THE

NEANDERTHAL
DAWN.
ARCHAEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 2012
 2

NEANDERTHAL DAWN.

Ronnie Carleton 2012

Co Researcher ;Tanja Mancinelli.

ARCHAEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 2011 EARLY HUMANS.

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

answers and getting more questions instead.

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.

Half way through 70 years of age I have at least discovered a number of

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

race as a species in on the road to extinction, and somewhere out there,

hidden bones and clues to early man like the Neanderthals who led us into

what we are today.

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

old research data and adding more.

This research of mine therefore leaves questions to be answered and

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

BONES OF CONTENTION DATA.

Ronnie Carleton (c) 2011

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

biological or chemical agent.

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

subject is in fact a wildlife study of primates, good information but lacking

conviction to suggest that these were our early genetic links.

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

dead in its tracks because there is no evidence anywhere that it continued in

present day apes or other primates world-wide.

 5

This research does not just look at Early Humans as humans but as I

suggested before it starts with the Neanderthals because in my opinion and

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

anywhere in a boat or raft. The Neanderthals unknown to many were in fact

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

a research. Unless I am missing something, 30 thousand years in human

progress is a very long time which to be left in the dark of what happened how

and why? This suggests to me guesswork by some of the past researchers

rather than good down to earth research, like field work.

Here I am talking about the Neanderthals onwards and enter Cro-Magnon

 6

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

groups migrated there in time.

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

was and what was their natural history.

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

tribes of all kinds increased until it became Anthropology and Archaeology

studies that remains with me today.

I therefore plough on, research and re-research and make some journeys to

strange places in search of answers and sometimes I get them.

CHAPTER TWO

THE HUMAN THAT TIME FORGOT.

 8

If we look at the modes of archaeology worldwide and more so when it comes

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

rock or club (stick) it cannot be classified therefore as a thinking human or

have a group religious culture.

My research here is based on the Neanderthal boundary of their

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,

Belgium, Spain, Gibraltar, Belgium and the South of the UK.

I call this the Research Project Areas or RPA to keep it simple for the reader

and myself in writing up my research.

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.

It would be useless of course to leave out the classification by others of early

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

and therefore would be no evidence of comparison to work with or leave room

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

poor interpretation of artefacts, geology, dating and habits of culture can no

longer be ignored or excepted as good stand up evidence. There is no room

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

happy archaeology interpretation just so a paper can be rushed through and

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 would be constructive input or comment that would add to the

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

am gone which I hope it will. If I have just uncovered a fragment of new

evidence into the human Neanderthal then I will feel that after many years I

have completed something worthwhile.

SUGGESTED TIMELINES FOR EARLY APES AND HUMANS.

APES.

FAMILY; Oreopithecidae
 10

Apidium 30 mya

Oreopithecus 30 mya

Pongidae.

Pliopithecus 26-27 mya Africa and Europe.

limnopithecus.

Hylobates (Gibbon) Recent.

Symphalangus (Siamang) Recent.

Aegyptopithecus 30 mya

Dryopithecus 25-10 mya, Europe, Asia and

Africa

(Includes; Sivapithecus,Proconsul,Bramapithecus.)

Pongo ( Orang-utan) Recent.

Pan (Chimpanzee) Recent.

Gorilla, Recent.

Hominidae.

Ramapithecus 14-7 mya

( Includes Kenyapithecus)

Australopithecus 5-1 mya

(Includes Paranthropus,Plesianthropus.)

Homo.

Homo Human species (Man) Recent.

NOTE;

The above is the suggested data by J.Z,YOUNG in her book

Introduction to the Study of Man

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

possible data on apes may mean much more.

THE MISSING TRIBES.

The discovery of human remains on the island of Flores in Indonesia of a

missing tribe is of no surprise to me because if we look at a map of that area

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

she and the remains found have a link.

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

in Borneo in 2004 was modern looks and small build.

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

have lived. Both were no more than 3 feet or 1 M high .

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

start of human kind.

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

the main stage for mankind today.

Asia and South East Asia is I feel a major source of human kind and more

advanced at the time when the ape in Africa stood upright.

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

thin on the ground.

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.

From a tribal point of view there is no shortage of food or natural building

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

SW into rain forest.

I would suggest to also seek evidence of small people NE and E of Borneo on

the TAWI TAWI groups of islands because these people could and did move

from Island to Island on primitive rafts of bamboo.

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.

Any expedition to the rainforests would have to be worthwhile, involves

archaeologists, biologists of the rainforest type, anthropologists, tribal guides,

 13

SE Asia Departments of Sciences, and of course the local government and

tribal intuitions. There would also need to be up front funding over a few years

and continued if the research evidence is positive.

There has always been, a political problem of movement between the

borders and into the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia, mainly by the

military establishment of Indonesia. Medical and Genetic personal would need

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.

Pygmy, Africa. Iban woman, Borneo. Kuba, Sumatra.

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

remote areas such as in Borneo. There is in my opinion a common genetic

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.

If we then take a movement or possible movement of such people Island

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

groups at some stage. When that happened I dont know.

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

Ocean between them.

 15

Though there may well now be a spoken language barrier between the Asia

and South America groups there would be I am sure a well-known non-

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.

Language games would also be useful to support this.

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

in from outside, disease and unnecessary western artefacts that we claim to

be useful. We do need to learn from such people before all is lost.

WHO WERE YOU?

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

human race, unless they work in the field of biology, archaeology, or

anthropology then a great amount of knowledge is going to be lost. The UN is

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

is on it and have a burn and slash policy. (Carleton 2011)

 16

CHAPTER THREE

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AFRICA.

RESEARCH PROJECT 2012

Ronnie Carleton 2012

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

nothing as factual evidence.

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,

one of the main trends of a community or small civilization of early human

history.

The study therefore of archaeology is always pushing this agriculture progress

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.

THE EARLY 'APE' LIKE CREATURES.

 18

MEASURING SKULLS AND THE EVIDENCE OF BRAIN SIZE.

There has been much debate about skull and brain size in the cases of early

Homos as well as the overall measuring view of the skulls themselves. A

large skull and brain as we know, or should, does not mean a high IQ if many

of todays humans is anything to go by.

What is needed is more research on what is now linked to what when it

comes to early skull history and of course possibilities.

This should also be applied to all bones discovered along with the skull.

ANTHROPOMETRICS MEASUREMENTS are the main key to all this.

When it comes down to the growth and development of skulls it is one of

comparison and measurements that is needed.

A predetermined set of measurements on a number of skulls is known of

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

posterior midpoint of the foremen magnum.

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

orbits, farthest anterior projection of brow-ridges, highest point on the skull

vault. As many as 10 to 20 points can be defined and measured and to

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.

HOMO SAPIENS (ARCHAIC) HOMO SAPIENS NEANDERTHAL.

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

other large islands East of it.

The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae,

which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of

humans and living apes. (Some scientists use a broader definition 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

evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the

evolutionary history of humans.

The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to

have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years

ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus,

used to be considered as hominids, and possible ancestors of humans. Later

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

therefore is no longer considered a hominid.

The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as

palaeoanthropology. It is the intersection of the disciplines of palaeontology

(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

(note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence),

except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name

consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always

capitalized, and a species name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in

lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity.

Ardipithecus ramidus

This species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White et

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

bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White et al. have since

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

bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey, 1994)).

Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were
 22

substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism.

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

climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage. It is more than

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

thinking, even today.

Australopithecus africanus

A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to

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

canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.

Australopithecus afarensis and africanus are known as gracile

australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the

skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in palaeoanthropology is used

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

species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling

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,

most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the

face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known

hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin, 1992). (A

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

been used as digging tools.

Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)

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

molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus,

 24

about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the

same species.

Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust

australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built.

Homo habilis

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found

with him. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very

similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it

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

probably capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been

about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb.) in weight.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Some scientists have not accepted

it, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the

australopithecines or Homo erectus. Many now believe that habilis combines

specimens from at least two different Homo species.

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

larger-brained infants (Willis, 1989). Homo habilis and all the

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

are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo sapiens (archaic)

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

protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an

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,

and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted

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

attachments. Neanderthals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern

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

called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less

excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992; Trinkaus and Howells,

1979)

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

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

appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly

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

humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular

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

considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive".

Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes

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

last 10,000 years (Brace, 1983).

This diagram shows roughly the times during which each hominid species

lived. Ages are in millions of years, with each character position representing

100,000 years. This resolution is a little coarse to accurately represent the

most modern species.

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

| | | | | |

| | A.robustus ****** | |
 28

| | A.boisei ***********| |

| A.aethiopicus **** | | |

| | | | | |

A.ramidus * | | | | |

A.anamensis **** | | | |

A.afarensis ********** | | |

| A.africanus *********** | |

| | | | | |

| | H.habilis ********** | |

| | | H.erectus **************** |

| | | archaic H.sapiens *****|

| | | | Neandertals *|

| | | | modern H.sapiens **

| | | | | |

|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

Prominent Hominid Fossils

This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic

interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes

reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard

table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid

fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of a single

bone or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.

The list is sorted by species, going from older to more recent species. Within

each species, finds are sorted by the order of their discovery.

 29

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.

Abbreviations: KNM-ER Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf

KNM-WT Kenya National Museum, West Turkana

KP Kanapoi, Kenya

SK Swartkrans, South Africa

Sts Sterkfontein, South Africa

TM Transvaal Museum

OH Olduvai Hominid, Tanzania

AL Afar Locality, Ethiopia

ARA-VP Aramis, Ethiopia

"ARA-VP, Sites 1, 6 & 7", Ardipithecus ramidus

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

bone fragments from 2 individuals.

ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual.

ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single
 30

individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features.

KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid", Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and

Howells, 1967). This is a worn fragment of a lower left humerus which is about

4.0 million years old.

KP 29281, Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a lower jaw

with all its teeth which is about 4.15 million years old.

KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia,

missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.0 million years old. It

is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism.

Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and

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

joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to

an adult.

AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and

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)

and about 28 kg (62 lbs.) in weight.

 31

AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis?

Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia

(Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find

consisted of remains of at least 13 hominid individuals, of all ages. The size of

these specimens varies considerably. Scientists debate whether the

specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they

belong to a single species in which males were considerably larger than

females. Others believe that the larger specimens belong to a primitive

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

"Laetoli footprints", Australopithecus afarensis?

Discovered in 1976 at Laetoli in Tanzania. Estimated age is 3.7 million years.

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).

The prints are tentatively assigned to A. afarensis, because no other hominid

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

footprint timeline is only guess work.

 32

AL 444-2, Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Kimbel

et al.1994). Estimated age is 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of a

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

members of the same species, because the differences between AL 444-2

and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually

dimorphic hominoids.

"Taung baby", Australopithecus africanus

Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart, 1925).

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

Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). Although the discovery

became famous, Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community

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

skull, because of their quadruped posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the

skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column. TM 1512,

 33

Australopithecus africanus (was Plesianthropus transvaalensis)

Discovered by Robert Broom in 1936 at Sterkfontein in South Africa (Broom,

1936). The second australopithecine found, it consisted of parts of the face,

upper jaw and braincase.

Sts 5, "Mrs Ples", Australopithecus africanus

Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It is a

very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be

female, but there have been recent claims that it could be male. It is the best

specimen of africanus. The brain size is about 485 cc.

Sts 14, Australopithecus africanus

Discovered by Robert Broom and J.T. Robinson in 1947 at Sterkfontein.

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).

KNM-WT 17000, "The Black Skull", Australopithecus aethiopicus

Discovered by Alan Walker in 1985 near West Turkana in Kenya. Estimated

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)

TM 1517, Australopithecus robustus (was Paranthropus robustus)

Discovered by Robert Broom in 1938 at Kromdraai in South Africa (Broom,

1938). It consisted of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal

fragments. This was the first specimen of robustus.

 34

OH 5, "Zinjanthropus", "Nutcracker Man", Australopithecus boisei

Discovered by Mary Leakey in 1959 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey,

1959). Estimated age is 1.8 million years. It is an almost complete cranium,

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

dropped when Homo habilis was found soon afterwards.

KNM-ER 406, Australopithecus boisei

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

KNM-ER 732, Australopithecus boisei

Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1970 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. The

cranium is similar to that of OH 5, but is smaller and has other differences

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.

Discovered by the Leakeys in the early 1960's at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.

A number of fragmentary specimens were found (Leakey et al.1964).

OH 7 (Johnny's Child), found by Jonathon Leakey in 1960 (Leakey,

1961), consisted of a lower jaw and two cranial fragments of a child,

and a few hand bones. Estimated age is 1.9 million years, and the

brain size was about 680 cc.

OH 8, found in 1960, consisted of a set of foot bones, complete except

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

bipedalism possessed by modern humans. There is a well-developed

arch, and the big toe is alongside the other toes instead of diverging, as

is the case with apes and monkeys.

OH 13 (Cindy), found in 1963, consisted of a lower jaw and teeth, bits

of the upper jaw and a cranial fragment. Estimated age is 1.7 million

years, and the brain size was about 650 cc.

OH 16 (George), found in 1963, consisted of teeth and some very small

skull fragments (George was unfortunately trampled by a herd of Masai

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.

OH 24, "Twiggy", Homo habilis

Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1968 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It

consisted of a badly crushed skull and seven teeth. It is about 1.8 million

years old and has a brain size of about 590 cc.

KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis

Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey,

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

to the same species. The most complete, KNM-ER 1481, consisted of a

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.

KNM-ER 1805, "The Mystery Skull", Homo habilis??

Discovered by Paul Abell in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974).

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

assigned it to almost every conceivable species, but it seems most similar to

Homo habilis (Wood, 1991).

KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis??

Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974).

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

of sexual dimorphism, others believe that the brain architecture is different

and that 1813 is another species of Homo, and others believe it is an

australopithecine. Like the previous skull, 1805, this one is in the "Suspense

Account". (Willis, 1989)

OH 62, "Dik-dik hominid", Homo habilis

Discovered by Tim White in 1986 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Johanson

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

with the australopithecines, males would have been considerably larger.

"Java Man", "Pithecanthropus I" H.erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus)

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.

"Heidelberg Man", Homo erectus? (was Homo heidelbergensis)

Discovered by gravel pit workers in 1907 near Heidelberg in Germany.

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

could be an archaic sapiens.

"Peking Man Site", Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis)

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,

in China. Their age is estimated to be between 500,000 and 300,000 years

 38

old. (A number of fossils of modern humans were also discovered in the

Upper Cave in 1933.) The most complete fossils, all of which were braincases

or skullcaps, are:

Skull III, discovered at Locus E in 1929 is an adolescent or juvenile with

a brain size of 915 cc.

Skull II, discovered at Locus D in 1929 but only recognized in 1930, is

an adult or adolescent with a brain size of 1030 cc.

Skulls LI, LII and LIII were discovered at Locus L in 1936. They are

thought to belong to an adult man, an adult woman and a young adult,

with brain sizes of 1225 cc, 1015 cc and 1030 cc respectively.

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

a skullcap. These pieces were found at a higher level, and appear to be

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

this site and others in China.

OH 9, "Chellean Man", Homo erectus

Discovered by Louis Leakey in 1960 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey,

1961). Estimated age is 1.2 million years. It consisted of a fairly complete

braincase with a brain size of 1050 cc.

OH 12, "Pinhead", Homo erectus

Discovered by M. Cropper in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It is similar

 39

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.

