Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [463]
Member 1 at Swartkrans, where all of the Paranthropus bones were found, is now said to be 1.2 to 1.4 million years old (Groves 1989, p. 198) or 1.8 million years old (Susman 1988, p. 782). But ages of 2.0 million and 2.6 million years have also been proposed (Tobias 1978, p. 65). Member 2, where the SK 15 Telanthropus mandible was found, is said to be 300,000 to 500,000 years old. Member 2 is said to represent an erosion channel. This makes it hard to tell how old the SK 15 jaw really is. It could have been washed in with other bones in the Middle Pleistocene. Or perhaps it could have been eroded from Early Pleistocene Member 1. In general, dating fossils found in the South African caves is quite difficult. The caves have been periodically filled and refilled over the course of 1 to 2 million years, resulting in an exceedingly confused stratigraphy. Those who have a degree of faith in chemical dating methods may take note that K. P. Oakley tested the fluorine content of the Telanthropus jaw and found it to be the same as the Paranthropus fossils (Broom and Robinson 1952, p. 113).
In 1961, Robinson “sank” the genus Telanthropus and reclassified the Swartkrans jaw as Homo erectus (Brain 1978, p. 140). Broom and Robinson (1952), however, had previously noted several differences between the SK 15 teeth and those of Beijing man and Java man, both of which are now classified as Homo erectus. In terms of these differences, the SK 15 teeth were more like those of modern humans. Broom and Robinson also described other ways in which the SK 15 teeth were similar to those of modern humans. But the lower front part of the jaw was damaged, making it “impossible to be sure whether there was a trace of a chin or not” (Broom and Robinson 1952, p. 110). The affinities of this apparently somewhat humanlike jaw remain a mystery.
Broom and Robinson found another humanlike lower jaw at Swartkrans. This fragmentary mandible (SK 45) came not from an erosion channel but from the main deposit containing the Paranthropus fossils. Broom and Robinson (1952, p. 112) said: “In shape it is more easily matched or approached by many modern Homo jaws than by that of Telanthropus.” Robinson later referred the SK 45 jaw to Telanthropus and then to Homo erectus (Brain 1978, p. 140). But there are reasons, admittedly not unclouded, to consider other possibilities. Emphasizing the ambiguous nature of the Telanthropus fossils, a recent worker (Groves 1989, p. 275) assigned them to an unnamed species of Homo.
11.3.5 Paranthropus a Toolmaker?
In the years 1979–1983, C. K. Brain of the Transvaal Museum recovered fossil bones of 130 hominid individuals, 30 crude bone tools, and some crude stone tools. The newly discovered Swartkrans fossils included a relatively small number of well-preserved hand and foot bones.
Speaking of the 8 hand bones from Member 1 at Swartkrans, Randall L. Susman (1988, p. 783) said they indicated “that the robust australopithecines had much the same morphological potential for refined precision grasping and for tool-behavior as do modern humans.” Susman (1988, pp. 782–783) noted, however, that the hand bones retained an apelike overall morphology.
The bone tools found at Swartkrans, according to Susman (1988, p. 783), have wear patterns indicating they were used for digging. Susman (1988, p. 783) therefore proposed that Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus had used stone and bone implements “for vegetable procurement and processing.”
Most workers believe the making of tools is an exclusive trait of the genus Homo, starting with Homo habilis. According to this view, big-jawed Paranthropus, a robust australopithecine unconnected to the Homo line, munched vegetable matter like the modern gorilla, without the aid of tools.
In a New York Times report (1988), Donald C. Johanson, discoverer of Lucy, the most