in a very perplexing position even though they have
falsifiable manner, that these differences were not the result of evolution from
a common ancestor over time, but were in fact the result of lateral transfer of
research without good cross reference with the notion of being a "science". It
It is nothing more than "just so" storytelling and those people, at least some
of them who work in genetics, tend to blind other researchers with their
advanced science jargon I have observed over the years. There is little
purpose to this when working with genetics and early humans because it does
not come across to me as people with knowledge of the subject but of people
who love quoting text book jargon to try and impress others. It fails badly of
course and even Neanderthals, if they were around today, would come to the
same conclusion that the writer of such data, from a biology point of view
knew little of his/her subject and a complete dip stick when it came down to
the study of the Neanderthal data. They quote what they have read and not
hierarchy goes, the theory of evolution would still be used to explain the origin
lateral gene transfer are used. This messes everything up. Evolutionists
would have a much stronger case if the sequences in question were actually
neutral with regard to phenotypic function, but they aren't. That is why the
notion of maybe was so popular for such a long time - until recently when
185
Some argue that this doesn't happen because the different sequences are
basically arguing that the differences are not in fact functional different, but
are actually neutral with respect to a functional optimum. Again, that makes
similarities, are maintained over time. If this neutral argument were correct,
other words, it would not be so neatly nested or filed away as research data
that is truth.
that the nested differences are not so much the result of common ancestry as
different environments. And, this is very much what we find in real life.
different genetic sequences for various protein products that are actually
There are many examples of this. And yet, when placed in the same
Why? Because, there are indeed different optimal sequences when different
and humans are functional. They are not neutral. If the human sequence
were put in a bacterium, it might survive ok, but it would not do as well. Over
time, its offspring would rapidly evolve back the original more optimum
sequence.
186
rate used by Krings et. al. was based on the a priori assumption
that modern humans split off from chimps some "4-5 million
site per year per lineage, was determined. Using this rate, the
Nature Genetics:
187
roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr,
mutation rate than that which was used by Krings et al. Now
single one of these base pairs would have changed more than
Reasonable Explanation?
parsimony. That is, the tree that is selected is the one that reflects the least
molecular phylogenies, that would not prove that the groups in question
for some other reason. For example, all of the living organisms on this planet
live in a relatively similar environment. All use the same water, breathe the
same air, and eat the same basic foods for building blocks and energy. Is it
Nothing lives to itself. All living things are dependent upon other living
things. If they were not molecularly and thus genetically compatible, nothing
would survive very long. The "cycle of life" is dependent upon this fact. There
would be no cycle if the basic building blocks of the creatures involved were
reasonable to assume that those creatures that share the most similar
environments, body plans, and physiology would also have the most similar
needs and thus the most similar genetic and molecular machineries.
Biologist Leonard Brand makes this point quite eloquently in the following
excerpt:
functional needs so that random drift is not allowed. Beyond this, very
different trees are often outright incompatible with each other or, at
best, inconclusive and that means no matter how good the genetic
Man and what is called modern humans today there is room for doubt
193
because I am off the opinion that they are one in the same, only one
opinion but before I go into that I want to go over what we know or think
A cave full of bones, including at least 24 near-humans and this was a deep
crack, not a comfortable shelter which does not appear to be an animal den,
These first group of bones dated about 0.3 mya (300,000 ya) with a mixture of
The bones were very variable from individual to individual with different
different population.
194
have been found elsewhere around Europe during this general period
physical traits lived all over Europe but in small groups and numbers. For
the benefit of this research I call them, Neanderthals after the German name
of the Neander valley, where the first one was found so enter Homo
neanderthalensis.
Neanderthals are found only in Europe and my research does show that
Neanderthal features thus again suggesting that the Neanderthals came from
It has been suggested by others over the years through some recent genetic
I have to disagree strongly with the view and believe the evidence points at
but l will get to this later during the first early Cro-Magnon timeline.
The European Neanderthals, the Asian H. erectus, and probably the Asian H.
heidelbergensis all eventually went extinct only about 30,000 years ago dead
branches on our family tree but it was Homo Neanderthals that lived longer in
Yes there was a rounded, more inflated braincase but shape is still longer
and lower than modern H. sapiens. Occipital bun, rather than occipital torus -
unlike the occipital torus, the occipital bun is not a thickening of the bone,
instead, it is just a part of the braincase that bulges out - gives a rounder
shape to the lower back of the cranium, compared to the more sharply angled
shape of H. heidelbergensis
Facial features
and the massive face itself leave space for larger sinuses separating the brain
a bit from the path of cold air entering the nose thought to be an adaptation to
The massive brow ridges but hollow, containing sinuses, rather than solid
bone matter and again, may be an adaptation to lose less heat from the brain.
Huge, beaky nose wide nasal opening nasal bones approach horizontal,
indicating a high, projecting curve at the top of the nose again one other
warm incoming air before it blows by the brain and into the lungs
196
Receding chin.
Small back teeth, especially the molars - molars (upper parts of the roots are
merged together into one big, tubular root) - Retro molar gap
probably just reflects the more forward position of the teeth relative to the
- Relatively large incisors with usually with very heavy, angled wear from
There is often evidence of diagonal scratches on the front of the incisors from
cutting off meat or hide held in the front teeth but such
scratches are mostly from the individuals own upper left to lower right - just
Body features;
Stocky, robust, very muscular bodies with leg bone shafts are thicker-walled
than modern H. sapiens and knee and hip joints larger than modern H.
sapiens.
This may have been to spread weight, shocks, wear over a larger area
should withstand heavy use better with more muscular scapulae (shoulder
Barrel-chested:
deep, round torso - typical of modern populations that are adapted to cold
197
climates and/or high elevations - increases lung capacity, thus oxygen intake,
heavy activity and conserves heat by reducing surface area relative to volume
that have long lived in cold climates - stumpy limbs conserve more heat; long
limbs radiate more heat - Neanderthals crural indices are like the most
extreme known for modern humans: Laps, who live in the arctic Overall,
many Neanderthal features seem to reflect selection pressures from very cold
appeared as the Pleistocene ice ages were beginning and persisted almost
The timeline during which Neanderthals evolved averaged much colder than
today, with drastic swings in global climate - by, say, 110,000 years ago,
Europe and North America were partially covered by glaciers and exposed
land would have been frigid, nearly Arctic grassland which supporting herds of
and our current climate in the last 10,000 years or so has been both unusually
At one time there were wild global temperature swings that went from high to
substantially warmer than today - to longer periods that averaged much colder
than today and European data now suggest that some shifts from temperate
Neanderthal culture;
broadcast it off the top of their heads that that the Neanderthals ever had a
working culture.
One must not forget that H. ergaster and early H. heidelbergensis made
mode 2 Acheulean style of stone tools - 1.6 0.3 mya - This is referred to as
Europe but you could not call it a culture as such. A timeline or period yes,
culture no.
Neanderthals in Europe, made better stone tools than before - starting around
0.3 mya - emphasizing flake tools, typically with the shape of the flake
This is referred to as the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa, or the Middle
It is based on carefully made flakes, rather than the cores from which the
flakes were removed with the classic technique of the Mousterian style is the
controlled by carefully preparing the core and the flake is then used as it is, or
slightly modified to make a projectile point, scraper, knife, drill, or other tool.
Some cores were then reshaped and another flake tool is struck off
199
unlike the repetitive Acheulean style, in which just a couple of main forms
different forms - this presumably means that some more complex thinking was
shafts, probably of wood) - this is based on studies of wear on the stone parts
and it goes along with the finding that many of the tools have edges that
show wear typical of cutting wood ,later used that would be for making
Stone use only would up to a few kilometres from its source, maybe an
lower levels contained one fragment of a cranium that has been identified as
Neanderthal dated very late for Neanderthals: about 33,000 ya the artefacts
included bone awls which included one that broke while it was being made
This suggests that the Neanderthal residents of the cave made these tools,
rather than getting them from possible modern humans nearby - also bone
beads and pendants, with similar evidence of being made in the cave shows
is, working bone and most of all, the symbolic thinking involved in making and
Most groups of Neanderthals very rarely did it and this raises the question,
why not?
Of course the late date means that there could have been modern humans
and some sort of commutations in force as well as sharing goods, food and
skins.
coming into contact with more modern humans and picked up some of their
customs.
size with some regularity ,probably sometimes larger animals, including bison,
species more like the mix of live animals in the environment and
There would also have been scavenging or opportunistic killing would produce
more emphasis on young and old animals, which are more likely to have been
and several sites with Mousterian tools seem to be places where herds of
large animals (including mammoths) were driven off cliffs and then butchered.
Other sites have unusually high proportions of meaty limb bones suggesting
that the Neanderthals hunted the animals cut off the best, most portable parts,
Even so they still did not apparently build shelters - many sites are inside
caves - but this is probably just because cave sites happen to be better
preserved and are easier to find than open-air sites that would feel safe and
Search the data as you will but I have found no evidence of postholes from
hearths in the mouths of caves, maybe they didnt build them outside of caves.
From the known bone data Neanderthals tended to die young, often after
skeletons were 40-45 years old at death yet they often show serious arthritis,
loss of teeth, etc., one from Shanidar (Iraq) had had the side of his face
crushed by a serious blow that healed, but probably left him blind in one eye
and paralyzed on one side (the arm and leg bones were atrophied) and there
202
are many other Neanderthals with healed fractures, bone infections probably
- It has often suggested that all these healed injuries and decrepit old people
indicate that Neanderthals cared for their old and sick. Boyd and Silk suggest
point out that non-human primates often survive serious injuries without help
from others but still, this does not explain why so many injuries?
One study suggests that the mix of injuries is similar to that found in rodeo
major hunt. They would if they hunted the sorts of animals found at many of
their sites and used weapons that required them to get close, like spears.