Sangiran 17, "Pithecanthropus VIII", Homo erectus

Discovered by Sastrohamidjojo Sartono in 1969 at Sangiran on Java. This

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

migrated out of Africa much earlier than previously thought.

KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus

Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 at Koobi Fora in Kenya. Estimated

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

species at any point in history. (Leakey and Walker, 1976)

KNM-WT 15000, "Turkana Boy", Homo erectus

Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in

Kenya (Brown et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993).

This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy, the only

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

(Leakey and Lewin, 1992).) It is the most complete known specimen of

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

that of modern boys, although there are a number of small differences.

"Rhodesian Man", (was Homo rhodesiensis)

Discovered by a labourer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now

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

between 200,000 and 125,000 years.

The brain size was about 1280 cc.

Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic)

Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is

250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo

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

particularly wide jaws. (Day, 1986)

"Neanderthal skeleton", Discovered by Johann Fuhlrott in 1856 in the

Neander valley in Germany. The find consisted of a skullcap, thigh bones,

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

the German establishment headed by Rudolf Virchow rejected this view,

incorrectly claiming that it was a pathological modern human. (Trinkaus and

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

adult cranium found on Gibraltar in 1848 gathered dust in a museum until it

was recognized as Neanderthal in 1864.)

"Spy 1 and 2", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Discovered by Marcel de Puydt and Max Lohest in 1886 at Spy (pronounced

Spee) d'Orneau in Belgium. Estimated age is about 60,000 years. This find

consisted of two almost complete skeletons. The excellent descriptions of the

skeletons established that they were very old, and largely discredited the idea

that the Neanderthal physique was a pathological condition, but also

erroneously concluded that Neanderthal Man walked with bent knees.

Discovered by Dragutin Gorjanovic-Kramberger in 1899 near Krapina in

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

Neandertals were not pathological modern humans.

Discovered by Amedee and Jean Bouyssonie in 1908 near La-Chapelle-aux-

Saints in France. It is about 50,000 years old, with a brain size of 1620 cc.

This nearly complete skeleton was reconstructed by Marcellin Boule, who

wrote a definitive and highly influential paper on it which managed to be totally

wrong in many of its conclusions. It exaggerated the apelike characteristics of

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

have had a complex social structure.

Ralph Solecki discovered 9 Neanderthal skeletons between 1953 and 1960 at

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

of flowers (although this interpretation has recently been disputed). In 1971

Solecki wrote a book, "Shanidar, reversing the earlier stereotypes of semi-

human brutes. Another skeleton, Shanidar 1, was partially blind, one-armed

and crippled. His survival also is evidence of a complex social structure.

"Saint-Cesaire Neanderthal", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Discovered by Francois Leveque in 1979 near the village of Saint-Cesaire in

France. It consisted of a badly crushed skeleton. The skull was mostly

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.

Discovered by workmen in 1868 at Cro-Magnon in France. Estimated age is

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

number of scientists have suggested various changes in these names.

Many people are now using the genus name Paranthropus, originally given to

robustus, to refer to the robust australopithecines (robustus, boisei, and

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

is the case here.

Homo habilis is, as mentioned above, controversial. There is much

disagreement over which specimens belong in habilis, and which do not. A

number of scientists are now using the name H. rudolfensis to refer to ER

1470 and some similar fossils. The smaller habilis-like specimens such as ER

1813 and ER 1805 are variously assigned to habilis, H. ergaster, or to another

as yet unnamed species. The name H. microcranous has recently been

proposed for 1813.

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

neanderthalensis should be restored as species names for archaic Homo

sapiens and the Neandertals.

There are a number of other recent discoveries which may change current

thinking when they have had a chance to be analysed:

Some hominid fossils found recently in Spain, and dated at over

780,000 years, would be the oldest European hominids, but it is not yet
 44

clear what species they belong to.

New finds in Spain and Croatia suggest that Neandertals may have

survived longer than previously thought, perhaps as recently as 30,000

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

adapted to bipedalism, but have an intriguing mixture of ape and

human features.

Summary

There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor

uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size,

increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing

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

accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei)

are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether

H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither

of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known

australopithecines is our ancestor. The discoveries of A. ramidus and A.

anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on

current theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended

from Homo habilis, but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the
 45

Neandertals is still unclear. Neanderthal affinities can be detected in some

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

intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that

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

skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis, 1989)

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

question of whether the australopithecines were apes or not. He performed a

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

differences between humans and apes. Looking at A. africanus and robustus

(the only australopithecine species then known), he found that they were

humanlike rather than apelike in every characteristic. Judged by the same

 46

criteria, A. afarensis falls somewhere between humans and apes, and

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

mixture of hominid and ape characteristics.

Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on

measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this

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

were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.

Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed,

based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more

closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et

al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results

were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually

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.

Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of

nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a

variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on

many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate

that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.

Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to

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

be that Oxnard's methods are a useful method of determining relationships.

This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's

study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to

humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the

two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of

Sivapithecus.

Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal,

australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists

sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying

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".

Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including

Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that "Australopithecus

afarensis ... demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking" is

dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many

competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other

"Australopithecine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk

upright."

Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in

1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "may

have been knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the

relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none

 48

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,

before Lucy had been studied).

Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been discredited. In what is

obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape

who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey

was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he

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

discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper

that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that

australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987)

that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.

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

features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in

the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy

was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A.

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

form of quadrupedalism (McHenry, 1986). Gish's conclusion is strongly

rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else:

"That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine

 49

behaviour than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is

not in serious dispute."

"...we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that

terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the

behaviour of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate."

(Stern and Susman, 1983)

Gish writes as if showing that A. afarensis did not "walk upright in the human

manner" is all that is needed to disqualify it as a human ancestor. But there is

no reason that bipedality, when it first arose, had to be identical to human

bipedality; that final step could have occurred later. As Stern and Susman

(1983) state:

"In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a

"missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely

appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road

toward full-time bipedality..."

Another creationist writes:

"From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that

Lucy walked a little more erect than today's chimps. This

conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone and a

knee bone, has been hotly contested by many

paleoanthropologists." (Morris, 1994)

Almost everything in this quote is a distortion (Johanson's and Lucy's names

 50

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

foot). "has been hotly contested", when no reputable paleoanthropologist

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

wonder what sort of fossil evidence it would take to convince creationists of

australopithecine bipedality.

To support the idea that australopithecines are just apes, Parker says:

"In their critique of the Leakeys, Johanson and White (1980) noted:

'Modern chimpanzees, by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would

be classified as A. africanus.' Apes after all?" (Morris and Parker,

1982)

When the paper by Johanson and White is examined, it is apparent that

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

makes sense if A. africanus is not a chimp.

In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming

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

creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it.

Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a

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

proved Dart's analysis correct and silenced his critics.

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

humanlike ones are a figment of Dart's imagination.) Gish disputes this,

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

examined, Dart's claim was strongly confirmed, and is now universally

accepted.

Despite its importance, Homo habilis is virtually ignored by creationists. The

 52

one exception is ER 1470, which is too well-known to be totally ignored.

Creationists disagree on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. The other

habilis fossils are never analysed, but the few creationists who do mention

them are in agreement that they are all apes.

The skull ER1471 was discovered in 1972, and publicized as both amazingly

humanlike, and extremely old, at nearly 3 million years. Creationists eagerly

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

traits, it has a number of australopithecine features, and a brain size of about

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

is not probable, as can be seen from comparative photos (Weaver, 1985).

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

shape. There is also other evidence that it was an adult.

Curiously, as a debating tactic to discredit other hominid fossils, creationists

often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject larger-brained

erectus specimens as apes.Creationists, however, are unlikely to find the idea

of a human with a brain size of 510 cc very appealing.

Gish in 1979 tentatively accepted 1470 as fully human. By 1985, he seemed

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

Oxnard and Lisowski to be not as humanlike as previously thought. This is

 53

used to justify placing all habilis fossils, including 1470, into the

australopithecines. OH 8, of course, does not belong to 1470, and may not

even have belonged to a member of the same species, so it is irrelevant to

determining 1470's status. Gish implies that his earlier evaluation of 1470 was

based on preliminary information, but the photos and descriptions on which

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

brain has a human rather than an apelike pattern.

Cronin et al.(1981) list nine features of 1470 which are either shared with A.

africanus, or intermediate between africanus and other H. habilis specimens.

Gish lists some of these in support of his contention that 1470 is

australopithecine, but, in a fine example of selective quotation, failed to

include another section from the same paragraph listing other features of

1470 that are generally associated with the genus Homo.

Lubenow (1992), by contrast, considers 1470 fully human. So two of the

foremost creationist experts on palaeoanthropology are both certain that 1470

is not intermediate between human and ape, yet one of them thinks it an ape,

and the other thinks it is a human! There could be no more convincing

demonstration of its transitional status.

Although 1470 is usually placed in the genus Homo, it is definitely not a

modern human. There is ample evidence of this:

"The endocranial capacity and the morphology of the calvaria

 54

[braincase] are characters that suggest inclusion within the genus

Homo, but the maxilla [upper jaw] and facial region are unlike those

of any known form of hominid." (Leakey, 1973)

"KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many

morphological characteristics in common with gracile

australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the

genus Homo" (Cronin et al.1981)

"There is no evidence that this cranium particularly resembles H.

sapiens or H. erectus according to either phenetic or cladistic

evidence. Phenetically, KNM-ER 1470 is closest to the remains

from Olduvai [considered apes by creationists] referred to H. habilis.

(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.

Another fossil which Lubenow considers human is ER 1590, consisting of

cranial fragments and teeth of a child of about 6 years. It is not complete

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.

In addition, the sequence of tooth development has little resemblance to that

 55

of Homo sapiens (Wood, 1991).

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

such as OH 7, OH 13, OH 16 and OH 24 (which creationists consider apes)

all share many advanced features with ER 1470.

It is lightly built, with a rounded skull and no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow

ridges, and a small amount of nasal prominence (Day, 1986). This is

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

had smaller, Homo erectus-sized teeth (Klein, 1989). Others (reviewed in

Wood (1992)) consider 1470 to belong to the same species as either OH 7 or

1813. OH 62 also closely resembles 1470 (Johanson et al.1987). Sorting out

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

is no "significant gap" separating 1470 from the others.

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

fossils (discussed in the following sections). Most creationists consider both

apes, although Lubenow (1992) considers both human even though many

books stress their very close similarity.

A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests

(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

degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding,

poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris, 1974).

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

considers the erectus morphology to be caused by disease.

There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H.

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

environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.

One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish (1985)

as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is

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

number of minor differences from those of modern humans.

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

"nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles of mountainous

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

had found an ancestor of modern man (Theunissen, 1989; Gould, 1993;

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

than Homo erectus.

It is instructive to listen to Gish (1993) expounding on the apelike qualities of

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

eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape".

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

Sangaien , also found on Java.

This skull, which is never mentioned by creationists, is an almost complete

cranium and is clearly human, albeit primitive If one is trying to pigeonhole

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.

However he attempts to disqualify Java Man as a primitive human by using

faunal evidence to show that it is the same age as the Wadjak skulls.

Lubenow gives the following quote from Hooijer (1951):

"Tapirus indicus, supposedly extinct in Java since the Middle

Pleistocene, proved to be represented in the Dubois collection from

the Wadjak site, central Java, which is late - if not post -

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

fossils. Lubenow's argument fails for a number of reasons.

Even if faunal methods were completely invalid, it would not constitute

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

faunas were the same.

By far the simplest resolution of the tapir discrepancy is, as Hooijer stated,

that Tapirus indicus survived longer than previously thought on Java

(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

species are exclusively in the Trinil fauna.

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

was not compiled until decades later (Hooijer, 1951).

Incidentally, the tapir was probably not singled out for mention by Hooijer

because it is an anomaly, as Lubenow seems to suspect. It was probably of

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)

considers Java Man to be a valid fossil. It is of course a valid fossil because

the skullcap had to belong to something, but Parker merely dismisses it as

"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

evolutionist preconceptions. Gish (1985) discusses Peking Man extensively,

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

book that had originally been written by Boule another 20 years or so

previously (Boule died in 1942).

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

Sinanthropus had been eaten by modern man, or by Sinanthropus himself (i.e.

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.

Almost all recent authorities (Jia (1990) is an exception) reject as unsupported

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

found in the excavation. So Gish's argument fails on multiple grounds: there is

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

disqualify Peking Man from being a primitive human.

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

than to hypothesize giant apes.

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,

Boule and Vallois list 3 apelike characteristics, and 1 humanlike characteristic,

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

pithecoid [apelike] and human characters".

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

essentially modern skeleton.

 62

Gish's conclusion that Sinanthropus was an ape is reached by emphasizing

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

quoted by them, or any modern authorities. The opinions are divided as to

whether Sinanthropus is advanced enough to be called human, but no one

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

were made by committed evolutionists, may not be accurate copies. Gish

appears to be confused about the words "cast" and "model", once using them

as if they were synonymous. A cast, made from a mold of the fossil, is an

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

models fashioned by Weidenreich" is totally untrue.

Gish states that a model of a Sinanthropus skull by Weidenreich, shown in

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

known, so Weidenreich's reconstruction is likely to be accurate. The braincase,

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

and less complete fossils, so is not as reliable. Part of the difference is

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

"glaringly" different reconstructions).

If Boule was biased, as Gish claims, it was in making Sinanthropus appear

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

explains why the discrepancy between Boule's description of a creature

intermediate between ape and human and Weidenreich's more humanlike

reconstruction provides evidence that Peking Man was an ape.

If Peking Man were an ape, Weidenreich must have been unbelievably

incompetent to produce such a humanlike reconstruction. But descriptions of

Weidenreich and his work often use words such as "meticulous, "compulsively

careful", "detailed", and the casts he made of the Peking Man fossils are

usually described as "excellent". In addition, Weidenreich produced hundreds

of pages of monographs on the fossils, with photos, measurements, drawings,

and even X-rays.

The only way these fossils could be apes would be if Weidenreich

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

photographed, described, and had casts made of them, before Weidenreich

 64

ever saw them. Many scientists also saw the original fossils. Unless there was

an extraordinarily widespread conspiracy among all the people who found,

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

perfectly with casts of earlier portions to make most of a skullcap.

Interestingly, Gish says that if Weidenreich's model is considered accurate,

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

own logic, indisputable transitional forms.

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

destroyed to remove the evidence. O'Connell never visited Choukoutien,

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

these claims, is at least sympathetic to them. O'Connell's work appears to not

have enough substance to be worth addressing.

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

1985, and in debates as recently as 1992. (Fezer, 1993)

The effort Gish expends in discrediting Peking Man seems totally wasted, as it

is all nullified by the more competent work of Lubenow (1992), another

 65

creationist. Lubenow accepts Peking Man as Homo erectus as a matter of

course, and, although he must have been familiar with Gish's criticisms,

apparently did not consider any of them worth repeating.

No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning

Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was

discovered in England by an amateur, Charles Dawson, between 1908 and

1912. It consisted of parts of a surprisingly modern-looking skull associated

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

Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull

and an orang-utan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling

anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific

community was relieved to be able to forget about it.

The paleontological community was horribly embarrassed by the uncovering

of Piltdown, and justifiably so. A number of scientists had made what were in

retrospect extremely foolish statements about the skull, elaborating on its

"unmistakably apelike characteristics." Piltdown's acceptance was probably

helped by the fact that it conformed to prejudices about what a primitive

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.

Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was named from two

humanlike teeth found in 1922. As creationists tell it, evolutionists used one

tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of

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,

1991). The imaginative drawing was the work of an illustrator collaborating

with an English scientist, and was done for the Illustrated London News, not

for a scientific publication. Few other scientists claimed it was a human

ancestor. Some, including the finders, identified it only as an ape of some kind.

Many others were skeptical even of that. It is an exaggeration to claim that

Nebraska Man was widely accepted as human, or even as an ape, by

scientists.

Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it

sounds; pig cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the

specimen was worn, making identification even harder. Creationists often

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

this did not refer to Nebraska Man.)

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment. The scientists

involved were mistaken, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode

was actually an excellent example of how the scientific process should work.

Given a problematic identification, scientists went out, found further data

which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked

contrast to the creationist approach).

Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they

tend to exaggerate their similarity to modern humans:

"The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a

minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered

bone disease'"
 67

"Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals

were just plain people, no more different from people living today

than people than one living nation is different from another" Parker

in (Morris and Parker, 1982). "Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is

classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse, 1983).

Actually, Neandertals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a

subspecies of man, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy

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

neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real

differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists

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.

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still

believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases

such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals

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

also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neanderthal features.

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

those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extremely

athletic and muscular individual.

Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970),

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

to cause rickets.This explanation fails for many reasons:

Rickets does not produce a Neanderthal, or Homo erectus morphology;

it is clear from many sources (Reader, 1981; Tattersall, 1995) that the

original Neanderthal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in

a century in which rickets was a well-known disease.

Even Virchow did not, as Lubenow implies, accept rickets as a sole

cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the Neanderthal Man had had

rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in

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

a lot more time than most modern urban humans).

The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are

mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always

tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's

hypothesis.

Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down
 69

by the Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood"

humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little

fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not

find large numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?

Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed

that Neandertals were identical to modern humans. Straus and Cave

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

their posture was identical to ours. But they went on to add:

"This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit

distinctive features - features which collectively distinguish him

from all groups of modern men." (Straus and Cave, 1957)

The exhibit on Neandertals at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research)

Museum says (or used to say):

"Many Neanderthal features are similar to those in elderly humans

today. Since humans lived to great ages in the initial generations

after the flood and Babel, perhaps the features are primarily due to

advanced age...".

In fact, none of the distinctive features of Neandertals are similar to those of

old people, least of all powerful bones and muscles. This argument is

especially ridiculous because even Neanderthal children are distinctive.

Whoever wrote this presumably also thinks that Neandertals are arthritic

modern humans.

At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neanderthal

morphology may be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe,

 70

1970) or syphilis (Wright, 1971). According to Day (1986), neither of these

cases was adequately supported or subsequently justified. Both claims seem

to have sunk without a trace, except among creationists. Gish goes even

further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these

claims:

"They have now concluded that these primitive features of

Neanderthal people were not genetic, they were pathological."

(Gish, 1985)

Straus and Cave made a striking comment about Neandertals:

"Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York

subway - provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern

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

Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at

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

dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television

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:

"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even

a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one

human - much less any population - can be found that possesses

the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" .

I found this to be true in my research in populations in Wales,

Cornwall and SE Ireland and people watching in cities worldwide.

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.

A common creationist claim is that humans existed alongside or predated all

of their presumed ancestors in the fossil record. Taylor (1992) contains a long

list of supposed examples (with the disclaimer "Remains which some

researchers have suggested as evidence that the various "missing links" were

contemporaneous, or that man and these creatures were contemporaneous").

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.

Other examples are:

Laetoli footprints: creationists invariably mention the close resemblance

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

australopithecines living at the same time (exactly how similar is a matter of

debate).

KP 271: Lubenow (1992) states that this is indistinguishable from a human

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-

like' than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust

Australopithecines from Lake Turkana". KP 271 has usually been assigned to

the australopithecines (and recently to A. anamensis) because no other

hominids are known from 4 million years ago.

Although Lubenow considers this conclusion "shocking", there are plausible

reasons for it. The lower humerus of chimps is quite similar to that of humans,

and it is reasonable to suppose that australopithecines would be even more

similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus in australopithecines is

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

measurements, virtually identically to some modern humans, yet Lubenow is

able to conclude that KP 271 is "strikingly close" [his italics] to modern

humans, while the upper humerus is only "quite similar, based on visual

assessment". Because the lower humerus is poorly known in hominids, and is

a poor diagnostic indicator, it is premature to claim that KP 271 cannot be an

australopithecine fossil.

Swanscombe Man:

two cranium fragments discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in

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

to 300,000 years. (Day, 1986)

Fontechevade Man:

a skullcap fragment which is difficult to classify, and whose dating is doubtful,

it is probably also an archaic H. sapiens.

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

that are older than they are. Examples are:

Abbeville, or Moulin Quignon, Jaw:

discovered by Jacques Boucher de Perthes in 1863 at Abbeville in France.

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).

Taylor (1992) writes "Some have suggested this skeleton is an intrusive

burial", when in fact this explanation has been unanimously accepted (even

by the notoriously stubborn Louis Leakey).

Kanjera Man, Kanam Jaw:

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.

(Johanson and Shreeve, 1989; Lewin, 1987)

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

relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in

1969 confirmed this. (Conrad, 1982)

Guadeloupe Man:

W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in

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

never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper.

(Howgate and Lewis, 1984)

Galley Hill Man:

 75

this was a modern-looking skeleton discovered in 1888 in old deposits. Even

last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was confirmed in

1948 when it was fluorine dated (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992).

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

to suggestions that some Homo erectus _features_ had survived in them, as

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

been caused by the cultural practice of head-binding (Day, 1986; Gamble,

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

reaching the degree of primitiveness of archaic sapiens, or erectus, skulls, but

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

modern humans", and Burenhult (1993) "Analysis of these skeletons has

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

the skulls show preservation of early sapiens characteristics. In addition,

Kennedy (1984) shows that the femurs of the Kow skeletons are identical to

those of modern humans, and significantly distinct from those of those of

Homo erectus.

Some creationists point to Olduvai Gorge, where australopithecines are found

contemporaneously with Homo habilis and erectus, above another layer which

contains the remains of a circular stone habitation, apparently made by

humans. How could australopithecines be the ancestor of habilis, or habilis of

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

number of errors in this reasoning. First, the australopithecines in question are

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

no reason to believe that habilis or erectus would have been incapable of

making it.

Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not

usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size:

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

determined from a skull.

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

to 1870 cc (and 25% of this sample was of small-statured Peruvians, so the

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

average for any racial group being 1230 cc.

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

subnormal in intelligence, can be as low as 600 cc, but this is a pathological

condition and such skulls cannot be considered normal.

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.

For comparison, 900 cc is a typical brain size for a modern child of 3 or 4

years weighing 15 kg (33 lbs).

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

be very rare. It is clearly implausible for Lubenow to claim that ER 1470, at

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

faces and therefore more likeable and would be easy excepted.

Lubenow states that "the crucial element is not brain size but brain
 79

organization. A large gorilla brain is no closer to the human condition than is a

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

respectable size even for a gorilla.

Between species, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size

is applied, is a fair indicator of relative intelligence. The results are

approximate, because they depend on which formula is used, and also on

brain and body size, both of which are difficult to estimate for most fossil

hominids. However it seems australopithecines were roughly as smart as, or

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

intelligence of hominid species.

The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book "Bones of Contention" is that

the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence

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

species. Unlike other creationists, he does attempt to give some justification

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

competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different

ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for

a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of

evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in some absolute

sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living

in their own niches.

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

two species. Obviously this is not the view of speciation accepted by

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

13 species of finch which live on the Galapagos Islands. There is such

compelling evidence that these are descended from a common ancestor that

even most creationists accept them as evidence of evolution "within a created

kind". If Lubenow was correct, even such micro-evolution would be impossible.

By his argument, newly-evolved finch species should drive their ancestors to

extinction. This does not happen, of course, because they all live on different

foods.

Secondly, and more seriously, Lubenow claims that, in some cases, a

descendant species existed before the species it supposedly descended from.

This is I should point out,

impossible under evolutionary theory.

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

as 2.35 million years old).

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.

These are a few fragmentary teeth attributed to Homo, found at Omo in

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

any further discussion.

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

million years old), while there is a scarcity of fossiliferous regions between 2

and 2.5 million years.

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

analysed a skull bone, KNM-BC 1, found in Kenya in 1967. They identified it

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

to Homo rudolfensis (a proposed habilis-like species). This fossil has been

faunally dated between 2.3 and 2.5 million years.

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

Hominid (since dated at 4.1 million years). This is Lubenow's strongest

argument, because both fossils are, arguably, from humans. The problem is

that there is not enough other evidence to exclude the possibility that both

belong to australopithecines. More diagnostic fossils such as skulls, or partial

skeletons, could prove the existence of humans, but so far, all such evidence

points only to the existence of australopithecines past 3 million years ago.

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.

Lubenow admits the difficulty but assigns them to H. sapiens anyway.

Most of Lubenow's book is devoted to documenting the overlaps which he

believes falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is

based on an elementary misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, there is

little left of his book that needs to be refuted.

When one reads creationist literature about the human fossil record, there is a

definite pattern in the fossils that are selected for discussion.

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.

Huse (1983), in a summary of "some of the more significant so-called fossil

ape-men", discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the
 83

Neandertals, and the original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus

fossils, H. habilis, and A. africanus.

Taylor (1992), ("Each of the most famous 'missing links' is discussed")

devotes only two sentences to H. habilis, mentioning no fossils by name and

dismissing it as an ape. Taylor also makes misleading use of the past tense to

imply that even evolutionists no longer accept habilis as a transitional form -

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.

(Parker then contradicts himself by admitting that the gracile

australopithecines are still possible candidates).

Gish (1985) discusses Java Man, Peking Man and ER 1470, but almost totally

omits mention of all other H. habilis and H. erectus fossils.

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

more compelling intermediate fossils such as OH 7, OH 24 and ER 1813

(because his book is about the human fossil record, and he considers most

habilis specimens to be apes). Lubenow is virtually the only creationist to

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

evidence for human evolution. These include superb fossils such as OH 9, ER

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

perfectly transitional that they are difficult to classify).

In contrast to the above omissions, it is almost impossible to find a creationist

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.

Ramapithecus, which was often claimed to be a human ancestor in the 1960's

and 70's, also gets mentioned frequently.

Some transitional fossils are often mentioned in creationist literature, typically

Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably

because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying their

information from another creationist source, are under the mistaken

impression that these fossils have been shown to be either ape or fully human.

When creationists do perform their own research, they show a surprising

inability to agree on which fossils are apes and which are humans: which is

exactly what one would expect if evolution had occurred.

Even more surprisingly, creationists do almost no anatomical comparisons,

even of the fossils they do discuss. Typically, they will flatly assert that a fossil

is a human or an ape. Nor do they provide photographs, so that their readers

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

Another feature of creationist literature is its approach to scientific authority.

Creationists appear to make no attempt to weigh evidence; they often accept

uncritically any statement made by a scientist which can be used to

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

in the scientific community.

The creationist approach of allocating all fossils to either apes or humans is

inherently dishonest, because it excludes intermediates by defining them

away. No creationist ever defines what would be acceptable as a valid

transitional fossil, because examples could be found to fit any reasonable

definition. Instead, creationists are forced to take pot-shots at irrelevant fossils,

misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the strongest

evidence for human evolution.

The pathology of early humans is of great interest to anyone looking at our

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

question when it became activated, dreams started, and the paranormal

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

fears of death and the spirit world even in early man.

It is easy to see that many of the above were carried or imprinted

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.

The question is of course are when early mankind from

ape like mammals to upright homo mammals developing a state of

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

bodys sensory systems but at times unaware of the background stimuli at

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

out with a purpose of seeing birds.

 87

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

the time so that consciousness would be changing all of the time.

In todays human, many of the memories as well as past stimuli that are not

part of your consciousness at a moment in time can be brought to the now

when needed or triggered off by a body stimuli. These pre- consciousness

memory banks is one of the reasons from a paranormal point of view, that

ghosts are seen and even possible 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

has stored of images, colours and sounds.

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-

lights fade away into the night.

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

until you get the correct onethat is for you!

 89

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

that is the mind deciphers the information.

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

but was more true to form and understanding than we have.

 90

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,

irrational behaviour, and mannerisms and such unconscious desires and

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

factor and much of it is not diagnosed or when discovered, diagnosed wrongly

and of course a medical label put on it.

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

Asia and Africa.

 91

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

awakened with a shock and deep fear.

If we look at PSI PHENOMENA then early man would have been better

equipped to be in touch with it than most of todays humans because of the

uncluttered mind but from a parapsychology point of view it concerns me that

too many people are easy led up the garden path when it comes to ESP,

Telepathy, Precognition, Psycho kinesis and Clairvoyance. The trouble is of

course today is that most people who claim to be parapsychologists also

consider themselves to be scientists and applying the rules of scientific

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

today who claims to be a parapsychology expert needs first of all to have

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

memory being passed on this is what is needed.

[1] Some genetic link from A to Z, Z being a modern human in 2012.

[2] A gene memory bank with some encoded past information.

[3] A receptive uncluttered human mind.

[4] Drug free brain and CNS tissue.

[5] A subject and control subject of the same age and sex, born on the same

day at the same time and unknown to one another.

[6] Subjects not over the age of 14 years of age and living in different

countries from one another.

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.

At present I am working on this research project, with one subject in Canada

and one in Africa.

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

will never meet or be in contact with one another.

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

where they are now?

Early man movements before the earth tilted and a change in the

Earths magnetic force field.

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

Though the above Iceman is Neolithic it does show that permafrost

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

grouse family or hares.

No matter what we tend to discover about the ICEMAN we know that he is

modern man from an archaeology point of dating. Nothing can change that or

his features and he had a thinking culture.

Which brings us to what lay before him as a Homo and the missing link.

Enter on stage Homo neanderthalensis, NEANDERTHALERS, with a large

brain, massive brow ridge, receding chin and of a heavy muscular build and

how they were in time replaced by anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

Somewhere is old ice field there are remains to be discovered.

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

but from where?

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

their culture than Homo sapiens of that time and today.

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

anatomically features turning up in some of todays modern humans through a

flawed genetic link.

In my research I had to first of all look closely at the culture of the

 96

Neanderthals in order to find some of the answers to many of the questions.

First off I have to disregard the entire ape like creatures that walked upright as

human like or human thinking.

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

cases, even murder of another member or baby of that group.

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

the other person.

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

to exist as a human being as we know today. It should be noted that

HIV/AIDS like viruses have been recorded in Chimps and other African

primates but the question is who passed on to what and when?

Chimp. Ape skull.

 98

With the family groups and possible tribes of Neanderthal Man roaming parts

of the Earth there had to be some forms of communication between groups.

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

survival tool ever.

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

were needed for food.

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

line fragments, even if small of past memory events.

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

once part of the Neanderthal group of people.

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

a survival species and with a culture.

AL 129-1a/b

Species: Australopithecus

afarensis

Age: 3.0-3.2 million

years

Date of 1976

Discovery:

Location: Hadar, Ethiopia

Discovered D. Johanson

by: and M. Taieb

A complete knee joint (AL 129-1), minus the knee cap

(patella), from a single individual was found at Hadar,

which showed that the species Australopithecus afarensis

made a habit of walking bipedally.

