Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00197)

Dallas: One ought to become familiar with the 3 books written by 
Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson regarding FORBIDDEN 
ARCHAEOLOGY -- which uncover some of the data that archaeology has 
concealed -- if it did not fit those theories.

The general theories current when the S D was written over 110
years ago, are still in place, but thanks to dating techniques the antiquit=

y 
of early times and geological ages have been extended and widened. In 
the 2nd part of this essay we offer some data for comparison on this.

Brian, Dallas the above is wrong for example Brass wrote: By accenting 
the worn-out theme of "no transitional fossils" and by emphasising the 
concept of humans having existed on earth in anatomically modern form 
for hundreds of millions of years, Cremo & Thompson unwittingly 
introduce an indirect angle upon which to approach the question at 
hand. If their proposition was to hold true, then our bodies would: 
* Show no signs of quadruped ancestry; * Have little or no anatomical 
characteristics in common with chimpanzees; and * Be perfectly 
designed for bipedalism. 

The term landscape is frequently used by archaeologists to categorise 
an activity, whether mental or physical, that is engaged in by
hominins with their surrounding environment. Therefore landscape, as 
defined here, refers to the integration of natural and human settings, and
the impact thereof. This definition in itself is very broad and it leaves
open a large scope for varying degrees of application to and 
interpretation of the fossil and geological records. Hominin actions occur =


over both time and space, and therefore the end result examined by 
archaeologists (and also by other disciplines such as art historians and 
cultural geographers) is complex. 

According to the laws of preservation, the further back in the past 
scientists investigate, the scantier the fossil, artifactual and
habitation evidence they will have to deal with. The challenge faced is 
how to go about reconstructing the hominins' interrelationship with their 
environment. It is a debatable point whether early Homo possessed a 
capacity for symbolism at c. 1.5 million years ago (mya). Taken 
together, these factors impose strict limits on various research and 
interpretative tracks which can be applied to a given problem, thus 
leaving the door open for novel and innovative methods. Rather than 
searching for symbolic explanations of the placement of
archaeological features in the landscape, archaeologists and 
palaeoanthropologists instead concentrate on functional, socio-economic 
probabilities through a combination of recorded studies of our nearest 
surviving relatives the chimpanzee, through typological analyses of the 
stone artifacts,through microscopic examinations of the damage 
exhibited on animal bone remains, and through the range, distribution 
and clustering density patterns of both the stone tools and animal bones. 

The original usage of the term "Hominidae" encompassed those fossils 
regarded as being more closely aligned to Homo sapiens than to our 
nearest relative the chimpanzee, with whom we have 98.3% of our 
genes in common. In the last few years genetic evidence, combined with 
new anatomical studies, has put forward a compelling case for revision 
in order for the morphological similarities to be classified in a clearer 
manner. 

Religions (like Theosophy) have been built up around factual events, 
cultural perspectives of the world and gross elaborations over time until 
they come to be regarded as indisputable fact. 

The sites that our ancestors have left behind provide us
with the opportunity to examine some of the mysteries of the past. What 
makes a site? What events and/or activities by man made tools? And 
how does that help in our understanding of the past? The direction to 
take at first in attempting to understand the formation of Stone Age
sites is to have a close look at the system of artifact manufacture - a
purpose that will become clear. 

Australopithecus robustus has smaller canine and incisor teeth than
its predecessor, A. africanus, although its face, brain and molars are
bigger with the postcanine teeth possessing thick enamel. It possessed a 
cranial capacity of 475 cm3. The best-preserved examples come from 
the site of Drimolen, South Africa. Described by its excavator Andre 
Keyser, the cranium and mandible discovered in 1994 reveal that the 
species' sexual dimorphism is greater than what had previously
been theorised and reinforces what was previously known, namely that 
A. robustus and early Homo were contemporaries in southern Africa. 

Males weighed around 40 kg and females, 32 kg. Dental analyses have 
concluded that the foods eaten by A. robustus were harder and
required less use of the incisors than its cousin, A. africanus. The
examinations of its enamel, via stable carbon isotopes, have added 
further to the reconstruction of this hominin's dietary behaviour: 
grasses, tubers as well the meat of animals whose diet comprised 
primarily of C4 plants; 
thus, contrary to previous hypotheses, A. robustus was a generalised 
eater . Interestingly though, the C3 and C4 
proportions of the A. robustus and the early Homo diet appear to be 
similar, although this should not be taken to mean that their diets
were the same especially considering the massive dentition of A. 
robustus . 

This new scenario is consistent with tool finds at Swartkrans. 
Australopithecus robustus comprises the majority of the skeletal
remains from Swartkrans, where many stone tools have been found, 
and the hominin also posses a hand morphology that is virtually the 
same as modern humans; this means it had a precision grip). Thus it is 
very possible both A. robustus and Homo erectus utilised stone tools at
the site of Swartkrans, especially with bone tools found in the same
breccia member as A. robustus bearing wear marks. 

The femurs were discovered in the same strata level as
the Homo rudolfensis skull designated KNM-ER 1470. This relationship 
should have provisionally suggested to the authors that the finds
might belong to the same species. The idea presented that they might 
be the remains of anatomically modern humans is unlikely because 
shortly afterwards, Homo ergaster appeared on the scene with modern 
human bodily proportions. Occam's Razor dictates that H. rudolfensis
probably possessed more human-like proportions in line with H. ergaster 
than did H. habilis. This raises a far more interesting question which can
only be resolved by more detailed remains being uncovered: is H. 
rudolfensis, and not H. habilis, the direct ancestor of H. ergaster or are =


the exhibited characteristics an example of evolutionary parallelism. 

Bipedal apes had been in existence for a long time when Homo arrived. 
The human family emerged about 7.5 million years ago; Homo evolved 
sometime before two million years ago… It is true that modern humans 
are bipedal apes in a sense, but the earliest hominids were bipedal 
apes, and no more. Only with Homo did the evolutionary equation 
change, and in a dramatic direction.