Neanderthals sometimes buried their dead evidence is scanty to say the least
whole bodies - not just scattered parts or very rare whole individuals and I find
The data on such bodies suggest they have been cared for post death and
scavengers
When the archaeology community dont know the answer they always
suggest possible ritual treatments? This is some seem to have been buried
with stone tools and in one case (Shanidar, Iraq), pollen in the soil of the
burial suggested that the body was buried with flowers but this could suggest
that the smell of a decaying body was the reason for the flowers.
In another case, a set of mountain goat horns were found over the head but
these cases are all debatable because the said objects might have already
been in the soil - or maybe they got into the burial accidentally at the time. We
203
In Africa the fossil record for this period is not nearly as good as it is for
contrast, in Africa.
- from about 300,000 to 200,000 ya, there were still populations similar to
Homo heidelbergensis
Europe
- from about 200,000 to 100,000 ya, African populations began looking more
like modern humans: Homo sapiens - higher, more rounded cranium in side
- About 50,000 ya, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, with modern, human-
like culture, began spreading out of Africa - again, more on this next time -
they may have shared parts of Europe and the Middle East with the latest
co-existed with distinctly different modern humans for a while in the Middle
East and Europe - but apparently did not interbreed with them much or at all
- out-competed them?
- so, by about 30,000 ya, the only hominin left standing in Africa, Europe, or
- Next time we will look at the origins of these Homo sapiens in Africa, and
presented in detail his own research and most of it I tend to agree with. In
Huxleys research is worthwhile and not in any way is it a that far out
from what I am trying to do a cross reference on. The two skulls images
I have inserted and are in colour.
Thomas Huxley
or Man Family, form a very well defined group of the Primates, between which
and the immediately following Family, the CATARHINI, there is, in the existing
world, the same entire absence of any transitional form or connecting link, as
diminished, or even obliterated, if we take into account the long and varied
succession of animals and plants which have preceded those now living and
which are known to us only by their fossilized remains. How far this doctrine is
well based, how far, on the other hand, as our knowledge at present stands, it
conclusions fairly deducible from them, are points of grave importance, but
that such a view of the relations of extinct to living beings has been
propounded, to lead us to inquire, with anxiety, how far the recent discoveries
Human skulls from the caves of Engis in the valley of the Meuse, in Belgium,
have been examined with so much care by Sir Charles Lyell; upon whose
high authority I shall take it for granted, that the Engis skull belonged to a
that the former takes us to, at least, the further side of the vague biological
limit, which separates the present geological epoch from that which
immediately preceded it. And there can be no doubt that the physical
geography of Europe has changed wonderfully, since the bones of Men and
Mammoths, Hyenas and Rhinoceroses were washed pell-mell into the cave of
Engis.
The skull from the cave of Engis was originally discovered by Professor
Schmerling, and was described by him, together with other human remains
disinterred at the same time, in his valuable work, 'Recherches sur les
published in 1833 (p. 59, 'et seq.'), from which the following paragraphs are
preserved.
"In the first place, I must remark that these human remains, which are in my
undergone, which is precisely the same as that of the extinct species: all, with
a few exceptions, are broken; some few are rounded, as is frequently found to
be the case in fossil remains of other species. The fractures are vertical or
oblique; none of them are eroded; their colour does not differ from that of
other fossil bones, and varies from whitish yellow to blackish. All are lighter
than recent bones, with the exception of those which have a calcareous
incrustation, and the cavities of which are filled with such matter.
207
"The cranium which I have caused to be figured, Plate I., Figs. 1, 2, is that of
an old person. The sutures are beginning to be effaced: all the facial bones
are wanting, and of the temporal bones only a fragment of that of the right
side is preserved.
"The face and the base of the cranium had been detached before the skull
was deposited in the cave, for we were unable to find those parts, though the
whole cavern was regularly searched. The cranium was met with at a depth of
a metre and a half [five feet nearly], hidden under an osseous breccia,
tusk, with several teeth of horses and of ruminants. This breccia, which has
been spoken of above (p. 30), was a metre [3 1/4 feet about] wide, and rose
to the height of a metre and a half above the floor of the cavern, to the walls of
"The earth which contained this human skull exhibited no trace of disturbance:
presented by the form and the dimensions of human crania of different races.
This important work would have assisted us greatly, if the face, a part
essential for the determination of race, with more or less accuracy, had not
"We are convinced that even if the skull had been complete, it would not have
individual variations are so numerous in the crania of one and the same race,
208
that one cannot, without laying oneself open to large chances of error, draw
any inference from a single fragment of a cranium to the general form of the
skull, we may observe that, from the first, the elongated and narrow form of
"In fact, the slight elevation of the frontal, its narrowness, and the form of the
an European: the elongated form and the produced occiput are also
remove all doubt upon that subject I have caused the contours of the cranium
represented. Plate II., Figs. 1 and 2, and, in the same plate, Figs. 3 and 4, will
"At whatever conclusion we may arrive as to the origin of the man from
cavern beside the tooth of an elephant; the skull was entire when found, but
209
the moment it was lifted it fell into pieces, which I have not, as yet, been able
to put together again. But I have represented the bones of the upper jaw,
Plate I., Fig. 5. The state of the alveoli and the teeth, shows that the molars
had not yet pierced the gum. Detached milk molars and some fragments of a
human skull proceed from this same place. The Figure 3 represents a human
"A clavicle of the left side (see Plate III., Fig. 1); although it belonged to a
young individual, this bone shows that he must have been of great stature. 3
"Two fragments of the radius, badly preserved, do not indicate that the height
of the man, to whom they belonged, exceeded five feet and a half.
"As to the remains of the upper extremities, those which are in my possession
consist merely of a fragment of an ulna and of a radius (Plate III., Figs. 5 and
6).
of which we have spoken; it was found in the lower part above the cranium:
add to this some metacarpal bones, found at very different distances, half-a-
dozen metatarsals, three phalanges of the hand, and one of the foot.
cavern of Engis, which has preserved for us the remains of three individuals,
210
From the cave of Engihoul, opposite that of Engis, on the right bank of the
among which were only two fragments of parietal bones, but many bones of
among the bones of the Cave Bear ('Ursus spelaeus'), found in the Belgian
caverns.
It was in the cavern of Engis that Professor Schmerling found, incrusted with
stalagmite and joined to a stone, the pointed bone implement, which he has
figured in Fig. 7 of his Plate XXXVI., and worked flints were found by him in all
A short letter from M. Geoffrey St. Hilaire, published in the 'Comptes Rendus'
of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, for July 2nd, 1838, speaks of a visit (and
criticizes the drawings which illustrate Schmerling's work, and affirms that the
The only other remark worth quoting is this:"The aspect of the human bones
differs little from that of the cave bones, with which we are familiar, and of
their special forms, compared with those of the varieties of recent human
crania, few 'certain' conclusions can be put forward; for much greater
varieties, than between the fossil cranium of Liege and that of one of those
Geoffrey St. Hilaire's remarks are, it will be observed, little but an echo of the
critique upon Schmerling's figures, I find that the side view given by the latter
is really about 3/10ths of an inch shorter than the original, and that the front
not, in any way, inaccurate, but corresponds very well with the cast which is in
my possession.
A piece of the occipital bone, which Schmerling seems to have missed, has
Dr. Spring, of Liege, under whose direction an excellent plaster cast was
made for Sir Charles Lyell. It is upon and from a duplicate of that cast that my
own observations and the accompanying figures, the outlines of which are
copied from very accurate Camera lucida drawings, by my friend Mr. Busk,
As Professor Schmerling observes, the base of the skull is destroyed, and the
facial bones are entirely absent; but the roof of the cranium, consisting of the
frontal, parietal, and the greater part of the occipital bones, as far as the
middle of the occipital foramen, is entire or nearly so. The left temporal bone
the auditory foramen, the mastoid process, and a considerable portion of the
The lines of fracture which remain between the coadjusted pieces of the skull,
and are faithfully displayed in Schmerling's figure, are readily traceable in the
212
cast. The sutures are also discernible, but the complex disposition of their
serrations, shown in the figure, is not obvious in the cast. Though the ridges
which give attachment to muscles are not excessively prominent, they are
well marked, and taken together with the apparently well developed frontal
sinuses, and the condition of the sutures, leave no doubt on my mind that the
The extreme length of the skull is 7.7 inches. Its extreme breadth, which
corresponds very nearly with the interval between the parietal protuberances,
is not more than 5.4 inches. The proportion of the length to the breadth is
therefore very nearly as 100 to 70. If a line be drawn from the point at which
the brow curves in towards the root of the nose, and which is called the
'glabella' ('a') (Fig. 23), to the occipital protuberance ('b'), and the distance to
the highest point of the arch of the skull be measured perpendicularly from
this line, it will be found to be 4.75 inches. Viewed from above, A, the
forehead presents an evenly rounded curve, and passes into the contour of
the sides and back of the skull, which describes a tolerably regular elliptical
curve.