AL 129-1 is a complete knee joint, consisting of the distal

femur (lower end of the thigh bone, at the top of the

photo) and proximal tibia (upper end of the shin bone, at

the bottom of the photo) from a single individual. This

 100

discovery was conclusive proof of bipedal walking in early

humans as old as 3 million years ago. (More recent finds

push that benchmark of human evolution back to at least

4 million years ago.)

The Hadar knee shows several characteristics that reflect

adaptation to bipedal locomotion. First, the end of the

femur has an area of bone (called the lateral condyle, on

the left side of the photo) that is elliptically shaped, as in

humans, rather than spherical like a chimp's lateral

condyle. This shows that the movement of the femur on

the tibia was like that of a bipedal human. Second, the

patellar groove, which is a depression in the femur that

allows space for the kneecap (patella), is deep and had a

high lip on the outside. This is important because bipedal

legs have to lock straight when walking.

Finally, look at the angle of the femoral shaft, the part of

the top bone that rises above the knee. There is a definite

angle, relative to the tibia. This oblique femoral shaft is an

adaptation that allowed early humans to walk upright by

placing the foot under the centre of the body when

walking. A chimpanzee knee shows both bones lining up

in a straight line.
 101

AL 200-1

Species: Australopithecus

afarensis

Age: 3.0-3.2 million

years

Date of 1975

Discovery:

Location: Hadar, Ethiopia

Discovered by: D. Johanson and

M. Taieb

The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has provided the majority of fossils of

the early human species Australopithecus afarensis. These fossils

include the famous "Lucy" skeleton, the most complete A. afarensis

known. Locality 200 in the Afar provided the undistorted palate to the

right, with a complete dentition.

This palate shows that the dentition of early humans was essentially

ape-like. It had broad "spatulate" incisors -- wide front teeth that are

spatula-like in appearance, visible in the frontal view at the top -- and

 102

the cheek teeth were arranged in sub-parallel rows, giving the dental

arcade a distinct "U-shape" (visible in the inferior view, bottom). Notice

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,

is a similarity to the apes.

Cro-Magnon 1

Species: Homo sapiens

Age: ~30,000 years

Date of March 1868

Discovery:

Location: Les Eyzies, Dordongne,

France

Discovered by: Louis Lartet

 103

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

recognized, and when excavated, it revealed the remains of four adult

skeletons, one infant, and some fragmentary bones. The condition and

placement of ornaments, including pieces of shell and animal tooth in what

appears to have been pendants or necklaces, led the researchers to think

that the skeletons were intentionally buried in a single grave in the shelter.

Cro-Magnon 1 preserved the skeleton of an adult male. The individual was

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.

While the Cro-Magnon remains are representative of the earliest

anatomically modern human beings to appear in western Europe, this

population was not the earliest anatomically modern humans to evolve.

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.

There is no prominent prognathism of the face.

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

life. In addition to the infection noted above, several of the individuals

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

indicative of community support of individuals, which allowed them to

convalesce.

Associated tools and fragments of fossil animal bone date the site to the

uppermost Pleistocene, probably between 32,000 and 30,000 years old.

BONES; A QUESTION OF MATHS

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.

In my own research I had to and still do embrace the subjects of archaeology,

biology, physics, some maths, chemistry, astrophysics and geology. Add to

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

makes human beings and where indeed did we come from?

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

did not believe there was one.

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

haul up a massive hill of knowledge and of course facts by others being

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

grand ideas of every being hailed as a progressive paleoanthropologist. Nor

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

paranormal and religion!

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

published papers of their findings, sending them to places of learning for

approval and of course worldwide acceptance. Much depended on such

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.

REJECTION. There were many rejections of papers when it came to the

study and findings of early man but even more when it came to finding or

claiming to have found the missing link.

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

know today as the human race. But more on that later.

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.

The mismeasurement of mankind when it comes down to what we term as

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

interpretation are trapped by their own rhetoric.

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;

Grandfather = Irish = Celt x Norse = Viking. ?

Grandmother = Scot = Celt x =?

Great Grandmother = French = Celt = x India =?

Great Great Grandmother = India x?

= Homo sapiens.

Homo erectus = world wide, Asia/ Africa. Human.

Missing link? Human.

Homo erectus erectus. Human like.

 109

Homo erectus sinensis. Human like.

Australopithecus, robustus.

+ Pithecanthropus.

Human like.

+ Sinanthropus.

+ Atlanthtopus.

Homo habilis, Plesianthropus. Ape like. + Human

like.

A. africanus. Ape like

Ramapithecus / kenyapithecus. Ape.

Lateral view of the skull of Peking Man

H. Erectus. 500,000 years ago.

 110

BELOW Mandibles of H Erectus.

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

early man brains were like.

Brain showing left side Bocas area.

 111

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

using knowledge as well as real language?

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

mammals would have been by smell, sight and body language.

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

nothing moralistic or psychological damaging in eating their off spring and

great grandmother. It was nothing more than a food source.

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

themselves in cross breeding and inbreeding with one another. Inbreeding in

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.

Left to right. Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and Australopithecus africanus.

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.

In my research I have found human beings in todays society that show

throwback features of early man and though it is claimed to be rare, it may not

be as rare as we are laid to believe. I have come across it in the UK and

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

the illustration below.

In many cases of such a condition in modern humans it is sometimes

diagnosed as Acromegaly wrongly because todays medicine and its study

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

family history backgrounds I know we will learn more of the changeover

between early man and todays human being.

If we look closely at Acromegaly as the condition then there will be an

enlargement of the bones, hypertrophy of connective tissue, noted changes in

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

stage it will be increased and the appetite can well be voracious.

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

more so in the ape-like women and man.

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

public battles, those people working in the field of palaeoanthropology were

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

Homo sapiens, archaic Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis or

Neanderthal man, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus (extinct apes). Many

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

interpretation that is placed on these fossils. A correct interpretation is

harmonious with the Biblical record.

If Human Evolution were TrueWhat Would the Fossil Record Indicate?

If human evolution were true we could expect to see its workings in the fossil

record of humans.

The fossil record if it supported evolution would show the following:

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.

There would be many transitional human fossils.

As species became better adapted the old ancestral lines would die outold

fossils and young fossil would not coexist.

Fossils of early man would not show long periods of stability.

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

record. As evolutionary history progressed a gradual blending of the fossil into

a modern human morphology would occur. There would also be many and

varied transitional fossils.

If Special Creation were TrueWhat Would the Fossil Record Indicate?

If H. sapiens, H. erectus, and Neanderthals were products of creation and

descendants of Adam the fossil record would have certain characteristics.

There is no evidence of this.

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.

These would include:

No blending of fossilsFossil would be excavated that would be easily

categorized with allowances made for variety.

There would be no transitional fossilssince Adam was independently

created there would be distinct breaks between the human line and the animal

line (primates).

The fossil men such as H. erectus, Neanderthal and archaic H. sapiens

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)

Fossils of early man would appear abruptly in the geologic record.

What Does the Overall Fossil Record Reveal?

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

of time, sometimes the older fossil, from an evolutionary point of view,

appears in the fossil record at a younger time period.

Human fossils (KP 271) that are indistinguishable (McHenry 1975 & Patterson

1967) from those of modern skeletons have been found in stratum that is

more than 4.5 million years old.

(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

in the evolutionary timetable. There may be older fossils of H. sapiens that

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

ancestral line leading to modern man and never was.

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

remained unchanged. If evolution were true then H. erectus should be in a

 118

state of evolutionary changethe fact that it has remained unchanged

supports the creation account.

Another concept that falsifies the evolutionary concept is that modern H.

sapiens, Neanderthals, and H. erectus have all lived together as

contemporaries at one point in time or another. None of them have evolved

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

correct if evolution is correct; because evolutionary theory states that H.

erectus gave rise to H. sapiens and/or Neanderthal. Since the creation

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,

A. africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops (Leakey 2001) and others. The fossil

record indicates that when these primates existed that humans were already

on the scene. The Laetoli Footprints (Leakey 1979), said to be made by a

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

human and never would be.

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?

Bias in the Interpretation of the Fossil Record

The science of human anthropology is full of circular reasoning, and

philosophical bias. Anthropologists only focus on the fossils that seemingly

support their contention that man has evolved from apelike ancestors. When

evolutionists draw family trees of these relationships they do not include all

the pertinent data.

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

supported by the correctly interpreted fossil record of early man.

RESEARCH DATA AND MENTION FOR THIS PART OF MY RESEARCH.

Carleton 2012

Johanson DC. Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind. Touchstone Pub. New

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

lineages. Nature. 410:433-440, 2001.

Leakey MD. Footprints in the ashes of time. National Geographic. April 1979.

McHenry H. Fossils and the mosaic nature of human evolution. Science

190:425-431. 1975.

Patterson B. Howells WW. Hominid humeral fragment from early Pleistocene

of North-western Kenya. Science. 156:64-66. 1967.

Swisher CC. Homo erectus of Java: potential contemporaneity with Homo

sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science. 274:1870-74. 1996.

Much of the research by the authors above needed to be mentioned because

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

dating is now in doubt and I suggest here that it needs to be revised.

There is also, in my opinion that inbreeding took place in some of the early

groups of early humans and cross breeding with Neanderthals as well.

Until we carry out DNA comparisons of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon human

bones then the data is still lacking and this needs to be treated as a major

research project by someone in the future and in depth. We do have part of

the jigsaw but many pieces are missing and they need to be found but without

guess work coming into play in the research.

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

DNA AND RNA CROSSOVERS.

EARLY MAN AND GENETICS.

Ronnie Carleton (c) 2012

AFRICA.

From an archaeology point of view we have been informed and except that

early mankind started in Africa then in time though a process of evolution

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

RNA. I am of the opinion therefore that it is a mistake to classify the

Neanderthal as 'brutish' and was never human in thinking or deed. It would

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

a vital link between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man due to crossbreeding

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.

If we indeed believe that mankind or humankind started its' thinking 'life in

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

also come chromosome information of genetic illnesses. Putting this data

together did take a long time but I feel the end results were well worth it then It

keeps it all in the Human Family so to speak.

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

handed families throughout Europe I then thought that Neanderthal family

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

all to do with chromosomes that was passed to generation to another. If we

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

Cro-Magnon group. From here we could go back almost anywhere except to

the standing apes.

( Research of left hand use IN APES carried out in Borneo, India, Africa and

the zoos of the UK) Carleton 2000 to 2005 (c) )

Of course the tracking of around 50,000 to 100,000 genes is impossible but

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

We know that 30%of Europeans cannot taste the chemical PTC

(phenylthiocarbamide), the other 70% have an unpleasant taste in their

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

conditions while others are common in families.( cystic fibrosis in 1 of 2,000

births in the west, muscular dystrophy which affects 1 in 5,000 male children.)

Haemophilia is another example in the Royal Families of England and Europe.

Rheumatoid arthritis, a very painful immune disorder affects 1 in 20 females in

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

and B blood cells but not O cells.

B serum clumps A cells but not B or O

A serum clumps B cells but A and O

O, B, and A serum clumps AB blood.

This clumping is caused by anti-bodies known as anti-body A and anti-body B.

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.

A = A and B Not A or O not A or O AB

B = A Not B or O

O A and B Not O

There are 3 versions of 1 gene, A-determining version, B-determining version

and O for neither. Simple in fact. Human mating by AB to OO would show up

in half the children who were A (AO) and one half children B (BO).

Samples taken in the south of the UK showed up like this,

Group O 44%

Group A 45%

Group B 8%
 125

Group AB 4%

These differ between different populations with type B three times more

common in Asian populations than with Europeans as an example. With type

A it increases from south to the north of England into Scotland.

X and Y CHROMOSOMES. 1 to 22

+ X = 23 female

1 to 22 + XY =23 male.

one sperm will carry x and a y chromosome.

Female will carry one copy of X chromosome.

X SPERM -FEMALE EGG X = XX = FEMALE CHILD BORN.

Y SPERM -FEMALE EGG X =XY = MALE CHILD BORN.

Males therefore determines the sex of offspring, not females.

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

maternal chromosome 9 with the B version this means they will be

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

the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes that are separate entities

determining chromosome9.This is not of course true for all chromosomes nor

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

but not inherited together.

Blood groups therefore track through generations so if a husband who is type

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

where we ourselves came from.

If we came out of Africa as claimed by most working in archaeology then all

of us should be carrying a hint or suggestion of Sickle Cell Disease but this is

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

in Europe there is no records of sickle cell gene which is odd because it is

passed on through generations. To understand this better I have laid out a

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

normal Haemoglobin (A)

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

archaeology as is in a few cases evidence of bone disease and height.

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

Neanderthal Man. Yet in my research I discovered that both features can be

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

the UK and Ireland.

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

CHIMP DNA DATA. REF RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGY

Researcher Ronnie Carleton 2012

Chimp and Human DNA

FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY Scientists have decoded the chimp genome

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

human sexual behaviour. The comparison pinpoints the genetic differences

that have arisen in WILDLIFE AFRICA the two species since they split from a

common ancestor some six million years ago.

The realization that chimpanzees hold a trove of information about human

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

sanctuaries that have been established.

Chimpanzees and people possess almost identical sets of genes, so the

genes that have changed down the human lineage should hold the key to

what makes people human. Chimps are not human however.

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

that these genes should be identifiable by having evolved at a particularly

rapid rate.

The comparison of the human and chimp genomes, reported in an issue of

Nature, takes a first step in this direction but has not yet tracked down the
 130

critical handful of genes responsible for human evolution.

One problem is the vast number of differences -some 40 million in the

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

by natural selection if indeed there ever was such a process.

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

in comparison with the flamboyant promiscuity of chimpanzees.

Some 300 million years ago, the Y chromosome used to carry the same 1,000

or so genes as its partner, the X chromosome. But because the Y cannot

exchange DNA with the X and update its genes, in humans it has lost all but

16 of its X-related genes through mutation or failure to stay relevant to their

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,

all have functions involved in making sperm.

The scientific world's leading student of the Y chromosome, David Page of

the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., has been seeking to understand

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

perspective of gender politics," Dr. Page said. "But many of my colleagues

became confused with this blending of gender politics with scientific

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

reason why we are human.

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,

in his view, lies in the chimpanzee's high-spirited sexual behaviour. Female

chimps mate with all males around, so as to make each refrain from killing a

child that might be his.

The alpha male nonetheless scores most of the paternities, according to DNA

tests. This must be because of sperm competition, primatologists believe -the

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-

related gene has been inactivated.

If chimps have lost five of their X-related genes in the last six million years

because of sperm competition, and humans have lost none, humans

presumably had a much less promiscuous mating system.

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

system did not rely on sperm competition.

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

maintains exclusive access to his harem.

Frans B. M. de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Centre in

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

resembled a chimp, a bonobo, a gorilla, or something else entirely. It is this

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

never likely to do so.

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

in Cambridge and Washington University in St. Louis.

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

majority of the differences between human and chimps," said Robert H.

Waterston of the University of Washington, Seattle, the senior author of the

report. The genome of a third primate, the orang-utan, is now in progress and

will help identify the genes special to human evolution, he said.

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

ape/human past history that would have to be re-written again which in my

opinion it should be.

At the level of the whole animal, primatologists have uncovered copious

similarities between the social behaviour of chimpanzees, bonobos and

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.

Author Ronnie Carleton

Dr de Waal may well be right in the case of habitat but there are good

conservation projects in progress to address this problem and governments

 134

are aware of them, more so in 2012 than ever before.

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

destruction and that will come because of population numbers.

