• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1512 0

the midst of the new complexity, one question is especially important— the origin of the Homo line. Shipman told of seeing Bill Kimbel, an associate of Johanson, attempt to deal with the phylogenetic implications of the Black Skull. “At the end of a lecture on Australopithecine evolution, he erased all the tidy, alternative diagrams and stared at the blackboard for a moment. Then he turned to the class and threw up his hands,” wrote Shipman (1986, p. 93). Kimbel eventually decided the Homo line came from Australopithecus africanus ( Willis 1989). Johanson and White continued to maintain that Homo came directly from Australopithecus afarensis.

After she considered various phylogenetic alternatives and found the evidence for all of them inconclusive, Shipman (1986, p. 93) stated: “we could assert that we have no evidence whatsoever of where Homo arises from and remove all members of the genus Australopithecus from the hominid family. . . . I’ve such a visceral negative reaction to this idea that I suspect I am unable to evaluate it rationally. I was brought up on the notion that Australopithecus is a hominid.” This is one of the more honest statements we have heard from a mainstream scientist involved in paleoanthropological research.

In the foregoing discussion, we have considered only the evidence that is generally accepted by most scientists. Needless, to say, if we were to also consider the evidence for anatomically modern humans in very ancient times that would complicate the matter even further.

Having reviewed the history of African discoveries related to human evolution, we can make the following summary observations. (1) There is a significant amount of evidence from Africa suggesting that beings resembling anatomically modern humans were present in the Early Pleistocene and Pliocene. (2) The conventional image of Australopithecus as a very humanlike terrestrial biped appears to be false. (3) The status of Australopithecus and Homo erectus as human ancestors is questionable. (4) The status of Homo habilis as a distinct species is questionable. (5) Even confining ourselves to conventionally accepted evidence, the multiplicity of proposed evolutionary linkages among the hominids in Africa presents a very confusing picture. Combining these findings with those from the preceding chapters, we conclude that the total evidence, including fossil bones and artifacts, is most consistent with the view that anatomically modern humans have coexisted with other primates for tens of millions of years.

Permission credits:

Figure 2.4, “Patterns of grooves and ridges produced by a serrated shark tooth

moving along the surface of a whale bone,” is from Journal of Paleontology

(1982, 56:6). Used with permission.

Figure 5.11, “A Folsom blade embedded in the lower surface of a travertine crust

from Sandia Cave, New Mexico,” is reprinted by permission of the Smithsonian

Institution Press from Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections; Vol. 99,

no. 23. c Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. October 15, 1941. plate 7.

Figures 3.5, 3.29. and 4.12, the drawings of stone tools from Olduvai Gorge,

Tanzania, are from Olduvai Gorge by Mary Leakey (1971) and are reprinted by

permission of the Cambridge University Press.

Figure 5.15 (left), “Stone bowl from Nakura, Kenya,” is from The Stone Age

Cultures of Kenya Colony, by Louis Leakey (1931) and is used by permission

of the Cambridge University Press.

Figures 5.5–7, and 5.9, the drawings of stone tools from Sheguiandah, Canada, are

from The Canadian Field-Naturalist (1957, vol. 71). Used with permission.

Readers interested in the subject matter of this book are invited to correspond with

Michael A. Cremo at mail@mcremo.com.

First edition: 1993

First edition, revised: 1996, 1998

Twelfth printing: 2005

Thirteenth printing: 2008

Fourteenth printing: 2010

Copyright © 1993, 1996, 1998 by Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reprinted in any form, or by any

means reproduced, without permission in writing from the publisher.