The front view shows that the roof of the skull was very regularly and
elegantly arched in the transverse direction, and that the transverse diameter
was a little less below the parietal protuberances, than above them. The
forehead cannot be called narrow in relation to the rest of the skull, nor can it
of the skull is well arched, so that the distance along that contour, from the
The transverse arc of the skull, measured from one auditory foramen to the
213
other, across the middle of the sagittal suture, is about 13 inches. The sagittal
The supraciliary prominences or brow-ridges (on each side of 'a', Fig. 23) are
If a line joining the glabella and the occipital protuberance ('a', 'b', Fig. 23) be
made horizontal, no part of the occipital region projects more than 1/10th of
an inch behind the posterior extremity of that line, and the upper edge of the
auditory foramen ('c') is almost in contact with a line drawn parallel with this
A transverse line drawn from one auditory foramen to the other traverses, as
usual, the forepart of the occipital foramen. The capacity of the interior of this
The history of the Human remains from the cavern in the Neanderthal may
"In the early part of the year 1857, a human skeleton was discovered in a
Elberfeld. Of this, however, I was unable to procure more than a plaster cast
remarkable conformation, which was, in the first instance, read on the 4th of
February, 1857, at the meeting of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural
these bones, which were not at first regarded as human, and into whose
the General Meeting of the Natural History Society of Prussian Rhineland and
Westphalia, at Bonn, on the 2nd of June, 1857, Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a
full account of the locality, and of the circumstances under which the
He was of opinion that the bones might be regarded as fossil; and in coming
deposits, with which their surface was covered, and which were first noticed
skull was due to a natural conformation hitherto not known to exist, even in
the most barbarous races. 2nd. That these remarkable human remains
belonged to a period antecedent to the time of the Celts and Germans, and
were in all probability derived from one of the wild races of North-western
autochthones by the German immigrants. And 3rdly. That it was beyond doubt
that these human relics were traceable to a period at which the latest animals
of the diluvium still existed; but that no proof of this assumption, nor
"As Dr. Fuhlrott has not yet published his description of these circumstances, I
borrow the following account of them from one of his letters. 'A small cave or
215
grotto, high enough to admit a man, and about 15 feet deep from the
entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern wall of the gorge of
Dussel, and about 60 feet above the bottom of the valley. In its earlier and
uninjured condition, this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying in front of
it, and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly into the
river. It could be reached, though with difficulty, from above. The uneven floor
the bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, placed nearest to the
entrance of the cavern; and further in, the other bones, lying in the same
horizontal plane. Of this I was assured, in the most positive terms, by two
laborers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and who were
being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they
importance of the discovery was not at the time perceived, the labourers were
very careless in the collecting, and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and
the frontal sinuses, owing to which the supraciliary ridges, which coalesce
completely in the middle, are rendered so prominent, that the frontal bone
whilst a deep depression is also formed in the situation of the root of the nose.
The forehead is narrow and low, though the middle and hinder portions of the
cranial arch are well developed. Unfortunately, the fragment of the skull that
has been preserved consists only of the portion situated above the roof of the
orbits and the superior occipital ridges, which are greatly developed, and
whole of the frontal bone, both parietals, a small part of the squamous and the
upper-third of the occipital. The recently fractured surfaces show that the skull
was broken at the time of its disinterment. The cavity holds 16,876 grains of
to stand on a level with the orbital plate of the frontal, with the deepest notch
in the squamous margin of the parietal, and with the superior semicircular
upper boundary of the attachment of the temporal muscle, though not very
strongly marked, ascends nevertheless to more than half the height of the
mm. 8
12.0".
217
23".
4.1"4.5".
5.25"5".
1.0"0.9".
5.4"5.9"
protuberance...................................8.
"1. Both thigh-bones, perfect. These, like the skull, and all the other bones,
are characterized by their unusual thickness, and the great development of all
some recent thigh-bones, with which in thickness the foregoing pretty nearly
bones.
mm. mm.
Length.....................................542 = 21.4"......438 =
17.4"
53 = 2.0"
= 3.4"
30 = 1.1"
belongs to the
thigh-bones. mm.
Length.....................................312 = 12.3"
"3. A left humerus of which the upper-third is wanting, and which is so much
process being so much enlarged by bony growth, that flexure of the elbow
beyond a right angle must have been impossible; the anterior fossa of the
humerus for the reception of the coronoid process being also filled up with a
similar bony growth. At the same time, the olecranon is curved strongly
supposed that an injury sustained during life was the cause of the anchylosis.
When the left ulna is compared with the right radius, it might at first sight be
ulna being more than half an inch too short for articulation with a
attenuation of the left humerus, are both consequent upon the pathological
"4. A left 'ilium', almost perfect, and belonging to the femur: a fragment of the
right 'scapula'; the anterior extremity of a rib of the right side; and the same
part of a rib of the left side; the hinder part of a rib of the right side; and lastly,
two hinder portions and one middle portion of ribs, which from their unusually
judgment I defer, will not venture to declare them to be ribs of any animal; and
it only remains to suppose that this abnormal condition has arisen from an
"The bones adhere strongly to the tongue, although, as proved by the use of
hydrochloric acid, the greater part of the cartilage is still retained in them,
which has been observed by v. Bibra in fossil bones. The surface of all the
bones is in many spots covered with minute black specks, which, more
These deposits, which were first observed on the bones by Dr. Meyer, are
most distinct on the inner surface of the cranial bones. They consist of a
on laminated rocks, and are usually found in minute fissures and cracks. At
the meeting of the Lower Rhine Society at Bonn, on the 1st April, 1857, Prof.
those of 'Ursus spelaeus', but still more abundantly and beautifully displayed
etc., from the caves of Bolve and Sundwig. Faint indications of similar
'dendrites' were visible in a Roman skull from Siegburg; whilst other ancient
skulls, which had lain for centuries in the earth, presented no trace of them. 9
affording a certain mark of distinction between bones mixed with the diluvium
at a somewhat later period and the true diluvial relics, to which alone it was
supposed that these deposits were confined. But I have long been convinced
age, nor their presence as sufficient to establish the great antiquity of the
objects upon which they occur. I have myself noticed upon paper, which could
scarcely be more than a year old, dendritic deposits, which could not be
distinguished from those on fossil bones. Thus I possess a dog's skull from
which is in no way distinguishable from the fossil bones from the Frankish
caves; it presents the same colour, and adheres to the tongue just as they do;
no longer of any value. In disputed cases, therefore, the condition of the bone
can scarcely afford the means for determining with certainty whether it be
historical period.'
"As we cannot now look upon the primitive world as representing a wholly
different condition of things, from which no transition exists to the organic life
of the present time, the designation of 'fossil', as applied to 'a bone', has no
longer the sense it conveyed in the time of Cuvier. Sufficient grounds exist for
the assumption that man coexisted with the animals found in the 'diluvium';
and many a barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared,
together with the animals of the ancient world, whilst the races whose
organization is improved have continued the genus. The bones which form
the subject of this paper present characters which, although not decisive as
diluvial animal bones in the muddy deposits of caverns, such remains have
not hitherto been met with in the caves of the Neanderthal; and that the
222
bones, which were covered by a deposit of mud not more than four or five feet
thick, and without any protective covering of stalagmite, have retained the
human race, since crania exist among living savages, which, though not
skull somewhat the aspect of that of the large apes, still in other respects, as
for instance in the greater depth of the temporal fossae, the crest-like,
that the deep frontal hollow is due to any artificial flattening, such as is
practiced in various modes by barbarous nations in the Old and New World.
the occiput, whilst, according to Morton, in the Flat-heads of the Columbia, the
frontal and parietal bones are always unsymmetrical. Its conformation exhibits
the sparing development of the anterior part of the head which has been so
often observed in very ancient crania, and affords one of the most striking
proofs of the influence of culture and civilization on the form of the human
skull."
the skeleton, which exceeds by about one-half the usual proportions. This
the body, as may be concluded from the size of all the ridges and processes
for the attachment of the muscles or bones. That this conclusion may be
drawn from the existence of large frontal sinuses, and a prominence of the
same characters, according to Pallas, the wild horse is distinguished from the
recent species of bear, whilst, according to Roulin, the pig, which has become
chamois from the goat; and, lastly, the bull-dog, which is characterized by its
large bones and strongly-developed muscles from every other kind of dog.
Professor Owen, is also difficult in the great apes, owing to the very prominent
supra-orbital ridges, in the present case is rendered still more difficult from the
absence both of the auditory opening and of the nasal spine. But if the proper
horizontal position of the skull be taken from the remaining portions of the
orbital plates, and the ascending line made to touch the surface of the frontal
bone behind the prominent supra-orbital ridges, the facial angle is not found to
have been preserved. The cranial capacity, compared with the uncommon
development. The skull, as it is, holds about 31 ounces of millet-seed; and as,
224
from the proportionate size of the wanting bones, the whole cranial cavity
should have about 6 ounces more added, the contents, were it perfect, may
Negro, 40, 38, and 35 ounces. The cranium holds rather more than 36 ounces
After comparing the Neanderthal cranium with many others, ancient and
"But the human bones and cranium from the Neanderthal exceed all the rest
belonging to a barbarous and savage race. Whether the cavern in which they
were found, unaccompanied with any trace of human art, were the place of
their interment, or whether, like the bones of extinct animals elsewhere, they
had been washed into it, they may still be regarded as the most ancient
Mr. Busk, the translator of Dr. Schaaffhausen's paper, has enabled us to form
placing side by side with its outline, that of the skull of a Chimpanzee, drawn
Memoir, I was led to study the cast of the Neanderthal cranium with more
supply Sir Charles Lyell with a diagram, exhibiting the special peculiarities of
this skull, as compared with other human skulls. In order to do this it was
protuberance and superior semicircular line, and had placed the outline of the
Neanderthal skull against that of the Engis skull, in such a position that the
straight line, the difference was so vast and the flattening of the Neanderthal
skull so prodigious that I at first imagined I must have fallen into some error.
And I was the more inclined to suspect this, as, in ordinary human skulls, the
the occiput correspond pretty closely with the 'lateral sinuses' and the line of
said in the preceding Essay, the posterior lobe of the brain; and hence, the
approximately, the lower limits of that lobe. Was it possible for a human being
to have the brain thus flattened and depressed; or, on the other hand, had the
muscular ridges shifted their position? In order to solve these doubts, and to
decide the question whether the great supraciliary projections did, or did not,
arise from the development of the frontal sinuses, I requested Sir Charles
Lyell to be so good as to obtain for me from Dr. Fuhlrott, the possessor of the
Carleton 2012
Dr. Fuhlrott replied with a courtesy and readiness for which I am infinitely
photographs. One of these gives a side view of the skull, and from it Fig. 25,
A. has been shaded. The second (Fig. 26, A.) exhibits the wide openings of
the frontal sinuses upon the inferior surface of the frontal part of the skull, into
which, Dr. Fuhlrott writes, "a probe may be introduced to the depth of an
ridges beyond the cerebral cavity. The third, lastly (Fig. 26, B.) exhibits the
edge and the interior of the posterior, or occipital, part of the skull, and shows
very clearly the two depressions for the lateral sinuses, sweeping inwards
towards the middle line of the roof of the skull, to form the longitudinal sinus. It
was clear, therefore, that I had not erred in my interpretation, and that the
posterior lobe of the brain of the Neanderthal man must have been as much
extreme length of 8 inches, while its breadth is only 5.75 inches, or, in other
measuring only about 3.4 inches from the glabella-occipital line to the vertex.