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

a major virus mutation happening and because of high human population

numbers, the deadly spread will be rapid across our planet.

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

today as well as religious beliefs tend to border on the sentimental and

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

it is a major disaster there is only a certain amount we can do because of the

political involvement by the country concerned and their need to try and take

control of it all, including cash donations sent by well-meaning people.

Unless someone or a group of people look at this virus/disease problem much

 135

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

chimpanzees cannot record that event in writing when it happens because

they are not that intelligent to do so.

THE NEANDERTHAL DAWN.

 136

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

timeline or from a descendant of that species. The Neanderthal face, skull

bones and mandible had occurred by the end of the middle Pleistocene-

France 125,000 years ago.

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.

A fragmentary specimen found at Pontnewydd, Wales and dated the same

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

Swanscombe in England, Steinheim in Germany, Arago and Montmaurin in

France, Atapuerca in Spain and Petralona in Greece. My forensic research

 137

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

everything that is seen can be used in evidence as fact or true shape.

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

skull but seem to me to point at H. erectus X Neanderthal. The primitive

showing in the French remains, Arago is distorted before it was reconstructed

which tended to blend in of the thinking of H. erectus when I feel that it is in

fact more Neanderthal.

 139

Arago skull 1200ml

THE PETRALONA CRANIUM.

GREECE.

The skull discovered in the cave is very large and strong looking and at first

tends to lean towards H.erectus but a closer look it is Neanderthal because

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

data to archaeology timelines as the human fossils discovered in Ehringsdorf

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

stage 6 in fact these early Neanderthals were around 180,000 130,000

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

veiwed as heresay rather than factual evidence.

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.

There is little point in taking on board the

models presented by others on the Neanderthals and their thnking on

evolution because such data is more than obscure but has very conflicting

ideas which in the end becomes frustating.

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

Community on the whole.

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

be we missed the boat of an African / Europe link.

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,

possible cause of death.

 142

Of course natural deaths were also happening but it is unlikley that more

than 20% of such deaths were due to natural causes.

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

Nenderthal browridges were not as important to the them as they were to

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

not be confused with any other species.

I have placed a number of skulls below and skull fragments for comparrsion.
 143

The mtDNA data is also below and should be considered also.

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

due to site locations.

 144

Such Nenderthal sites are placed now into two main categories;

Caves and Rock shelters that had remains;

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

major sites (Rock shelters) at La Ferrassie, La moustier and La Quina.

Combe Grenal in south west France also produced good data.

Other sites included in Europe are, Bockstein in Germany, Hungary, Russian

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

other artifacts some of which I have placed below as an example.

The Middle East caves of Mount Carmel outside Haifa, the Shanidar Cave in

Iraq produced much useful information.

 145

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

above. The evidence therefore points to Neanderthals as fully human.

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

teeth which I have outlined below.

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

examanation of such teeth tend to show scratch marks going outwards, in

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

fossils. In a quarter of known Cro-Magnon jaws it is also present and I

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

Nenderthals a slight chin development and more so in the much later

ones.There is no evidence of a simian shelf which apes have in the front

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.

THE NENDERTHAL BRAIN.

 147

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

some effect on their thinking and actions.

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

the Neanderthal brain is concerned great errors of interpretation occurred and

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

and aged stayed at the base camp.

POSSIBLE DNA RESEARCH ACROSS EUROPE.

 149

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Carleton 2012

Most people with any education knows a little or more about what DNA is and

sometimes how it fits into forensics and linking humans to a match.

In case you are reading this or want to skip this part please dont because it is

not Rocket Science. I suggest therefore you read on as this part of my

research also deals with the possible projects that could be undertaken within

the confines of Neanderthal Man or women and their relations to modern

humans across Europe today.

In this brief but I hope informative outline of the chemical deoxyribonucleic

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

first human, Neanderthal Man and some of us.

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

animal, organs and structure.

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

example. Messenger ribonucleic acid = mRNA assembles amino acids which

 150

are relayed by the DNA

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

length. There are three stages to this.

Mitochondrial DNA is the energy production structures in cells, contain only a

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

mistakes made in copying Mitochondrial DNA results, I should point out, in

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

itself and replicate the genetic information.

Therefore, physical characteristics, many medical disorders and behaviour

are partly determined by genes that are passed from parents to children or

off-spring.

A quarter of each childs genes are inherited from each grandparent.

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.

THE GENETIC TRAIL PROJECT.

OUTLINE FOR NEANDERTAL LINKS.

BONE RESEARCH AND SKULL FEATURES.

FACE AND BONE FEATURES MODREN HUMANS.

DNA SAMPLING FROM BONES OF NEANDERTHALS.

DNA SAMPLING FROM PICKED POPULATIONS IN EUROPE,

RUSSIA AND CANADA.

DNA DATABASE SET UP FOR PROJECT.

LENGTH OF STUDY. 5 YEARS.

GENETIC FEATURES AND LINKS.

FUNDING FOR PROJECT.

POSSIBLE GENETIC LINKS TO NEANDERTHALS.

 152

Yupik. 21,000 of a population. Locations; NW Canada, NE Siberia.

Not related to the Inuit tribes but related to the Yuit at Lawrence Island in the

Bering Sea. Possible link for research.

Inuit. Population in Canada, and Greenland; 100,000. Possible link.

Haida. Population now only 3,600 on the Gwaii Islands Canada. Possible link

but not strong.

Innu. Population in Labrador, Canada now 13,000. Weak link.

South America. No possible links.

USA No possible links.

Iceland. No possible links.

Sweden. Population 9. Million. Scattered possible links.

Norway. Population 5. Million. Scattered possible links. Weak.

Nordic Countries. 5 Million. Scattered possible links.

Ensonians in Baltic States. 1.4 million. Strong possible links.

Lapland. Population for the Sami. Strong possible links.

Latvians, Baltic States. Population 2.4 million weak possibility.

 153

Wales UK. Population 1.85 million. Evidence of throwback features.

Possibility of link

Bretons. Population 600,000. Possible links.

Catalans Spain. Andorra in France. Population 10 million. Possible links.

Portuguese. NW, possibility of links.

Dutch. Weak possibility.

Austrians. Possibility of weak links population 8.million

Swiss. Weak possibility.

Sorbs. 60,000 of a population. No possible links.

Poles. 38 million of a population. Strong possible links.

Germans. 100 million. Strong possible links in N and NE

Italians. 58 Million. Weak links.

Roma. 12 million of a population. Very Strong links.

Slovacks. 4. Million. Strong possibilities.

 154

Slovenes. 2 million. Very strong possibilities.

Ukrainians 36 million of a population. Very Strong possibilities.

Ashkenazim 10 million. Some possible links.

Romanians. 20 million. Strong possibilities.

Bulgarians. Very strong possibilities.

Greeks. Some island possibilities.

Croats. 4.00 million. Possible links in NE

Serbs. 8 million. NE populations possible links.

Komi Russians.400,000. Urals, Russia. Possible links.

Udmurts.750,000. Udmurtia Russia. High possibility of links.

Mari 600,000 of a population. Isolated, Russian. Possible strong link.

Tartars. 6,000,000. Strong possibilities of links.

Kalmyks, Russian.177,000 population. Volga area. Possible links.

Avers. 600,000of a population. SW Russia. Possible strong links.

 155

Tribes of Borneo high possibility.

The tribes of the Motu, Dani, Abelam, Huli, Ni-Vanuatu of Melanesia are all

high possibilities.

Warlpira tribe of Australia high possibility.

Arrernte tribe of Australia high possibility.

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

of the Neanderthals across Europe and parts of Asia.

At least one University would need to be involved, a teaching medical

University even better and I see no reason why the Neanderthal Gene Project

could not be up and running by 2013 if there was funding.

There are of course risks in the present data gathered to be taken as fact

when it comes to fossil dating of all Neanderthal artefacts so far discovered

and this must not happen to any new finds. Therefore I suggest that a new

fossil record database be set up as I have in my place of work on both

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

wrong place. I have therefore now set up a database called Neanderthal

 156

Codex which will be maintained and added to. It is running on the

Ubuntu/Linux programmes and not Windows because I found that it is a good

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.

SOME NEANDERTHAL PROBLEMS WITH INTERPETATION OF FINDS

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

published and beat the decaying body clock.

Such farcical episodes in Palaeoanthropology research is just as bad today as

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

great union between Ape and Aliens.

 157

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.

The Palaeontologist, no matter who she or he is, is always faced with

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

the fossil is and what did it belong to man or ape?

Conclusive evidence, one way or the other on the real timelines of the

Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia is very hard to find and as an

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

with more than egg on your face.

This is what happened to the Swiss Naturalist, Johann Scheuchzer, 1672-

1733 found a long vertebral column with some other parts and all were in that

advanced fossil state. He of course claimed that it belonged to the remains of

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

human in any form of his imagination.

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

could be termed as a fossil as we know them.

A headache of course for anyone who makes claims first before checking out

dates and possible dates of remains found.

Real fossils, be they animals or humans have to go through a process of

fossilization and because after death remains are not broken down by now

known chemical components, such bones have been hidden away from the

many agents of decomposition then infiltrated by minerals and leaving us with

a stone like form of the human or animal shape when in life.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS A BONE FOSSIL AND WHAT IS MORE

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

then it was called a fossil because of the amount of collagen it contained.

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

rubbish pit, the collectors name removed from the find,

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

than the local geology on site suggested.

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

attention afterwards by people who claimed to be hot on the bones.

This was a sign of the times of course and when fossil human remains were

discovered by Baron von Schottheim in 1820 at Koestritz, upper Saxony they

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.

This is understandable because of the mistakes made in the past and

confidence took a hard knock in many establishments in places of learning

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

he discovered seven human skulls and other linked artefacts in caves at

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

Kents Cavern, near Torquay is a good example of English thinking at that

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

comment on this later.

Much of this could not care less attitude in the west may have had something

to do with Christian thinking at that time of debate on the thorny subject of

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.

The first book Vestiges had to be published anonymously to protect the

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.

Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was almost beaten to the

post as an unpublished MMs by an Englishman by the name of Alfred Russel

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

November 1859. Whatever happened to Wallaces book I dont know.

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

with burning fires?

 163

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

number of so called experts in the 1800s

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

they had their own agenda?

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

missed and there is nothing ape like with it.

The first official Neanderthal Man was discovered by limestone workers

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

into the quarry below.

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

could not be placed in a geology time-lines bracket so ID was done by sight

only.

Hermann Schaaffhausen, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bonn who

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

was in fact published.

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

any race of skulls he had known.

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

classified it as an ugly and strong human when living.

 165

So what we had then was the first Neanderthal uncovered and classified as

such but most of all, excepted as such.

From where had this early human come from and when?

New Genetic Phylogeny

 166

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

science of molecular biology would provide more objectivity to classification

systems. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA

sequences or of amino acid sequences in proteins would yield more

consistent results that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree

of accuracy. However, according to an article in the January 1998 issue of

Science: hit this on the head and a bit of a blow to those that wanted it and

those that needed it to be true

Animal relationship derived from

these new molecular data sometimes

are very different from those implied

by older, classical evaluations of

morphology. Reconciling these

differences is a central challenge for

evolutionary biologists at present.

Growing evidence suggests that

phylogenies of animal phyla

constructed by the analysis of 18S

rRNA sequences may not be as

accurate as originally thought.

Inaccuracies may occur in molecular

phylogenies for a variety of reasons.

 167

Prior to analysis, the sequences of

corresponding genes from each

animal must be placed in register

(aligned) with each other so that

homologous sites within each

sequence can be compared.

However, sequence divergences

may be sufficiently large that

unambiguous alignments cannot be

achieved, and different alignments

may lead to different inferred

relationships. Additionally, the data

are often sufficiently noisy that there

may be a lack of strong statistical

support for important groupings.

I therefore needed to discusses a figure detailed similarities and

differences in 18s rRNA sequences which show that molluscs (scallops) are

more closely related to sea urchins than arthropods (brine shrimp). Of

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

thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:

Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or

tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred

relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap

support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether

current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate

to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between

the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time,

this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of

DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly .

Cytochrome C and other Proteins

There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly

used phytogenic tracing genes and proteins. An example, mammalian and

amphibian "luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) is identical.

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

birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the

data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation so what do

we have left?

Calcitonin (lowers blood calcium levels in animals) is another protein

commonly used to determine phylogenies. Though humans differ from pigs by

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

Cytochrome c is another famous phytogenic marker protein used to

determine evolutionary relationships. There is only a single amino acid

difference between human and chimp cytochrome c. and because of this,

many assume that the evolutionary link is obvious.

It is not I say because if it was re-worked with many other animals, this link

is not so obvious. Cytochrome c protein of a turtle is closer to a bird than it is

to a snake and a snake is closer to a human (14 variations) than it is to a

turtle (22 variations). Humans and horses, both being placental mammals,

are presumed to have shared a common ancestor with each other more

recently than they shared a common ancestor with a kangaroo (a

marsupial). So the evolutionist would expect the cytochrome c of a human to

be more similar to that of a horse than to that of a kangaroo. Yet, the

cytochrome c of the human varies in 12 places from that of a horse but only in

10 places from that of a kangaroo.5 Such discrepancies between traditional

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.

Ayala commented that:

"The cytochrome c phylogeny disagrees with the

traditional one in several instances, including the

following: the chicken appears to be related more closely

to the penguin than to ducks and pigeons; the turtle, a

reptile, appears to be related more closely to birds than to

the rattlesnake, and man and monkeys diverge from the

 170

mammals before the marsupial kangaroo separates from

the placental mammals."

Even so, cytochrome c does seem to generally match the predictions of

common decent. However, there are some who think that the general

cytochrome c data presents some puzzles from a neo-Darwinian

perspective. First, the cytochromes of all the higher organisms (yeasts, plants,

insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) exhibit an almost

equal degree of sequence divergence from the cytochrome of the bacteria

Rhodospirillum. The degree of divergence does not increase as one moves

up the scale of evolution but remains essentially uniform The following data

chart that compares the % homogeny of cytochrome c among various

creatures:

Chi Neu Tetra

S.
Hum mp- Hor Donk Mou Ca Lamp Mai ro- Eugl -
pom
an anze se ey se rp rey ze spor ena hyme
be
e a na

88. 78. 66.

Human -- 100 89.4 91.3 80.8 63.7 67.3 56.6 47.5
5 6 7

Chimpan 88. 78. 66.

100 -- 89.4 91.3 80.8 63.7 67.3 56.6 47.5
zee 5 6 7

81. 63.
Horse 88.5 88.5 -- 99.0 94.2 84.6 65.7 71.2 58.6 46.5
6 7
 171

99. 82. 64.

Donkey 89.4 89.4 -- 95.2 85.6 65.7 72.1 58.6 46.5
0 5 7

94. 83. 66.

Mouse 91.3 91.3 95.2 -- 84.6 65.7 71.2 56.6 48.5
2 5 7

81. 59.
Carp 78.6 78.6 82.5 83.5 -- 81.6 57.3 64.1 52.0 44.0
6 2

84. 81. 59.

Lamprey 80.8 80.8 85.6 84.6 -- 59.2 68.3 55.6 48.5
6 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

Neurosp 65. 57. 58.

63.7 63.7 65.7 65.7 59.2 -- 70.8 57.6 45.5
ora 7 3 1

S. 71. 64. 57.

67.3 67.3 72.1 71.2 68.3 70.8 -- 54.5 48.5
pombe 2 1 1

58. 52. 51.