227
The longitudinal arc, measured in the same way as in the Engis skull, is 12
the absence of the temporal bones, but was probably about the same, and
But this great circumference arises largely from the vast development of the
supraciliary ridges, though the perimeter of the brain case itself is not small.
The large supraciliary ridges give the forehead a far more retreating
To an anatomical eye the posterior part of the skull is even more striking than
the anterior. The occipital protuberance occupies the extreme posterior end of
the skull, when the glabella-occipital line is made horizontal, and so far from
any part of the occipital region extending beyond it, this region of the skull
slopes obliquely upward and forward, so that the lambdoidal suture is situated
well upon the upper surface of the cranium. At the same time, notwithstanding
the great length of the skull, the sagittal suture is remarkably short (4 1/2
In reply to my questions Dr. Fuhlrott writes that the occipital bone "is in a state
strong ridge, linear at its extremities, but enlarging towards the middle, where
"Below the left ridge the bone exhibits an obliquely inclined surface, six lines
This last must be the surface, the contour of which is shown in Fig. 25, A.,
flattened condition of the occiput, the posterior cerebral lobes must have
Such are the two best known forms of human cranium, which have been
found in what may be fairly termed a fossil state. Can either be shown to fill up
between Man and the man-like apes? Or, on the other hand, does neither
depart more widely from the average structure of the human cranium, than
structure in generala subject which has been but imperfectly studied, while
even of what is known, my limits will necessarily allow me to give only a very
imperfect sketch.
The student of anatomy is perfectly well aware that there is not a single organ
of the human body the structure of which does not vary, to a greater or less
muscles which move the bones vary largely in their attachments. The varieties
characters of the brain vary immensely, nothing being less constant than the
229
form and size of the cerebral hemispheres, and the richness of the
convolutions upon their surface, while the most changeable structures of all in
the human brain, are exactly those on which the unwise attempt has been
made to base the distinctive characters of humanity, viz. the posterior cornu of
the lateral ventricle, the hippocampus minor, and the degree of projection of
the posterior lobe beyond the cerebellum. Finally, as all the world knows, the
hair and skin of human beings may present the most extraordinary diversities
So far as our present knowledge goes, the majority of the structural varieties
certain muscles which is occasionally met with in the white races of mankind,
the brain of the Hottentot Venus was found to be smoother, to have its
of the brain to prevail universally among the lower races of mankind, however
soft and destructible organs of every Race of Mankind but our own; and even
of the skeleton, our Museums are lamentably deficient in every part but the
cranium. Skulls enough there are, and since the time when Blumenbach and
Camper first called attention to the marked and singular differences which
they exhibit, skull collecting and skull measuring has been a zealously
pursued branch of Natural History, and the results obtained have been
arranged and classified by various writers, among whom the late active and
Human skulls have been found to differ from one another, not merely in their
absolute size and in the absolute capacity of the brain case, but in the
proportions which the diameters of the latter bear to one another; in the
relative size of the bones of the face (and more particularly of the jaws and
teeth) as compared with those of the skull; in the degree to which the upper
downwards under the fore-part of the brain case, or forwards and upward in
front of and beyond it. They differ further in the relations of the transverse
diameter of the face, taken through the cheek bones, to the transverse
diameter of the skull; in the more rounded or more gable-like form of the roof
of the skull, and in the degree to which the hinder part of the skull is flattened
or projects beyond the ridge, into and below which, the muscles of the neck
are inserted.
In some skulls the brain case may be said to be 'round,' the extreme length
not exceeding the extreme breadth by a greater proportion than 100 to 80,
while the difference may be much less. Men possessing such skulls were
front and side view are depicted by Von Baer in his excellent, "Crania
selecta," affords a very admirable example of that kind of skull. Other skulls,
such as that of a Negro copied in Fig. 28 from Mr. Busk's 'Crania typical,' have
a very different, greatly elongated form, and may be termed 'oblong.' In this
skull the extreme length is to the extreme breadth as 100 to not more than 67,
and the transverse diameter of the human skull may fall below even this
'dolichocephalic.'
231
The most cursory glance at the side views of these two skulls will suffice to
prove that they differ, in another respect, to a very striking extent. The profile
of the face of the Calmuck is almost vertical, the facial bones being thrown
downwards and under the forepart of the skull. The profile of the face of the
Negro, on the other hand, is singularly inclined, the front part of the jaws
projecting far forward beyond the level of the fore part of the skull. In the
latter, it is called 'prognathous,' a term which has been rendered, with more
Various methods have been devised in order to express with some accuracy
But a little consideration will show that any 'facial angle' that has been
prognathism and orthognathous, only in a rough and general sort of way. For
the lines, the intersection of which forms the facial angle, are drawn through
circumstances, and is not the expression of any one definite organic relation
much, that is not founded upon the establishment of a relatively fixed base
line, to which the measurements, in all cases, must be referred. Nor do I think
it is a very difficult matter to decide what that base line should be. The parts of
232
the skull, like those of the rest of the animal framework, are developed in
succession the base of the skull is formed before its sides and roof; it is
converted into cartilage earlier and more completely than the sides and roof:
and the cartilaginous base ossifies, and becomes soldered into one piece
long before the roof. I conceive then that the base of the skull may be
demonstrated developmentally to be its relatively fixed part, the roof and sides
The same truth is exemplified by the study of the modifications which the skull
In such a mammal as a Beaver a line ('a b'.) drawn through the bones, termed
extreme length of the cavity which contains the cerebral hemispheres ('g h'.).
The plane of the occipital foramen ('b c'.) forms a slightly acute angle with this
'basicranial axis,' while the plane of the tentorium ('i T'.) is inclined at rather
more than 90 degrees to the 'basicranial axis'; and so is the plane of the
perforated plate ('a d'.), by which the filaments of the olfactory nerve leave the
skull. Again, a line drawn through the axis of the face, between the bones
called ethmoid and vomerthe "bifacial axis" ('f e'.) forms an exceedingly
If the angle made by the line 'b c'. with 'a b'., be called the 'occipital angle,'
and the angle made by the line 'a d'. with 'a b'. be termed the 'olfactory angle,'
and that made by 'i T'. with 'a b'. the 'tentoria angle,' then all these, in the
mammal in question, are nearly right angles, varying between 80 degrees and
110 degrees. the angle 'e f b'., or that made by the cranial with the facial axis,
233
Rodent and a Man (Fig. 29), be examined, it will be found that in the higher
crania the basicranial axis becomes shorter relatively to the cerebral length;
that the 'olfactory angle' and 'occipital angle' become more obtuse; and that
were, of the facial axis upon the cranial axis. At the same time, the roof of the
cranium becomes more and more arched, to allow of the increasing height of
maximum in the South America Monkeys. So that, at last, in the human skull
(Fig. 30), the cerebral length is between twice and thrice as great as the
on the 'under' side of that axis; the occipital angle, instead of being less than
angle may be 90 degrees or less, and the vertical height of the skull may have
It will be obvious, from an inspection of the diagrams, that the basicranial axis
is, in the ascending series of Mammalia, a relatively fixed line, on which the
bones of the sides and roof of the cranial cavity, and of the face, may be said
The arc described by any one bone or plane, however, is not by any means
Now comes the important question, can we discern, between the lowest and
the highest forms of the human cranium anything answering, in however slight
a degree, to this revolution of the side and roof bones of the skull upon the
in the affirmative.
The diagrams in Figure 30 are reduced from very carefully made diagrams of
sections of four skulls, two round and orthognathous, two long and
sectional diagrams have then been superimposed, in such a manner, that the
basal axes of the skulls coincide by their anterior ends, and in their direction.
The deviations of the rest of the contours (which represent the interior of the
skulls only) show the differences of the skulls from one another, when these
The dark contours are those of an Australian and of a Negro skull: the light
contours are those of a Tartar skull, in the Museum of the Royal College of
It appears, at once, from these views, that the prognathous skulls, so far as
their jaws are concerned, do really differ from the orthognathous in much the
same way as, though to a far less degree than, the skulls of the lower
mammals differ from those of Man. Furthermore, the plane of the occipital
foramen ('b c') forms a somewhat smaller angle with the axis in these
particular prognathous skulls than in the orthognathous; and the like may be
slightly true of the perforated plate of the ethmoidthough this point is not so
235
skulls are less ape-like than the orthognathous, the cerebral cavity projecting
decidedly more beyond the anterior end of the axis in the prognathous, than in
in the capacity and relative proportion to the cranial axis, of the different
regions of the cavity which contains the brain, in the different skulls. Nor is the
difference in the extent to which the cerebral overlaps the cerebellar cavity
less singular. A round skull (Fig. 30, 'Const'.) may have a greater posterior
Until human crania have been largely worked out in a manner similar to that
which I cannot speak in this place, are determined, and tabulated with
reference to the basicranial axis as unity, for large numbers of skulls of the
different races of Mankind, I do not think we shall have any very safe basis for
At present, I believe that the general outlines of what may be safely said upon
that subject may be summed up in a very few words. Draw a line on a globe
from the Gold Coast in Western Africa to the steppes of Tartary. At the
southern and western end of that line there live the most dolichocephalic,
northern and eastern end of the same line there live the most brachycephalic,
236
Calmucks. The two ends of this imaginary line are indeed, so to speak,
ethnological antipodes. A line drawn at right angles, or nearly so, to this polar
line through Europe and Southern Asia to Hindustan, would give us a sort of
It is worthy of notice that the regions of the antipodal races are antipodal in
climate, the greatest contrast the world affords, perhaps, being that between
the damp, hot, steaming, alluvial coast plains of the West Coast of Africa and
the arid, elevated steppes and plateau of Central Asia, bitterly cold in winter,
and as far from the sea as any part of the world can be.
From Central Asia eastward to the Pacific Islands and subcontinents on the
which a rounded type of skull prevails largely, but not exclusively) 13 than in
the Pacific region, where, at length, on the Australian Continent and in the
adjacent islands, the oblong skull, the projecting jaws, and the dark skin
reappear; with so much departure, in other respects, from the Negro type, that
The Australian skull is remarkable for its narrowness and for the thickness of
its walls, especially in the region of the supraciliary ridge, which is frequently,
though not by any means invariably, solid throughout, the frontal sinuses
that the brows overhang and give the countenance a particularly lowering,
237
threatening expression. The occipital region of the skull, also, not unfrequently
becomes less prominent; so that it not only fails to project beyond a line
even, in some cases, begins to shelve away from it, forwards, almost
bone which lie above and below the tuberosity make a much more acute
angle with one another than is usual, whereby the hinder part of the base of
considerable height, quite equal to that of the average of any other race, but
there are others in which the cranial roof becomes remarkably depressed, the
skull, at the same time, elongating so much that, probably, its capacity is not
seen, are from the neighborhood of Port Adelaide in South Australia, and
have been used by the natives as water vessels; to which end the face has
been knocked away, and a string passed through the vacuity and the occipital
foramen, so that the skull was suspended by the greater part of its basis.
The contour of a skull of this kind from Western Port, with the jaw attached,
and of the Neanderthal skull, both reduced to one-third of the size of nature. A
increase of the supraciliary ridge, would convert the Australian brain case into
And now, to return to the fossil skulls, and to the rank which they occupy
300) in commenting upon the Engis skull, the formation of a safe judgment
upon the question is greatly hindered by the absence of the jaws from both
238
the crania, so that there is no means of deciding with certainty, whether they
were more or less prognathous than the lower existing races of mankind. And
yet, as we have seen, it is more in this respect than any other, that human
skulls vary, towards and from, the brutal typethe brain case of an average
dolichocephalic European differing far less from that of a Negro, for example,
than his jaws do. In the absence of the jaws, then, any judgment on the
relations of the fossil skulls to recent Races must be accepted with a certain
reservation.
But taking the evidence as it stands, and turning first to the Engis skull, I
confess I can find no character in the remains of that cranium which, if it were
a recent skull, would give any trustworthy clue as to the Race to which it might
appertain. Its contours and measurements agree very well with those of some
Australian skulls, I have alluded. But all Australian skulls do not present this
flattening, and the supraciliary ridge of the Engis skull is quite unlike that of
On the other hand, its measurements agree equally well with those of some
part of its structure. It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have
a savage.
239
The case of the Neanderthal skull is very different. Under whatever aspect we
view this cranium, whether we regard its vertical depression, the enormous
thickness of its supraciliary ridges, its sloped occiput, or its long and straight
states ('supra', p. 308), that the cranium, in its present condition, holds
entire skull could hardly have held less than an additional 12 cubic inches, its
So large a mass of brain as this, would alone suggest that the pithecoid
tendencies, indicated by this skull, did not extend deep into the organization;
and this conclusion is borne out by the dimensions of the other bones of the
height and relative proportions of the limbs were quite those of an European
of middle stature. The bones are indeed stouter, but this and the great
Europe at the time during which the Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable
Tumbler, may sometimes put on the plumage of its primitive stock, the
'Columba livia'. And indeed, though truly the most pithecoid of known human
at first, but forms, in reality, the extreme term of a series leading gradually
from it to the highest and best developed of human crania. On the one hand, it
having very much the type of the Engis cranium. And, on the other hand, it is
even more closely affined to the skulls of certain ancient people who inhabited
skull and that of some of those skulls from the tumuli at Borreby, very
accurate drawings of which have been made by Mr. Busk, is very close. The
and the skull is as low. Furthermore, the Borreby skull resembles the
Neanderthal form more closely than any of the Australian skulls do, by the
241
much more rapid retrocession of the forehead. On the other hand, the Borreby
skulls are all somewhat broader, in proportion to their length, than the
In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil remains of Man hitherto discovered do
considering what is now known of the most ancient races of men; seeing that
they fashioned flint axes and flint knives and bone-skewers, of much the same
pattern as those fabricated by the lowest savages at the present day, and that
we have every reason to believe the habits and modes of living of such
people to have remained the same from the time of the Mammoth and the
tichorhine Rhinoceros till now, I do not know that this result is other than might
be expected.
Where, then, must we look for primeval Man? Was the oldest 'Homo sapiens'
Pliocene or Miocene, or yet more ancient? In still older strata do the fossilized
bones of an Ape more anthropoid, or a Man more pithecoid, than any yet
Time will show. But, in the meanwhile, if any form of the doctrine of
liberal estimate that has yet been made of the antiquity of Man.
Thomas Huxley was no ones fool but he did not suffer fools gladly and was
well known as a major champion of the evolutionists and was prone to attack
small size, but great ponderosity, directed at Charles Darwin and his
doctrine.
Mayer failed to explain how a dying man had managed to climb twenty meters
high, bury himself nude, after removing all his clothes and any equipment and
head for the spirit world if known? But he also made mistakes and for a while
linked the Neanderthal remains with the lower apes, a mistake that cost him
dearly in years to come. His saving grace was of course was the Neanderthal
skull and though he commented as ape like he was quick to add, it showed
some reversion from a modern human skull towards an ape like ancestor.
Huxley 1864.
This may be all well and good in those far off days but Thomas Huxley would
not fare well in todays Archaeology circles of learned men and women and
I again looked at the data on early apes and the two human species,
I have outlined the data below that so far has been put forward by
others.
The data presented by some other researchers, now seems in doubt when it
comes down to the timeline of the Neanderthals. Granted, there may be large
gaps in some timelines of early apes and of course the Neanderthals. In order
to look at this data I had to research a number of sources and in the end I was
more than a little surprised at the amount of guesswork and maybes that
canvas. Though expected by me, I was not prepared for gaps in their life
Some data suggested that the Neanderthal features appeared as far back as
100,000 years ago during the warm interglacial period that is said to have
lasted from 130,000 70,000 years ago. Something was wrong with this first
part of the data so again research from many areas give me at least a blank
canvas to work on and dealing with the Neanderthals and their lifetime on our
The data that suggested the interglacial period is what is termed as a warm
climate episode between Glacial episodes and all ice ages recorded or
suggested and 40,000 years ago the UK and Ireland as well as parts of
Europe were not ice free. Which suggests that the Neanderthals of Europe did
have a very cold environment to contend with both for living in and hunting
food. As I am dealing here with the Neanderthals of Europe then the data on
M-isotope stages and climate stratigraphy suggest strongly that the last
Chatelperronian and H. Neanderthals were still around. Before that and in the
35,000 years in Europe while the suggested timeline for Western Asia at
This would suggest strongly that some of the Neanderthals did live in an area
of an Ice Age or at least part of it and other groups lived in ice free zones
through the Near East and into Western Asia. What we dont know yet, is if
went north into Russia and as far north as they could go in small groups?
On the evidence I would suggest that the only humans in Europe between
Again I had to take another hard look at Climate change across Europe but go
much further back in time, through and just past the Neanderthal timelines.
245
Oxygen isotopes in deep sea cores show that in the first 1.8 million years of
and during the last 700.000 years the most dominant cycle is about 100,000
years which includes I should point out, interglacial timeline lasting about
If we take this as far as we know then I have to place the last Ice Age at
around 115,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago and we are now in
the very present interglacial period. This I should point out does not match my
own research data above as such but close. The big thaw that came did so
around 15,000 years ago and the seas around Europe rose to a high point,
flooding land bridges. 11,000 years ago there was a setback in Europe and
some parts of North America which brought back the ice and known now as
the Younger Dryas Period. This did last 500 years and the North Atlantic polar
front migrated down from Iceland to the Bay of Biscay with summer
temperatures dropping as much as 10 degrees C and any ice sheets that had
started to melt began to form again and advance. Animals and plants as well
as some of the Neanderthal groups in Europe. The event ended 10,000 years
ago.
The idea that Homo Erectus had its part to play, but only as a control factor
and possible comparison in passing. It would be, I suggest, that the features
of early Neanderthals was to do with a cold and bitter climate but only in part
and it would be a mistake to say that this was the main reason for face and
body features. Something else caused the genetic change and to date no one
has yet found it or even suggested it. All they have in the bag is Cold Climate
at the moment and that I fear is not enough because something changed the
Cro-Magnon Man did not come onto the archaeology canvas till around
40,000 years ago in Europe at the Les Eyzies site in the Dordogne. Given the
location as the data excepted what is not explained is how did they get there
and from where? The only possible theory is that they crossed from North
Africa into Spain as this was the only narrow crossing or they came in small
migrations from Asia? I will come back to this data later for a comparisons of
NEANDERTHAL TOOLS.
The devil is in the detail they say in my home in Ireland, and the detail and
data on tool making and tools linked to the Neanderthals has to be part of any
research.
and
This was a new form of stone tool technology and very closely linked with the
(Le Moustier). The design of these tools found there was a massive
improvement from that of the Acheulean period. In the case of the links
between the tools and the Neanderthals it in fact produced sixty items from
points,knives, scrapers, and all made and trimmed for a purpose. These tools
247
were much more previous known cultures for want of a better word. This
developed to a very high degree was not the work of an ape or anything
close to such.The control of the tool makers hands, and a good eye and
working brain suggests good evidence that the Neaderthals were advanced
thinkers.