Euglena 56.6 56.6 58.6 56.6 55.6 57.6 54.5 -- 48.0
6 0 5

Tetrahy 46. 44. 42.

47.5 47.5 46.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 48.5 48.0 --
mena 5 0 6

In reviewing this chart, pay particular attention to the

tetrahymena. Tetrahymena are unicellular ciliated protozoans.

According to the theory of common decent, all creatures living today are

equally separated in time from their first common ancestor

(i.e.: single celled bacteria).

 172

Even the bacteria that remain alive today have sustained mutations over

time as they maintained their similar morphology.

There is no reason not to suggest that the Neanderthals also had a

number of mutations thus producing something like Homo sapiens or to put a

finer point on it; modern humans of today because we should expect and not

be surprised when there is equal divergence between "simple" and

"complex".

If we think of it as spokes on a wheel with the central hub being the

common ancestor and the tips of each spoke representing a different

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

creature would be expected to be equally distant from almost every other

creature on that wheel to include other single celled creatures as well as

multi-celled creatures like fish, corn, rabbits and humans.

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

identical but only one is human.

Thus, a more recent common ancestor seems quite logical as humans

and chimps simply share the same wheel spoke except that this spoke splits

at the very tip with humans and chimps sharing different tips.

Maximum Differences and Time

 173

The data put forward by others does seem to generally match the theory

even if specific anomalies may be encountered on relatively "rare" occasions

in such cases as cytochrome c phylogenies.

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

calculated on a per generation average and if we consider that the average

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

one time in one million generations on average. As that single celled

organisms have a much shorter generation time than multi-celled organisms

on average.

A fair example, the bacteria E. coli have a minimum generation time of 20

minutes compared to the generation time of humans of around 20 years. With

a gene being mutated every 1 to 10 million generations in

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

years as a single human example there has to be some evidence somewhere

that matches the other suggested data from elsewhere for or against?

Cytochrome c phylogenies are generally based on analysis of certain sub-

units of cytochrome c which range in number of amino acids up to a maximum

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

creatures would have experienced at least a 25% change in their genetic

 174

codes from the time of common ancestor.

So how many generations would it take to achieve this 25% difference?

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

generations. For a steady state population of just one individual in each

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%

difference from the common ancestor cytochrome c, might have been

achieved relatively rapidly given the evolutionary time frame. Unless

something speeded up the mutations of the Neanderthals?

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?

It seems that if these cytochrome c sequence differences were really

neutral differences, that various bacterial groups, colonies, and species,

would cover a rather large range of possible cytochrome c sequences -

potentially to include that of mammals.

Why are they then so uniformly separated from all other "higher" species

unless the cytochrome sequences are functionally based and therefore

statically different due to the various functional needs of creatures that inhabit

different environments? Questions on Questions if you try to work it out and

 175

the answers I discovered are not simple, some doubtful.

Bacteria are thought to share a common ancestor with creatures as diverse

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

of living things are thought to have suddenly evolved but as far as I am

concerned the jury is still out on this one.

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

why then are their cytochrome c sequences so clustered and arranged in

such an orderly hierarchy and why don't bacteria, snails, fish, and sponges

cover a more random range of cytochrome c sequence variation if these

variation possibilities are in fact neutral?

I am going to suggest that the clustered differences that are seen in genes

and protein sequences, such cytochrome c, are the result of differences in

function that actually benefit the various organisms according to their different

individual needs.

If the differences were in fact neutral differences, there could be a vast

overlap by now with complete blurring of species' cytochrome c boundaries

and even between species as obviously different as humans and bacteria.

Sequence differences may not be so much the result of differences due to

random mutation over time as they are due to differences in the functional

needs of different creatures.

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.

I have considered that if either humans or bacteria would be better served by

 176

a different sequence for a particular function this different sequence would be

rapidly evolved - especially in bacteria but if the human sequence for

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

have very much trouble at all evolving the human sequence?

Sequences remain consistently different over a significant real time line,

observation (over a million generations for bacteria at least) is very good

evidence that the differences in DNA character sequencing are based in

differences of functional need, not evolutionary heritage, unless something

happened to change this 30,000 years ago in Europe.

Nested Hierarchical Patterns and Common Descent

Then, there is also the argument that the nested hierarchical pattern, by

itself, supports the theory of common descent - even if it is known that

intelligent design had to have been involved. Regardless of the involvement

of intelligent design or not, the simple presence of the pattern is argument

enough to support the theory of common descent - or is it?

Parts of the Tree of Life

Another interesting question concerns the notion that a nested hierarchical

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

both nested and non-nested patterns in the tree of life.

 177

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?"

"A year ago, biologists looking over newly

sequenced genomes from more than a dozen

microorganisms thought these data might support

the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But

what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of

the genomes then available not only didn't clarify

the picture of how life's major groupings evolved,

they confused it. And now, with an additional eight

microbial sequences in hand, the situation has

gotten even more confusing . . . Many evolutionary

biologists had thought they could roughly see the

beginnings of life's three kingdoms . . . When full

DNA sequences opened the way to comparing

other kinds of genes, researchers expected that

they would simply add detail to this tree. But

"nothing could be further from the truth," says

Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic

Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead,

the comparisons have yielded many versions of

the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and

conflict with each other as well .

Such problems were not completely unexpected. Earlier, in 1993,

 178

Patterson, Williams, and Humphries, scientists with the British Museum,

reached the following conclusion in their review of the congruence between

molecular and morphologic phylogenies:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular

systematics, we end this survey with our hopes

dampened. Congruence between molecular

phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and

as it is between molecules and morphology. Partly

because of morphologys long history, congruence

between morphological phylogenies is the exception

rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all

generated within the last couple of decades, the

situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence

between molecular phylogenies are documented

above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1%

of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published

structure or resolution tends to evaporate.

In 1998 biologist Carl Woese, who was an early pioneer in producing

rRNA-based phylogenetic trees, concluded:

"No consistent organismal

phylogeny has emerged from the

many individual protein phylogenies

so far produced.
 179

Phylogenetic incongruities can

be seen everywhere in the universal

tree, from its root to the major

branchings within and among the

various taxa to the makeup of the

primary groupings themselves. Yet

there is no consistent alternative to

the rRNA phylogeny, and that

phylogeny is supported by a number

of fundamental genes... For

example... different (related) aaRSs

root that tree differently...

Exceptions to the topology of the

rRNA tree such as these are

sufficiently frequent and statistically

solid that they can be neither

overlooked nor trivially dismissed on

methodological grounds. Collectively,

these conflicting gene histories are

so convoluted that lateral gene

transfer is their only reasonable

explanation.

In 1999, Michael Lynch noted in "The Age and Relationships of the Major

Animal Phyla" that:

 180

Clarification of the phylogenetic

relationships of the major animal

phyla has been an elusive problem,

with analyses based on different

genes and even different analyses

based on the same genes yielding a

diversity of phylogenetic trees.

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:

"The addition of new sequences

to data sets has often turned

apparently reasonable phylogenies

into confused ones. . . In general, the

two prokaryotic domains were not

monophyletic with several aberrant

groupings at different levels of the

tree. Furthermore, the respective

phylogenies contradicted each others,

so that various ad hoc scenarios

(paralogy or lateral gene transfer)

must be proposed in order to obtain

the traditional Archaebacteria-

 181

Eukaryota sisterhood."

Another 1999 Science article by Stiller and Hall:

"A precipitous acceptance of

such widespread LGT places

evolutionary biologists in the

untenable position of adopting an

falsifiable hypothesis, at least in

terms of the techniques of

comparative sequence analyses that

currently dominate the field of

molecular evolution. Any

phylogenetic pattern inferred from

any given gene can be fit to some

suitable mix of conventional

interspecies gene transmission and

interorganismal genetic promiscuity.

Thus, unless more reliable evidence

is uncovered, the scientific method

requires that we invoke the idea of

ubiquitous LGT only as a last resort."

And another 1999 Science article by Doolittle:

 182

"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not

hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced

relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."

Just one more 1999 paper by Ann Miller, from the Yale Department of

Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, entitle, "The Evolution of

Phylogenetic Classification: From 16S rRNA to the Genomic Tree."

"The 16S rRNA tree is not an

organismal phylogenetic tree; it is a

gene tree. To move towards

organismal phylogeny, scientists

began creating trees based on other

proteins. In many cases, the other

phylogenies do confirm the rRNA

tree, but no one consistent

phylogeny has emerged."

More recently Kechris, wrote:

"Phylogenies constructed on

nitrogen fixation genes are not in

agreement with the tree-of-life based

 183

on 16S rRNA but do not conclusively

distinguish between gene loss and

LGT hypotheses. Using a series of

analyses on a set of complete

genomes, our results distinguish two

structurally distinct classes of MoFe

nitrogenises whose distribution cuts

across lines of vertical inheritance

and makes us believe that a

conclusive case for LGT has been

made."

There is even suggestion that lateral gene transfer (LGT) may be fairly

common between single-celled organisms and multicellular creatures. In a

2007 paper published in Science, Hotopp et. al., argue that there has been

"widespread lateral gene transfer" between endosymbiosis bacteria and

insects, and nematodes.

Consistent hierarchies, at least for the earliest branches of the supposed

"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

genes which none of its supposed nearest evolutionary relatives have,

evolutionists are left in a very perplexing position even though they have

some of the bones and hard guesses at dating a timeline.

In order to maintain their theory they must propose, in an ad hoc non-

 184

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

pre-evolved sequences. This comment as far as I am concerned is bad

research without good cross reference with the notion of being a "science". It

is not science since it is not falsifiable.

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

from what they should know.

So, evolutionary mechanisms are used to explain both hierarchical and

non-hierarchical patterns. No matter how high up the tree this lack of

hierarchy goes, the theory of evolution would still be used to explain the origin

of such patterns. But why?

For focal problems in the tree between branches at higher levels, a

change in mutation rate, or notions like convergence, divergence, or even

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

pseudo genes were actually found to be functional.

Some argue that this doesn't happen because the different sequences are

equally beneficial or "optimal" if applied to the same organism. That is

basically arguing that the differences are not in fact functional different, but

are actually neutral with respect to a functional optimum. Again, that makes

no sense in light of the evidence that the differences, in addition to the

similarities, are maintained over time. If this neutral argument were correct,

then the distribution of sequences would be more randomly distributed. In

other words, it would not be so neatly nested or filed away as research data

that is truth.

The evidence of functional maintenance over time is very strong evidence

that the nested differences are not so much the result of common ancestry as

they are the result of various functional needs of different organisms in

different environments. And, this is very much what we find in real life.

Even modern humans, when occupying different environments, will evolve

different genetic sequences for various protein products that are actually

functionally maintained over time due to various advantages that the

differences provide in the different environments.

There are many examples of this. And yet, when placed in the same

environment, the differences quickly disappear in the offspring over time.

Why? Because, there are indeed different optimal sequences when different

overall phenotypes interact with different environments.

The significant majority of differences between the cytochrome c of bacteria

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

Hominid/Primate D-loop Sequence Analysis

A "few million years" might also be a problem for the

resolution of mitochondrial D-loop sequences. Consider that the

sequences used (two of them) to estimate the time of the most

recent common ancestor (MRCA) between modern humans,

Neandertals, and chimpanzees where each less than 400 base

pairs in length (333bp and 340bp respectively). The mutation

rate used by Krings et. al. was based on the a priori assumption

that modern humans split off from chimps some "4-5 million

years" ago. Based on this perhaps plausible, but indirect

assumption, a substitution rate of 0.94 x 10-7 substitutions per

site per year per lineage, was determined. Using this rate, the

MRCA between humans and Neandertals was calculated to

have lived about 465,000 years ago. The MRCA of modern

humans was calculated to have lived around 163,000 years ago.

And, the MRCA of chimps and bonobos was calculated to have

lived around 2,844,000 years ago. 3, 11, 13

Krings' figures are all fine and good except if we happen to

come across a more direct measurement of mtDNA. The

following work by Thomas Parsons published in the journal

Nature Genetics:
 187

"The rate and pattern of

sequence substitutions in the

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control

region (CR) is of central importance

to studies of human evolution and to

forensic identity testing. Here, we

report a direct measurement of the

intergenerational substitution rate in

the human CR. We compared DNA

sequences of two CR hyper variable

segments from close maternal

relatives, from 134 independent

mtDNA lineages spanning 327

generational events. Ten

substitutions were observed,

resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33

generations, or 2.5/site/ Myr. This is

roughly twenty-fold higher than

estimates derived from phylogenetic

analyses. This disparity cannot be

accounted for simply by substitutions

at mutational hot spots, suggesting

additional factors that produce the

discrepancy between very near-term

and long-term apparent rates of

sequence divergence. The data also

indicate that extremely rapid

 188

segregation of CR sequence variants

between generations is common in

humans, with a very small mtDNA

bottleneck. These results have

implications for forensic applications

and studies of human evolution . . .

The observed substitution rate

reported here is very high compared

to rates inferred from evolutionary

studies. A wide range of CR

substitution rates have been derived

from phylogenetic studies, spanning

roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr,

including confidence intervals. A

study yielding one of the faster

estimates gave the substitution rate

of the CR hyper variable regions as

0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a

generation time of 20 years, this

corresponds to ~1/600 generations

and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of

133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of

the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is

roughly 20-fold higher than would be

predicted from phylogenetic analyses.

Using our empirical rate to calibrate

 189

the mtDNA molecular clock would

result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA

of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly

incompatible with the known age of

modern humans. Even

acknowledging that the MRCA of

mtDNA may be younger than the

MRCA of modern humans, it remains

implausible to explain the known

geographic distribution of mtDNA

sequence variation by human

migration that occurred only in the

last ~6,500 years."

Several other more real time studies dealing with historical

families have backed up Parson's findings.

So, it seems as though more direct real-time measurements of

mtDNA mutation rates show as much as a 20-fold higher

mutation rate than that which was used by Krings et al. Now

what does this mean - besides the obvious?

The sequences studied by Krings totaled 673 base pairs in

length. According to the rate determined by Parsons, every

single one of these base pairs would have changed more than

twice in one million years and at least once in 400,000 years.

 190

Half of the base pairs would have mutated at least once in

200,000 years. And yet, humans are separated by only about

95 or so substitution differences from chimps? What is wrong

with this picture? Each substitution difference (in a sequence

some 673 base pairs in length) takes an average of 600 years to

achieve. Taking into account that each lineage would build up

substitution differences separately, in 600 years there would be

around two substitution difference between two lineages. This

seems to indicate that the common ancestor of humans and

chimps lived some 30,000 years ago (not 4 to 8 million years

ago as Krings et al., suggest - based on indirect methods).

Modern humans, being separated from each other by an

average of only 10 substitutions (according to Krings), appear to

have a common ancestor living some 3,000 years ago. Modern

Humans and Neandertals are separated by an average of only

35 substitution which to me seems to indicate a common

ancestor living only some 10,000 years ago.!

Reasonable Explanation?

"It should be noted that molecular phylogenies are constructed on the

basis of certain evolutionary assumptions. The tree that is presented is

chosen from a forest of alternatives, typically on the assumption of maximum

parsimony. That is, the tree that is selected is the one that reflects the least

amount of presumed evolutionary change. But, if the assumption of maximum

parsimony fails to fit the data, it can be jettisoned in favour of another."

 191

In other words, any result can be accommodated by the theory by revising

one or more of the underlying assumptions but not proven.