Bone tools were also made and such bone again needs very careful handling
There was however evidence of different styles in the Mousterian cultures and
I suggest here that from the reserch evidence I have looked at, four very
different cultures but realted in Europe. These were the Typical, Denticulate
Mousterian, Acheulean type, and Charentian. That could well mean that in
Europe and West Asia there were four different tribes of Neanderthal Man and
Then if the Typical tools were from and linked to Combe-Grenal in the
Dordogne and ten to twenty kilometers away from them who were from the
Denticulate culture then at times much have met, mixed and at time bred
with one another. We do know that reindeer was the prey or main prey of the
Dordogne group and horses the main prey of the Denticilate group.
I have no doubt at all that some geographical tribal drift took place over a
number of generations and that it is possible of course that one tribe may well
have taken over a much older site of another and thus causing confusion in
With such development in tools other factors in time came into play such as
burial.
NEANDERTHAL BURIALS
248
neanderthal rutual burial was nothing more than getting rid of a body and any
flowers thrown on it rather than placed were more than likely to kill the smell.
From a forensic point of view, flowers are found in spring and summer so if a
Neanderthal was to die it had to be during this time and it would have been
less than 24 hours before blue and green blowflies would have laid their eggs
on the decaying flesh, in forty eight hours if the body was above ground it
would be moving with maggots due to the high temperatures if it was a warm
phase and the smell would have attracted all sorts of animals that were a risk
to man. So if flowers and herbs were discovered with remains then the victim
died during a warm phase and not during a cold phase therefore giving us a
dating tool from a seasonal point of view. This therefore could not be classed
At Le Moustier, a young teenage boy was placed in a pit on his right side, his
head placed on his forarms and below the arms and head a pile of flints,
stone axe near the hand and the bones of wild cattle around him,
Central Asia at a place called Teshik Tash in Uzbekistan, the bones of a child
lies beside the bones of Ibex arranged around the remains, the bones having
249
the cut marks of tools on them that suggests two things, one the flesh was
stripped away but I suggest does not suggest a ritual but a need for meat and
eaten by the living at that time. However the ritual part comes from six pairs of
La Ferrassle rock shelter very near the town of le Bugue in the Dordogne the
headless remains of a young child was found lying in a flexed position at the
bottom of a shallow pit. A few feet up in the pit the discovery of a jawless skull
underside of the slab as well as small pit markings on the top of it.
of Neanderthal remains and one dated as far back as 60,000 years known
now as Shanider IV and many flower pollen grains discovered around the
bones. The victim must therefore have died sometime in June or July, the
flowers and herbs, some of them medical herbs known today was used also
I have listed the flowers and plants that the pollen came from for reference.
hyacinth,hollyhock,woody horsetail.
To carry out such a ritual suggests strongly that this Neanderthal group at
could be called spiritual because the soul or spirit as we know it would not
There was no religion as we know it but the evidence does suggest the
understanding of life and death however we may never know what the
nothing more and nothing less and could mean nothing to research or mean
If we take the end of the last Ice Age and during it, the prey animals that the
Neanderthals hunted for food and were hunted by as well, is a long list which I
have outlined below. Middle Europe to the Urals had formed a large Tundra
and known as the mammoth steppe. It was the land that time forgot and
mostly bog and grasses. I have not put in the scientific name of any of the
Wooly mammoth.. Survived in Europe till the end of the last Glacial but in
Cave Bear. It took survived in Europe at the beginning of the last Glacial but
Wild Horse. A small horse species and was hunted hard by the Neanderthal
The Wolf. Still survives in the wilder part of Europe and Asia. Was at times a
Cave lion. Much larger than the present day African and Asian lions. Vanished
Wolverine. Hunted for its skin and a smaller species now lives in north Europe
and Asia.
251
The Steppe Bison. Hunted for meat and skins by the Neanderthal groups and
Musk ox. Vanished from Europe at the end of the last Glacial and found now
only in Canada and parts of Greenland. Hunted for food and skins.
Woolly Rhino. Vanished from Europe 12,000 years ago. Had two large horns.
Cave hyena. A large hyena and vanished almost at the end of the last
Glacial.
Giant Deer or Irish Elk. Hunted for food and skins and died out last Glacial.
Saiga Antelope. Hunted for food and skins. Now lives in South Russia.
BIRDS. All species including ducks and willow grouse for food.
Arago,Tautavel, France.
Petralona, Greece.
Swanscombe,UK.
La Chaise, Biache-Saint-Vaast,France.
Early Neanderthals.
150,000-70,000 years.
Ehringsdorf,Germany.
Saccopastore,Italy.
Krapina,Croatia.
La Chaise,France.
Classic Neanderthals.
70,000-30,000 years.
Saint-Cesaire, La Ferrassie,
Grotte du Renne,
Part of a skeleton.
Part of skeletons.
Skeleton.
my doubts on the dating of bones from an archaeology point of view and also
When I first started my research I was more than a little surprised in this day
and age of how much has been left out in other data, great gaps of no
knowledge and then some of the data mentioned somehow got their timelines
wrong.
something that we all need so that we are aware of our failings as a human
mammal.
I of course had to focus on the Neanderthals but in doing so I could not ignore
the good work carried out of many years by others researchers on the very
early Homo species because I also had to take a closer look at them for
comparrison. For a while it become confusing because of all the many views
on the first early Homo species people had and published on. At times the
on any links from early Homo and found out very quickly when it came down
to the archaeology wire I had to either except or reject data for one reason or
another.
many problems and questions that arise and I have done my best to solve
most of them. Then I write up what I know and what I have gained from
research of this kind and trust it is as honest and focused as I wanted it to be.
In this part of the research I want to thank everyone who has been of help.
257
One of the problems that I encountered is why the Neanderthals have not
been found in many parts of Africa? The second problem I came across was
the DNA data on the Neanderthals and any links with modren humans across
research as well as published data. Some of this I have had to include here
All the DNA samples it seems came from recovered material from
labs. However I have to question how the samples were taken and how much
I have no doubt at all that in some cases, slap happy sampling did take place
and that modern DNA from living humans was mixed in with that of the
Neanderthals DNA.
need for repeated Neanderthal Genomic DNA. The Researchers for this data I
Krause,4 Joe Alessi,1 Feng Chen,1 Darren Platt,1 Svante Pbo,4 Jonathan K.
artefacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behaviour,
analysis.
Several lines of evidence indicate that the 65,250 base pairs of hominid
sequence is different.
ancestor ~706,000 years ago, and that the human and Neanderthal
anatomically modern humans. Our finding that the Neanderthal and human
.(The dates and the comment seem wrong but needs checking. Carleton 2012)
Neanderthals are the closest hominid rela-tives of modern humans (1). As late
western Asia
(2). Since that time, our species has spread across Earth, far surpassing any
incomplete.
Mitochondrial data also pro-vide no access to the gene and gene regulatory
reveal biological features unique to each. These insights await the recovery of
approach.
genomic selection.
Several lines of evidence indicated that the hominid sequences in this library
. Mitochondrial PCR analysis of the extract used to build the library, using an
261
library, revealed that only ~2% of the products were from contaminating
measure of hominid insert size that could not be obtained from the ~100-bp
In many cases, the human BLAST hit covered only part of the insert, because
The small average size of these putatively ancient Neanderthal fragments (bp)
libraries, in which the average library insert size was between 100 and 200 bp,
average 69 bp. The small BLAST hit sizes and insert sizes in both cave bear
of ancient genomic DNA into small fragments over tens of thousands of years,
deep sequencing of pooled inserts from library NE1 using massively parallel
pyro sequencing.
batch culture and recovered library inserts from purified plasmid DNA by PCR
genomic sequence.
of sequence but does so with a higher error rate than Sanger sequencing.
clones from the same batch culture used to generate the pyrosequencing data.
This sequencing yielded 130 loci (6.2 kb) that were also represented in the
pyrosequencing data.
263
sequencing.
The low complexity of library NE1 made these analyses possible, because it
used here. The low coverage in library NE1 is more likely due to the quality of
this particular library rather than being a general feature of ancient DNA.
sequences.
library sequence for which the bit score of the best BLASTN hit in the human
genome was higher than the bit scores of all other hits for that sequence.
We then determined the distribution of all such best BLASTN hits across
was highly correlated with sequenced chromosome length, indicating that the
Neanderthal genome.
Neanderthal split.
subsequent analyses.
It has been shown that nucleotides in genuine ancient DNA are occasionally
mismatches (which are equivalent events) between the ancient sequence and
observe and further supports the supposition that the hominid sequences are
Neanderthal in origin. Despite the bias toward C- to-T and G-to-A events in
low (~0.37% of all sites), indicating that the vast majority of human-
The length distribution of ancient DNA fragments, when combined with the
that contaminating modern human DNA fragments in the cave bear libraries
were on average much longer than the cave bear sequences (116 versus 69
alignments than we observe in the entire data set, because the longer
because individual bases in the longer modern human fragments would show
divergence obtained from the whole data set (0.59% versus 0.52%). The
excess of C-to-T and G-to-A mismatches was also maintained in the longer
alignments. These results further support the supposition that the hominid
This data allowed us to examine for the first time the genetic relationship
first considered the average coalescence time for the autosomes between the
Using this information, our maximum likelihood estimate of the average time
This calculation does not make use of Neanderthal specific changes, because
represent 97% of our total data set and population genetic parameters are
coalescence time for human and chimpan-zee autosomes to 6.5 million years
ago, a value that falls within the range suggested by recent studies
Our estimate of the average common ancestor time reflects the average time
in the common ancestral population, not the actual split time of the ancestral
the actual split time of the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations, we
developed a method that incorporated data from the human and Neanderthal
We included the HapMap data because they indicate what proportion of sites
split long ago, before the rise of most modern human genetic diversity
would result in Neanderthal sequence frequently carrying the derived allele for
human SNPs.
shown at half their total length to correct for their haploid state in BLAST hit to
the human genome, relative to the total sequenced length of males relative to
the autosomes.
gaps. Chromosomes are ranked by the in the NE1 hominid sequence shown
. (A) Log-likelihood curve of the time to the MRCA of the Neanderthal and
(C) Impact of changes in the ancient population size on split time estimates
for five models that are consistent with modern polymorphism data.
Each curve is the smoothed log likelihood relative to the maximum over all
five models. For each model, the text on the plot indicates the degree of
expan-sion or contraction and the time before the present at which the size
change occurred. The expansion models are less likely as compared to either
whether each site was a HapMap SNP in that population and if so, the allele
frequency.
The simulations used the estimated population demography for each HapMap
Likelihood curves for the split time were computed by multiplying likelihoods
approximation for our data because the Neanderthal sequence reads are very
short and just 1 out of 905 aligned fragments contains more than one human-
Using this approach, the maximum likelihood estimates for the split time of the
(170,000 to 670,000 years) for East Asians, and 290,000 years (120,000 to
modern humans in Africa ~195,000 years ago ). Because these split times are
before the migration of modern humans out of Africa, the three population-
specific estimates should all be estimates of the same actual split time.
mitochondrial PCR analysis of the primary extract used to construct the library,
the assumption that the ancestral effective population size of humans was
ago. We found that much of the parameter space, though not the original
consistent with modern data and found that these did not substantially change
Our data include three sites at which Neanderthal carries the derived allele for
contamination because for two of the SNPs, the derived allele is found only in
Yoruba; also, one of the SNPs lies on a fragment that contains a C-to-T
coalesce within the human ancestral tree. Based on simulations of our best-fit
group for approximately 14% (assuming a split time of 290,000 years, the
Moreover, it has been argued that some aspects of modern human autosomal
If Neanderthal admixture did indeed occur, then this could manifest in our
No site in the data set appears to be of this type. In order to formally evaluate
single admixture event 40,000 years ago in which a fraction part of the
European gene pool was derived from Neanderthals. We fixed the human-
Neanderthal split at 440,000 years ago (the split time estimate for Europeans).
With these assumptions, the maximum likelihood estimate for the Neanderthal
However, the 95% CI for this estimate ranges from 0 to 20%, so a definitive
sequence data.
273
Selection
differences that would yield great insight into human biology and evolution are
We amplified these sequences from the human genome and hybridized the
enhancer of Sox9 and conserved sequences near Tbx3, Shh, Msx2,and Gdf6.
rather than the cave bear library. Critically, the captured cave bear sequences
sequences were derived from a cloned library insert and not from
Our success in recovering both previously unknown cave bear and known
Conclusions.
selection. Our study thus provides a framework for the rapid recovery of
divergence of humans both from the great apes and from our extinct hominid
As you can see from the above research all the data provided tends to
point to some confusion in its interpretation and this is high risk if taken on
board as fact when more research may well be needed, in fact I will go as far
On saying that I have placed another DNA research project here below.
JOA O ZILHA O
modern humans.
The Aurignacian was a proxy for the latter, during which enhanced cognitive
Such views were strengthened by the recent finding that, in southern Africa,
Coupled with genetic suggestions of a recent African origin for extant humans,
Over the last decade, however, taphonomic critiques of the archaeology of the
transition have made it clear that, in Europe, fully symbolic sapiens behaviour
predates both the Aurignacian and moderns. And, in line with evidence from
alone, the small number of early modern specimens that passed the test of
The chronometric data suggest that, north of the Ebro divide, the entire
interaction process may have been resolved within the millennium centred
Neandertals is consistent with the size imbalance between the two gene
scale. Suggestions that spikes in 14C possible in the period of the Middle-to-
The notion that the patterns of variability in extant humans mtDNA indi-Key
of modern human origins however, does not represent the full history of a
population, much less that of an entire species and, when the nuclear genome
roots in East Asia and has an estimated time of co-alescence of ca. 2 Myr.11
If such ancient, non-African parts of the human genome are still extant, the
parts of the human genome9,10 concludes that ever since the Out-of-Africa
event ca. at 1.5 Myr ago, human evolution has been characterized by a gene .
rejected with a P-value of <10-17. This study, however, does not exclude the
even if, at a global scale, the general pattern was one of admixture or
hybridization. The fact that the mtDNA ex-tracted from many Neanderthal
fossils over the last decade has revealed polymorphisms unknown among
For instance, DNA degrades with time, a process that can generate
concerned.
DNA that there is no way to say whether what has been seen is real.
fossil may simply result from the fact that the extracted DNA is entirely
modern contamination, not from the fact that no Neanderthal mtDNA originally
existed in that specimen. When such a failure occurs with material that, on
authentication dictate rejection of the results, not the conclusion that the
The logical implications are, .first, that early modern DNA data cannot at
admixture, which makes it all the more signi.cant that the combined fossil and
simulation study suggests that such levels must have been negligible if not nil
But is there any positive evidence that it oc-curred? Arguably, that is exactly
suggest. Over the last few years, direct dating of the remains has
to date to within a few millennia of the time of contact, feature a diverse array
Middle and early Upper Pleistocene of Africa. These fossils .nds are Oase
(Roma-nia), Mladec. (Czech Republic) and Lagar Velho (Portugal), the latter
Where the Mladec. crania are concerned, the existence of traits such as
eminences is well known. In the Lagar Velho child skeleton the list includes,
among others, a low crural index and arctic body proportions, a retreating
In the Oase fossils, the list includes lingual bridging of the mandibular
molars that display a complex cusp morphology, are larger than the second
molars, and more than two standard deviations above the average for the
Middle Pleistocene.
280
Since these features relate to aspects of skeletal morphology that are not
In sum, nothing in the genetic and fossil evidence reviewed here suggests the
At least, most now agree that the issue should be approached with no
Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends
from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an
fossils.
CULTURES
The Oase fossils are of particular importance in this context because, at ca.
40.5 kyr calBP, they are Europes oldest modern human remains and likely
Under a model of admixture, the notion that the Oase people are very close
to the time of contact is consistent with their ar-chaic traits, and .nds additional
remains. In fact, nowhere north of the Ebro divide, from El Sidron, Spain, in
The two putative exceptions are no more. That the ca. 29-28 kyr 14Cbp
This gives further credence to the notion that the ca. 29 kyr 14Cbp result for
the Mezmaiskaya cave infant must also be a vast underestimation of its true
age; this burial, in fact, was covered by intact Mousterian deposits with
The notion that the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian survived for many
millennia after moderns are first recorded in Europe was based, in turn, on the
The impact of such factors on the chronology of samples from this period is
Radiocarbon results for the Klisoura 1 cave in Greece place the Uluz-zian at
Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends
from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an
However, if such a signature is found to exist, then the case for admixture is
dated by 39A/ 40A to ca. 39 kyr calBP, and is further separated from that
In the light of these results, it is clear that the key site of the Grotte du Renne
abandoned.
Careful geological and taphonomic analysis of these sites, coupled with some
excavation error and faulty intra site correlations lay behind the Roc-de-
In western Europe, the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian are followed by the
The features of the lithic and bone assemblages and the radiocarbon dates
obtained for the La Quina sequence indicate that these remains can be no
kyr calBP, is also of modern human, although the issue remains controversial.
the same people who manufactured the Aurignacian ca. 38-37 kyr calBP were
This inference is certainly consistent with the fact that the Oase .nds place
people of overall modern anatomy in Europe during the earlier part of the
New excavations and in-depth technological studies have now vindicated this
view and the validity of the tripar-tite Aurignacian I, II, and IIIIV succession.
Renne stands out. Following recognition that the human remains from the
Because most ornaments come from basal level X, not from level VIII, which
with the stratigraphic distribution of the .nds and with the manufacture by
decorated bird bone tubes. Moreover, the often-quoted ca. 32-33 kyr 14Cbp
areas of the same levels at Fumane (Italy) and Sesselfels (Germany), the
transformed the Rennes inhabited cave porch into an open air site.
The ca. 43 kyr calBP result for level Xb is consistent with the chronology of
the Cha telperronian elsewhere in France and provides the most reliable
Recent developments have strength-ened the view that we are not dealing
samples from this time range, especially in the examples given, is now
intrusive.
The conclusion that these pierced and grooved teeth, bones, and fossils stand
none exists.
15.09 7.55 9.43 67.92 1 3 25 3.45 10.34 86.21 thus giving a Total of
285
95,204 40 53 29
This work has also made it clear that the so-called Proto Aurignacian,
the long, slender Dufour sub-type, both made on blanks extracted from
The recent re-excavation of the key cave site of Isturitz and the revision of
places the Aurignacian beyond 43 kyr calBP. However, that level contained
both Chatelperronian and Aurignacian material and yielded two dates, ca. 41
and ca. 44 kyr calBP. The only reasonable interpretation of this evidence is
that the earlier relates to the Chatelperronian component and the later to the
Aurignacian one. At Willendorf II, Austria, the evidence comes from level 3,
an eroded surface that yielded selected charcoal dated to ca. 43 kyr calBP.
286
Such a supply clearly explains the anomalous results, which simply provide a
terminus post quem for the Lithics, the af.nities of which lie with the
Aurignacian I.