Even if a morphological phylogeny was matched closely by multiple

molecular phylogenies, that would not prove that the groups in question

descended from a common ancestor.

The molecular differences could be linked to the morphological differences

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

not reasonable to assume that a similar environment requires at least some

similarities in the creatures that utilize it for survival?

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

not interchangeable with each other. Considering this need, it seems

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:

"Anatomy is not independent of

biochemistry. Creatures similar anatomically are likely to

be similar physiologically. Those similar in physiology

are, in general, likely to be similar in biochemistry,

 192

whether they evolved or were designed. An alternate,

interventionist hypothesis is that the cytochrome c

molecules in various groups of organisms are different

(and always have been different) for functional

reasons. Not enough mutations have occurred in these

molecules to blur the distinct grouping evident. If we do

not base our conclusions on the a priori assumption of

mega evolution, all the data really tell us is that the

organisms fall into nested groups without any indication

of intermediates or overlapping of groups, and without

indicating ancestor/descendant relationships."

So, classification models of living things that are based on molecular

similarities and differences are quite limited as far as their use as

evidence of common ancestry beyond very recent times. Many

differences that are maintained seem to be function based. Because of

this, certain differences in sequences cannot be used as a "molecular

clock" since natural selection fixes certain sequences based on

functional needs so that random drift is not allowed. Beyond this, very

different phylogenetic relationships can be hypothesized depending

upon which sequence is subjectively chosen for analysis. These

different trees are often outright incompatible with each other or, at

best, inconclusive and that means no matter how good the genetic

research has been when it comes down to the DNA of Neanderthal

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

mutated big time.

It seems that in the case of Neanderthal Man there is differences of

opinion but before I go into that I want to go over what we know or think

we know about the Neanderthals in Europe.

- Sima de los Huesos, near Atapuerca, Spain

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,

or the bodies may have been put there intentionally.

These first group of bones dated about 0.3 mya (300,000 ya) with a mixture of

features of (1) H. heidelbergensis.

(2) and of Neanderthals.

The bones were very variable from individual to individual with different

features mixed in different individuals and at first suggest that the

Neanderthals evolved from H. heidelbergensis rather than being a distinctly

different population.
 194

However I should point out similarly intermediate, hard-to-classify individuals

have been found elsewhere around Europe during this general period

By about 127,000, these early humans with a fairly consistent suite of

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

H. heidelbergensis continued in Africa and Asia without developing the

Neanderthal features thus again suggesting that the Neanderthals came from

another source and place.

It has been suggested by others over the years through some recent genetic

work indicates that there are few or no Neanderthal genes in modern

Europeans ,instead, all modern humans apparently descend from a fairly

small population of H. heidelbergensis in Africa.

I have to disagree strongly with the view and believe the evidence points at

Neanderthals being the first modern human followed by Cro-Magnon Man

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

Europe that eithers H.erectus or Heidelbergensis.

Thankfully we happen to know a something about the Neanderthals because

they lived relatively recently and in Europe, where lots of

paleoanthropologists have been working since the field work began.

 195

Some features of Neanderthals - cranial features, large brains, larger on

average than modern humans .1245 to 1740 cc, averaging 1520 cc

H. heidelbergensis at 1200-1300 cc and modern H. sapiens at 1000 to 2000

cc, averaging 1400 cc

Some researchers think maybe Neanderthals' larger brains simply reflect

greater overall body mass than modern humans?

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

Low forehead of course thin cranial bones, unlike H. heidelbergensis.

Facial features

Large, heavily-built face - Face is pulled forward relative to braincase this

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

cold climate in Europe yet so far the evidence is weak.

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

research claims that it may be an adaptation to cold, with more tissue to

warm incoming air before it blows by the brain and into the lungs
 196

Receding chin.

Dental formula features.

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

hinge of the jaw due to pulling the whole face forward

- Relatively large incisors with usually with very heavy, angled wear from

working hides by pulling or scraping with the front teeth.

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

as expected if a right-handed person were cutting something held in their front

teeth, cutting close to the teeth.

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

joints) than H. sapiens and strong arms.

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,

thus ability to support lots of muscle and

heavy activity and conserves heat by reducing surface area relative to volume

of tissue in the torso.

Short extremities in particular, low index length of tibia divided by length of

femur that is, lower leg is short relative to upper leg.

In modern humans, lower crural indices are strongly correlated to populations

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

environments and this thinking is not surprising, given that Neanderthals

appeared as the Pleistocene ice ages were beginning and persisted almost

until they ended

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

large animals from reindeer to woolly mammoths.

Climate change is nothing new to us or in fact to the first early humans

and our current climate in the last 10,000 years or so has been both unusually

warm and unusually stable.

At one time there were wild global temperature swings that went from high to

low in a matter of centuries - from relatively brief periods that were

substantially warmer than today - to longer periods that averaged much colder

than today and European data now suggest that some shifts from temperate

to subarctic climates occurred within as little as 25 years!

 198

Neanderthal culture;

Again debate of what is culture and I do not believe as others do and

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

the Old Stone Age in Africa, or the Lower Paleolithic period in

Europe but you could not call it a culture as such. A timeline or period yes,

culture no.

Late H. heidelbergensis in both Africa and Europe, as well as the

Neanderthals in Europe, made better stone tools than before - starting around

0.3 mya - emphasizing flake tools, typically with the shape of the flake

controlled by preparing the core, as in the Levalloisian technique

This is referred to as the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa, or the Middle

Paleolithic period in Europe the European style of mode 3 tools that

Neanderthals made is called Mousterian

Features of Mousterian stone technology

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

"Levalloisian technique" ,the shape of the flake is predetermined and

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

were made, the Mousterian style includes a wide variety of identifiably

different forms - this presumably means that some more complex thinking was

involved in making and using them.

Some Mousterian tools were apparently hafted (mounted in handles or on

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

handles, shafts, clubs, digging sticks, etc.

Stone use only would up to a few kilometres from its source, maybe an

afternoon's walk at most .

Other aspects of Neanderthal culture;

In almost all Neanderthal sites - no bone tools ,no decoration on tools

no beads, pendants, figurines, cave art, etc.

There is one known exception, a cave at Arcy-sur-Cure, France

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

and was never finished.

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

that Neanderthals were biologically capable of this human-like behaviour that

is, working bone and most of all, the symbolic thinking involved in making and

using personal ornaments.

 200

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

sharing the region with these Neanderthals , small groups of Cro-Magnons

and some sort of commutations in force as well as sharing goods, food and

skins.

I suggest that some evidence does point at the Arcy-sur-Cure Neanderthals

coming into contact with more modern humans and picked up some of their

customs.

Neanderthals probably hunted large and small game - at least up to antelope

size with some regularity ,probably sometimes larger animals, including bison,

wild ox, etc.

 201

The evidence scant as it is at Neanderthal sites, was that there is a high

proportion of just one or a few large animal species - scavenging or

opportunistically killing old or weak animals would give a mix of

species more like the mix of live animals in the environment and

in many sites, there are many bones of mature animals

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

carnivore prey or to have died of other causes

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,

and brought only those back to a camp.

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

much easier to defend.

Search the data as you will but I have found no evidence of postholes from

huts, hearths, or other constructed features, so if they didnt build huts or

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

having survived multiple injuries in their lifetime, the oldest Neanderthal

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

caused by bad wounds, etc.

- 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

competitors but I doubt it so Neanderthals may have frequently had hostile

encounters with cow and horse-sized animals in herds while involved in a

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

but in contrast to any previous homos, we suddenly have numerous finds of

whole bodies - not just scattered parts or very rare whole individuals and I find

that the only reasonable explanation for such a improvement in preservation

is that they began burying their dead.

The data on such bodies suggest they have been cared for post death and

found flexed, on their side not in random positions or as left by predators or

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

just dont know in this case.

In Africa the fossil record for this period is not nearly as good as it is for

Europe because in Europe: by 100,000 ya, some populations of H.

heidelbergensis were developing Neanderthal traits - by 90,000 ya,

Neanderthals were a clearly distinctive variety (maybe species) in Europe by

contrast, in Africa.

- from about 300,000 to 200,000 ya, there were still populations similar to

Homo heidelbergensis

- none developed the distinctive Neanderthal-like traits - this makes sense if

the Neanderthal traits were adaptations to the extreme cold of Pleistocene

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

view - reduced browridges - more on this next time

- 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

Neanderthals - from about 40,000 to 30,000 ya - remaining physically distinct

- and mostly culturally distinct

- Arcy-sur-Cure around 33,000 ya may be a rare exception

- with Neanderthals maybe in contact with modern Homo sapiens

- and maybe adopting some of their cultural practices

- by 30,000 ya, the Neanderthals were gone

- What happened to the Neanderthals? - genetic studies indicate that they

 204

made little or no contribution to modern human populations - they probably

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

- so Homo sapiens apparently simply replaced them in Europe

- out-competed them?

- drove them to extinction?

- something similar happened in Asia

- H. heidelbergensis (or the Asian equivalent) disappeared - also apparently

making little or no genetic contribution to modern Homo sapiens in Asia - H.

erectus in Asia disappeared around the same time - coincidence?

- so, by about 30,000 ya, the only hominin left standing in Africa, Europe, or

Asia was Homo sapiens

- Next time we will look at the origins of these Homo sapiens in Africa, and

their spread over the rest of the world.

When I researched Huxleys work I was again taken by surprise because he

presented in detail his own research and most of it I tend to agree with. In

honour of the man I have included it below.

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.

Ronnie Carleton 2012

FOSSIL REMAINS OF MAN

 205

Thomas Huxley

I HAVE endeavored to show, in the preceding Essay, that the ANTHROPINI,

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

between the CATARHINI and PLATYRHINI.

It is a commonly received doctrine, however, that the structural intervals

between the various existing modifications of organic beings may be

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

is an overstatement of the real facts of the case, and an exaggeration of the

conclusions fairly deducible from them, are points of grave importance, but

into the discussion of which I do not, at present, propose to enter. It is enough

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

of human remains in a fossil state bear out, or oppose, that view.

I shall confine myself, in discussing this question, to those fragmentary

Human skulls from the caves of Engis in the valley of the Meuse, in Belgium,

and of the Neanderthal near Dusseldorf, the geological relations of which

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

contemporary of the Mammoth ('Elephas primigenius') and of the woolly

Rhinoceros ('Rhinoceros tichorhinus'), with the bones of which it was found

 206

associated; and that the Neanderthal skull is of great, though uncertain,

antiquity. Whatever be the geological age of the latter skull, I conceive it is

quite safe (on the ordinary principles of paleontological reasoning) to assume

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

ossemens fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes de la Province de Liege',

published in 1833 (p. 59, 'et seq.'), from which the following paragraphs are

extracted, the precise expressions of the author being, as far as possible,

preserved.

"In the first place, I must remark that these human remains, which are in my

possession, are characterized like thousands of bones which I have lately

been disinterring, by the extent of the decomposition which they have

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,

composed of the remains of small animals, and containing one rhinoceros

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

which it adhered strongly.

"The earth which contained this human skull exhibited no trace of disturbance:

teeth of rhinoceros, horse, hyaena, and bear, surrounded it on all sides.

"The famous Blumenbach 1 has directed attention to the differences

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

been wanting in our fossil cranium.

"We are convinced that even if the skull had been complete, it would not have

been possible to pronounce, with certainty, upon a single specimen; for

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

head to which it belonged.

"Nevertheless, in order to neglect no point respecting the form of this fossil

skull, we may observe that, from the first, the elongated and narrow form of

the forehead attracted our attention.

"In fact, the slight elevation of the frontal, its narrowness, and the form of the

orbit, approximate it more nearly to the cranium of an Ethiopian than to that of

an European: the elongated form and the produced occiput are also

characters which we believe to be observable in our fossil cranium; but to

remove all doubt upon that subject I have caused the contours of the cranium

of an European and of an Ethiopian to be drawn and the foreheads

represented. Plate II., Figs. 1 and 2, and, in the same plate, Figs. 3 and 4, will

render the differences easily distinguishable; and a single glance at the

figures will be more instructive than a long and wearisome description.

"At whatever conclusion we may arrive as to the origin of the man from

whence this fossil skull proceeded, we may express an opinion without

exposing ourselves to a fruitless controversy. Each may adopt the hypothesis

which seems to him most probable: for my own part, I hold it to be

demonstrated that this cranium has belonged to a person of limited intellectual

faculties, and we conclude thence that it belonged to a man of a low degree of

civilization: a deduction which is borne out by contrasting the capacity of the

frontal with that of the occipital region.

"Another cranium of a young individual was discovered in the floor of the

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

superior incisor tooth, the size of which is truly remarkable. 2

"Figure 4 is a fragment of a superior maxillary bone, the molar teeth of which

are worn down to the roots.

"I possess two vertebrae, a first and last dorsal.

"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).

"Figure 2, Plate IV., represents a metacarpal bone, contained in the breccia,

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.

"This is a brief enumeration of the remains of human bones collected in the

cavern of Engis, which has preserved for us the remains of three individuals,
 210

surrounded by those of the Elephant, of the Rhinoceros, and of Carnivora of

species unknown in the present creation."

From the cave of Engihoul, opposite that of Engis, on the right bank of the

Meuse, Schmerling obtained the remains of three other individuals of Man,

among which were only two fragments of parietal bones, but many bones of

the extremities. In one case a broken fragment of an ulna was soldered to a

like fragment of a radius by stalagmite, a condition frequently observed

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

those Belgian caves, which contained an abundance of fossil bones.

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

apparently a very hasty one) paid to the collection of Professor 'Schmidt'

(which is presumably a misprint for Schmerling) at Liege. The writer briefly

criticizes the drawings which illustrate Schmerling's work, and affirms that the

"human cranium is a little longer than it is represented" in Schmerling's figure.

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

which there is a considerable collection in the same place. With respect to

their special forms, compared with those of the varieties of recent human

crania, few 'certain' conclusions can be put forward; for much greater

differences exist between the different specimens of well-characterized

 211

varieties, than between the fossil cranium of Liege and that of one of those

varieties selected as a term of comparison."

Geoffrey St. Hilaire's remarks are, it will be observed, little but an echo of the

philosophic doubts of the describer and discoverer of the remains. As to 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

view is diminished to about the same extent. Otherwise the representation is

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

since been fitted on to the rest of the cranium by an accomplished anatomist,

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,

reduced to one-half of the natural size, are made.

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

is wanting. Of the right temporal, the parts in the immediate neighbourhood of

the auditory foramen, the mastoid process, and a considerable portion of the

squamous element of the temporal are well preserved (Fig. 23).

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

skull is that of an adult, if not middle-aged man.

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

be called a retreating forehead; on the contrary, the anterior-posterior contour

of the skull is well arched, so that the distance along that contour, from the

nasal depression to the occipital protuberance, measures about 13.75 inches.

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

suture itself is 5.5 inches long.

The supraciliary prominences or brow-ridges (on each side of 'a', Fig. 23) are

well, but not excessively, developed, and are separated by a median

depression. Their principal elevation is disposed so obliquely that I judge them

to be due to large frontal sinuses.

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

upon the outer surface of the skull.

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

fragmentary skull has not been ascertained.

The history of the Human remains from the cavern in the Neanderthal may

best be given in the words of their original describer, Dr Schaaffhausen 4, as

translated by Mr. Busk.

"In the early part of the year 1857, a human skeleton was discovered in a

limestone cave in the Neanderthal, near Hochdal, between Dusseldorf and

Elberfeld. Of this, however, I was unable to procure more than a plaster cast

of the cranium, taken at Elberfeld, from which I drew up an account of its

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

History Society, at Bonn.