The mixed lithic assemblage contains Middle Paleolithic and early Upper
Paleolithic items (blattspitzen). The charcoal dated to ca. 43 kyr calBP likely
relates to one of these components, as further indicated by the fact that the
the denition and age of its lower Aurignacian level are now settled, with all
parties involved agreeing that the level dates to ca. 40.5 kyr calBP, in good
Bohunician of Moravia and Poland, which are dated to the ca. 44-42 kyr calBP
human culture. The assumption is reasonable, but the link with the Danube is
unknown in Moravia before the Bohunician, and that the latters reduction
287
Tachtit, Israel.
space over the last 200,000 years. Moreover, the diffusion of technologies
can occur with no migration being involved. In fact, the apparently intrusive
nature of the Bohunician in Moravia simply rejects the large time gap currently
In nearby southern Poland, the sites of Piekary IIa and Ksiecia Jozefa
. The latest evidence of Neandertals north of the Ebro divide and the IUP
45 ka calBP.
The cultural continuity between the Bohunician and the regional Middle
Paleolithic contradicts the hypothesis, but the issue remains open due to the
Parsimony dictates that there is no need to look into the Middle East for the
Given the lack of associated human remains, the authorship of the Bohunician
must remain an open issue, but the evidence for cultural continuity with the
Although aspects of size, shape, and crown morphology align the dental
material from the type-site with modern humans, this conclusion only applies
to the Aurignacian levels, the single human remain from the Bachokirian ones
1.rst molar. Moreover, the recent review of the relevant collections fully
Aurignacian.
contrast with the IUP and the Bohunician, blade production is fully within the
Levallois concept.
continent until ca. 43 kyr calBP and that, south western Iberia excluded
contact was established and subsequent interaction was resolved within the
one or two millennia centred around 42 kyr cal B .,broadly coinciding with the
crucial importance:
must be attributed to modern humans, who were therefore the authors of the
are in all likelihood associated with that levels Szeletian material, not with the
INTERACTION
archaeological entity that available dates place in the exact interval during
That the dispersal of modern humans into Europe is clearly involved in the
1.
indistinguishable from the Early Ah-marian of the Levant. Its Font-Yves points,
for instance, are exactly the same thing as the latters El-Wad points.
2.
Lebanon, the Early Ahmarian is undated but lies between the Aurignacian and
framework for the IUP66 and thus, indirectly, a terminus post quem of ca. 43-
41 kyr calBP for the Early Ahmarian that is consistent with the single reliable
3.
The now lost juvenile skeleton from the Early Ahmarian of Ksar Akil (Egbert)
is modern and, given the preceding, of the same age as the Oase fossils.
4.
A further point of cultural similarity resides in the fact that the two entities
of all beads in the Early Ahmarian of Ksar Akil and is also well represented
broader, but all are of pretty much the same size and shape.
Nassarius beads are also about 90% of the several hundred ornaments now
known from the IUP of U cag.izli, suggesting cultural continuity between the
two.
In fact, the earliest African ornaments, those from the ca. 75,000-year-old Still
of a single deeply rooted cultural tradition extending all the way back into the
Such speculations are in any case fully consistent with the evidence of the
unknown in the Early Ahmarian and the IUP of the Levant as in the Middle
Stone Age of Africa, which, besides the perforated Nassarius, only contains
ostrich eggshell beads. The novelties are Dentalium tubes, pierced and
grooved animal teeth, and beads made of bone, ivory, soft stone, or fossils.
Their absence from any modern human cultural complex of preceding times
to cultural preference.
Bachokirian, the Uluzzian, and the Chatelperronian; that is, to the kinds of
Clearly, the alternative view that, after 30,000 years of total and absolute
coincidence.
COGNITION
used to assess the African evidence, emerged in Europe when the continent
292
similar result: No such evidence exists that does not end up with data that
signi.cant .
similar result: No such de.nition exists that does not end up de.ning some
as behaviourally modern.
of phytoliths and macro plant remains from Kebara, Amud, and Tor Faraj.
sufficiently close to theirs, such as the Bay of Malaga, late OIS-3 Neanderthal
groups left sites featuring shell-midden accumulations that differ from those of
the Late Upper Paleo-lithic and Mesolithic only in that their lithic component is
Although the proponents of this view claim that such evidence does not
ap-pear in the archaeological record until about 5,000 years ago, the birch-
One can hardly imagine how such Pleistocene high-tech could have been
In this regard, one must also note that the widespread notion that the first
actually non-existent. Where both mobiliary and parietal art are concerned,
the earliest anywhere in the world are the .gurines of the German
294
In good agreement with the nature of the associated lithics, the range of
dates falls, in both cases, entirely within the Aurignacian II and thus postdates
This art, therefore, holds the same relevance for the explanation of patterns
civilization.
DEMOGRAPHY
Such issues can thus be effectively re-moved from any further consideration
it?
maternal lineage that existed 50,000 years ago is no more, but tells us little
In fact, given that founder analysis places the actual immigration of the most
ancient European groups of today only after 30 kyr calBP,84 accepting the
premises and conclusions of extant mtDNA studies carries the implication that
the lineages to which the earliest European moderns belonged are as extinct
as the Neandertals.
295
That this may well be the case should come as no surprise. Although much
attention has been paid to the environmental impact of the frequent and
Most assessments of mtDNA histories through the critical period before and
after the time of contact only consider two population scenarios, stability and
A case in point with major implications for the issues at stake here is the
Its effects must have been compounded by the catastrophic explosion, ca. kyr
calBP, of the Phlegraean Fields caldera. As a result, the area available for
No modelling of the genetic history of OIS-3 Europe and of the role that
The population crash, however, does not explain why it was those particular
lineages that went extinct, whereas others that existed at the same time in
Africa and western Asia are still extant; nor does it explain why the biological
within 5,000 years of contact, seemingly all but vanished by ca. 30 kyr calBP.
296
Selection and contingency may well have played a role in the process, but the
Europe is one-third of Africas size, and during glacial times only a narrow belt
European territories would have had lower carrying capacities than the
population density.
the modern human gene reservoir must have been many times larger than the
contact and interaction would have begun along what previously had been a
At that time, the two reservoirs effectively merged. In such a situation, even a
numbers, such as fertility, would, in less than one millennium, suffice to bring
and ethnic identification. The ornaments from Blombos show the mechanism
in action in southern Africa ca. 75 kyr ago. The lack of evidence for the next
30,000 years suggests that the system may have subsequently collapsed, but
by 45,000 calBP we see it again in eastern Africa as well as, for the first time,
in the Near East and Europe. The marked differences in the choice of
emblems and the biological evidence of reduced contact between Europe and
In fact, vast areas deserted during OIS-4 times, including southern England,
sites that, in central Europe, are clearly related to each other by a shared,
can thus be taken as a proxy for levels of population increase leading to the
one.
CONCLUSION
When modern humans entered Europe, they encountered people with the
from contact to mutual avoidance and full admixture, must have ensued at the
local and regional level. But the overall result in the long-term continental
perspective was that of biological and cultural blending, the imbalance in the
It could be argued that such losses are of little or no consequence to the heart
of the matter, in that they do not change the basic conclusions derived from
The European evidence, however, does have a major implication for studies
are concerned. The Blombos cave .nds effectively refuted the notion that the
The ultimate implication of the European evidence, thus, is that the hardware
requirements for symbolic thinking must have been in place before the Middle
corollaries: .first, that the much later appearance of personal ornaments and
differentiation at the bio-species level; and third, that the search for the
It is easy to see that the above research is more in depth than the first
well. Below I have placed some of the mentioned artefacts for reference
I am not concerned that I have not been able to include all the photographic
take up many page spaces but there is always the risk that some of the
reference.
Where possible I have left a comment on a graphic that I feel is important and
interesting for the reader to follow up on as desired. My thanks here for all the
people who helped with the research and also made constructive comments.
303
The above is from Africa and is shown just for reference to the shapes of
skulls and bones from there. It is not possible that what we see above and
Africa as such, the close locations would be Turkey and Iraq then north into
Europe.
304
Found in the Arago cave in France and dated at 400,000 years old.
The fragments are made up of front of a skull, two lower jaws and a left hip
bone.
This skull is from Steinheim in Germany and shows a very prominent brow
ridge. However I need to point out that this skull is small if I compare it with
distortion and not a natural feature but damage during the fossilization
process.
305
The Saccopastore skull from Italy. Petralona skull Greece 300,000 years.
Gibraltar Croatia
Two female Neanderthal skulls is from Krapina in Croatia and on left is the
a depth of a metre or more, the bones may be just a heap all thrown together
or in some cases laid out as in a ritual form though may not in fact be this.
animals of the time, carnivores of all types, and a skull or bone found on its
and can be made when bones are recovered and show damage and this
includes missing bones. All bones found should be examined closely before
and after cleaning otherwise good evidence can be lost. Any soil or mud
around and on the remains should also be checked for pollen grains and
The person who examines the bones and skulls must be confident in his or
her identification of Neanderthal bones because this would beyond the scope
309
of a student or archaeology field worker unless they have had training in such.
Bone disease must also be looked for and this is more than likely in the case
of the Neanderthals but again I should stress needs to come under the scope
Fractures may also be present and if before death and the victim lived then
there should be evidence of bone hardening at where the fracture took place
and more so with the long bones. Such fractures therefore could be the result
of falls and tumbles onto a hard surface, a large animal attack like a bear or
other large carnivore, fights between groups, or a type of brittle bone disease.
All the evidence gathered from bones can then be logged and filed for later
reference.
313
MY THANKS TO;
Mangala, Mandala Yoga Ashram Wales. For Guidance.
Swami Krishnalpremananda, For putting up with me.
Swami Shiva Priya, for being a good listener, her library and researcher.
Swami G, for his kindness, the room to work and his cheese.
The people involved in the Gnome Neanderthal Project and data.
Staff at the University of England Library for their kindness.
Open University Library Staff for directions to data.
PDF data from Queens University of Belfast, Galway University, Co Galway
Ireland, Ulster University Belfast, Lampeter University, Wales and many
others who kept me on my toes over the years.