 214

Subsequently Dr. Fuhlrott, to whom science is indebted for the preservation of

these bones, which were not at first regarded as human, and into whose

possession they afterwards came, brought the cranium from Elberfeld to

Bonn, and entrusted it to me for more accurate anatomical examination. At

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

discovery was made.

He was of opinion that the bones might be regarded as fossil; and in coming

to this conclusion, he laid especial stress upon the existence of dendritic

deposits, with which their surface was covered, and which were first noticed

upon them by Professor Meyer. To this communication I appended a brief

report on the results of my anatomical examination of the bones. The

conclusions at which I arrived were:1st. That the extraordinary form of the

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

Europe, spoken of by Latin writers; and which were encountered as

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

consequently of their so-termed 'fossil' condition, was afforded by the

circumstances under which the bones were discovered.

"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

the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a distance of about 100 feet from the

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

was covered to a thickness of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud, sparingly

intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In the removing of this deposit,

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

questioned by me on the spot. At first no idea was entertained of the bones

being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they

were recognized as such by me, and placed in security. But, as the

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

to this circumstance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the probably

perfect skeleton came into my possession.'

"My anatomical examination of these bones afforded the following results:

"The cranium is of unusual size, and of a long elliptical form. A most

remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in the extraordinary development of

the frontal sinuses, owing to which the supraciliary ridges, which coalesce

completely in the middle, are rendered so prominent, that the frontal bone

exhibits a considerable hollow or depression above, or rather behind them,

 216

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

almost conjoined so as to form a horizontal eminence. It includes almost the

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

water, whence its cubical contents may be estimated at 57.64 inches, or

1033.24 cubic centimeters. In making this estimation, the water is supposed

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

ridges of the occipital. Estimated in dried millet-seed, the contents equaled 31

ounces, Prussian Apothecaries' weight. The semicircular line indicating the

upper boundary of the attachment of the temporal muscle, though not very

strongly marked, ascends nevertheless to more than half the height of the

parietal bone. On the right supraciliary ridge is observable an oblique furrow

or depression, indicative of an injury received during life. 7

mm. 8

The length of the skull from the nasal

process of the frontal over the vertex

to the superior semicircular lines of the

occipital measures.............................303 (300) =

12.0".
 217

Circumference over the orbital ridges and

the superior semicircular lines of the

occipital......................................590 (590) = 23.37" or

23".

Width of the frontal from the middle of

the temporal line on one side to the

same point on the opposite.....................104 (114) =

4.1"4.5".

Length of the frontal from the nasal.

process to the coronal suture..................133 (125) =

5.25"5".

Extreme width of the frontal sinuses...........25 (23) =

1.0"0.9".

Vertical height above a line joining the

deepest notches in the squamous border

of the parietals...............................70 = 2.75".

Width of hinder part of skull from one

parietal protuberance to the other.............138 (150) =

5.4"5.9"

Distance from the upper angle of the

occipital to the superior semicircular

lines..........................................51 (60) = 1.9"2.4".

Thickness of the bone at the parietal

protuberance...................................8.

at the angle of the occipital................9.

at the superior semicircular line of

the occipital..................................10 = 0.3"

 218

"Besides the cranium, the following bones have been secured:

"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

the elevations and depressions for the attachment of muscles. In the

Anatomical Museum at Bonn, under the designation of 'Giant's-bones,' are

some recent thigh-bones, with which in thickness the foregoing pretty nearly

correspond, although they are shorter.

Giant's bones. Fossil

bones.

mm. mm.

Length.....................................542 = 21.4"......438 =

17.4"

Diameter of head of femur.................. 54 = 2.14".....

53 = 2.0"

" of lower articular end, from

one condyle to the other................ 89 = 3.5"....... 87

= 3.4"

Diameter of femur in the middle............ 33 = 1.2".......

30 = 1.1"

"2. A perfect right humerus, whose size shows that it

belongs to the

thigh-bones. mm.

Length.....................................312 = 12.3"

Thickness in the middle.................... 26 = 1.0"

Diameter of head........................... 49 = 1.9"

 219

"Also a perfect right radius of corresponding dimensions, and the upper-third

of a right ulna corresponding to the humerus and radius.

"3. A left humerus of which the upper-third is wanting, and which is so much

slenderer than the right as apparently to belong to a distinct individual; a left

'ulna', which, though complete, is pathologically deformed, the coronoid

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

downwards. As the bone presents no sign of rachitic degeneration, it may be

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

concluded that the bones respectively belonged to different individuals, the

ulna being more than half an inch too short for articulation with a

corresponding radius. But it is clear that this shortening, as well as the

attenuation of the left humerus, are both consequent upon the pathological

condition above described.

"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

rounded shape, and abrupt curvature, more resemble the ribs of a

carnivorous animal than those of a man. Dr. H. v. Meyer, however, to whose

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

unusually powerful development of the thoracic muscles.

 220

"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 appears, however, to have undergone that transformation into gelatin

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

especially under a lens, are seen to be formed of very delicate 'dendrites'.

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

ferruginous compound, and, from their black colour, may be supposed to

contain manganese. Similar dendritic formations also occur, not infrequently,

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.

Meyer stated that he had noticed in the museum of Poppelsdorf similar

dendritic crystallizations on several fossil bones of animals, and particularly on

those of 'Ursus spelaeus', but still more abundantly and beautifully displayed

on the fossil bones and teeth of 'Equus adamiticus', 'Elephas primigenius',

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

"The incipient formation of dendritic deposits, which were formerly regarded

as a sign of a truly fossil condition, is interesting. It has even been supposed

that in diluvial deposits the presence of 'dendrites' might be regarded as

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

that neither can the absence of 'dendrites' be regarded as indicative of recent

 221

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

the Roman colony of the neighboring Heddersheim, 'Castrum Hadrianum',

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;

so that this character also, which, at a former meeting of German naturalists

at Bonn, gave rise to amusing scenes between Buckland and Schmerling, is

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

fossil, that is to say, whether it belong to geological antiquity or to the

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

regards a geological epoch, are, nevertheless, such as indicate a very high

antiquity. It may also be remarked that, common as is the occurrence of

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

greatest part of their organic substance.

"These circumstances might be adduced against the probability of a

geological antiquity. Nor should we be justified in regarding the cranial

conformation as perhaps representing the most savage primitive type of the

human race, since crania exist among living savages, which, though not

exhibiting, such a remarkable conformation of the forehead, which gives the

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,

prominent temporal ridges, and a generally less capacious cranial cavity,

exhibit an equally low stage of development. There is no reason for supposing

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 skull is quite symmetrical, and shows no indication of counter-pressure at

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."

In a subsequent passage, Dr. Schaaffhausen remarks:

"There is no reason whatever for regarding the unusual development of the

frontal sinuses in the remarkable skull from the Neanderthal as an individual

or pathological deformity; it is unquestionably a typical race-character, and is

 223

physiologically connected with the uncommon thickness of the other bones of

the skeleton, which exceeds by about one-half the usual proportions. This

expansion of the frontal sinuses, which are appendages of the air-passages,

also indicates an unusual force and power of endurance in the movements of

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

lower frontal region, is confirmed in many ways by other observations. By the

same characters, according to Pallas, the wild horse is distinguished from the

domesticated, and, according to Cuvier, the fossil cave-bear from every

recent species of bear, whilst, according to Roulin, the pig, which has become

wild in America, and regained a resemblance to the wild boar, is thus

distinguished from the same animal in the domesticated state, as is the

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.

The estimation of the facial angle, the determination of which, according to

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

exceed 56 degrees. Unfortunately, no portions of the facial bones, whose

conformation is so decisive as regards the form and expression of the head,

have been preserved. The cranial capacity, compared with the uncommon

strength of the corporeal frame, would seem to indicate a small cerebral

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

be taken at 37 ounces. Tiedemann assigns, as the cranial contents in the

Negro, 40, 38, and 35 ounces. The cranium holds rather more than 36 ounces

of water, which corresponds to a capacity of 1033.24 cubic centimeters.

Huschke estimates the cranial contents of a Negress at 1127 cubic

centimeters; of an old Negro at 1146 cubic centimeters. The capacity of the

Malay skulls, estimated by water, equaled 36, 33 ounces, whilst in the

diminutive Hindus it falls to as little as 27 ounces."

After comparing the Neanderthal cranium with many others, ancient and

modern, Professor Schaaffhausen concludes thus:

"But the human bones and cranium from the Neanderthal exceed all the rest

in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to the conclusion of their

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

memorial of the early inhabitants of Europe."

Mr. Busk, the translator of Dr. Schaaffhausen's paper, has enabled us to form

a very vivid conception of the degraded character of the Neanderthal skull, by

placing side by side with its outline, that of the skull of a Chimpanzee, drawn

to the same absolute size.

Sometime after the publication of the translation of Professor Schaaffhausen's

Memoir, I was led to study the cast of the Neanderthal cranium with more

attention than I had previously bestowed upon it, in consequence of wishing to

 225

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

necessary to identify, with precision, those points in the skulls compared

which corresponded anatomically. Of these points, the glabella was obvious

enough; but when I had distinguished another, defined by the occipital

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

glabella and occipital protuberance of both were intersected by the same

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

occipital protuberance and superior semicircular curved line on the exterior of

the occiput correspond pretty closely with the 'lateral sinuses' and the line of

attachment of the tentorium internally. But on the tentorium rests, as I have

said in the preceding Essay, the posterior lobe of the brain; and hence, the

occipital protuberance, and the curved line in question, indicate,

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

skull, answers to certain queries, and if possible a cast, or at any rate

drawings, or photographs, of the interior of the skull.

 226

Carleton 2012

Dr. Fuhlrott replied with a courtesy and readiness for which I am infinitely

indebted to him, to my inquiries, and furthermore sent three excellent

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

inch," and demonstrates the great extension of the thickened supraciliary

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

flattened as I suspected it to be.

In truth, the Neanderthal cranium has most extraordinary characters. It has an

extreme length of 8 inches, while its breadth is only 5.75 inches, or, in other

words, its length is to its breadth as 100:72. It is exceedingly depressed,

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

inches; the transverse arc cannot be exactly ascertained, in consequence of

the absence of the temporal bones, but was probably about the same, and

certainly exceeded 10 1/4 inches. The horizontal circumference is 23 inches.

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

appearance than its internal contour would bear out.

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

inches), and the squamosal suture is very straight.

In reply to my questions Dr. Fuhlrott writes that the occipital bone "is in a state

of perfect preservation as far as the upper semicircular line, which is a very

strong ridge, linear at its extremities, but enlarging towards the middle, where

it forms two ridges (bourrelets), united by a linear continuation, which is

slightly depressed in the middle."

"Below the left ridge the bone exhibits an obliquely inclined surface, six lines

(French) long, and twelve lines wide."

 228

This last must be the surface, the contour of which is shown in Fig. 25, A.,

below 'b'. It is particularly interesting, as it suggests that, notwithstanding the

flattened condition of the occiput, the posterior cerebral lobes must have

projected considerably beyond the cerebellum, and as it constitutes one

among several points of similarity between the Neanderthal cranium and

certain Australian skulls.

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

or diminish, to any appreciable extent, the structural interval which exists

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

normally formed skulls of men are known to do at the present day?

It is impossible to form any opinion on these questions, without some

preliminary acquaintance with the range of variation exhibited by human

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

extent, in different individuals. The skeleton varies in the proportions, and

even to a certain extent in the connexions, of its constituent bones. The

muscles which move the bones vary largely in their attachments. The varieties

in the mode of distribution of the arteries are carefully classified, on account of

the practical importance of a knowledge of their shifting to the surgeon. The

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

in colour and in texture.

So far as our present knowledge goes, the majority of the structural varieties

to which allusion is here made, are individual. The ape-like arrangement of

certain muscles which is occasionally met with in the white races of mankind,

is not known to be more common among Negroes or Australians: nor because

the brain of the Hottentot Venus was found to be smoother, to have its

convolutions more symmetrically disposed, and to be, so far, more ape-like

than that of ordinary Europeans, are we justified in concluding a like condition

of the brain to prevail universally among the lower races of mankind, however

probable that conclusion may be.

We are, in fact, sadly wanting in information respecting the disposition of the

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

able Retzius must always be the first named.

 230

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

jaw (which is of course followed by the lower) is thrown backwards and

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

termed by Retzius 'brachycephalic,' and the skull of a Calmuck, of which a

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

proportion. People having such skulls were called by Retzius

'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

former case the skull is said to be 'orthognathous' or straight-jawed; in the

latter, it is called 'prognathous,' a term which has been rendered, with more

force than elegance, by the Saxon equivalent,'snouty.'

Various methods have been devised in order to express with some accuracy

the degree of prognathism or orthognathous of any given skull; most of these

methods being essentially modifications of that devised by Peter Camper, in

order to attain what he called the 'facial angle.'

But a little consideration will show that any 'facial angle' that has been

devised, can be competent to express the structural modifications involved in

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

points of the skull, the position of each of which is modified by a number of

circumstances, so that the angle obtained is a complex resultant of all these

circumstances, and is not the expression of any one definite organic relation

of the parts of the skull.

I have arrived at the conviction that no comparison of crania is worth very

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

being relatively moveable.

The same truth is exemplified by the study of the modifications which the skull

undergoes in ascending from the lower animals up to man.

In such a mammal as a Beaver a line ('a b'.) drawn through the bones, termed

basioccipital, basisphenoid, and presphenoid, is very long in proportion to the

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

obtuse angle, where, when produced, it cuts the 'basicranial axis.'

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

and which may be termed the 'cranium-facial angle,' is extremely obtuse,

amounting, in the case of the Beaver, to at least 150 degrees.

But if a series of sections of mammalian skulls, intermediate between a

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

the 'cranium-facial angle' becomes more acute by the bending down, as it

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

the cerebral hemispheres, which is eminently characteristic of man, as well as

of that backward extension, beyond the cerebellum, which reaches its

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

length of the basicranial axis; the olfactory plane is 20 degrees or 30 degrees

on the 'under' side of that axis; the occipital angle, instead of being less than

90 degrees, is as much as 150 degrees or 160 degrees; the cranio-facial

angle may be 90 degrees or less, and the vertical height of the skull may have

a large proportion to its length.

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

to revolve downwards and forwards or backwards, according to their position.

The arc described by any one bone or plane, however, is not by any means

always in proportion to the arc described by another.

 234

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

basicranial axis observed upon so great a scale in the mammalian series?

Numerous observations lead me to believe that we must answer this question

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

prognathous, taken longitudinally and vertically, through the middle. The

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

axes are regarded as relatively fixed lines.

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

Surgeons; and of a well-developed round skull from a cemetery in

Constantinople, of uncertain race, in my own possession.

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

clear. But it is singular to remark that, in another respect, the prognathous

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

the orthognathous, skulls.

It will be observed that these diagrams reveal an immense range of variation

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

cerebral projection than a long one (Fig. 30, 'Negro').

Until human crania have been largely worked out in a manner similar to that

here suggesteduntil it shall be an opprobrium to an ethnological collection

to possess a single skull which is not bisected longitudinallyuntil the angles

and measurements here mentioned, together with a number of others of

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

that ethnological craniology which aspires to give the anatomical characters of

the crania of the different Races of Mankind.

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,

prognathous, curly-haired, dark-skinned of menthe true Negroes. At the

northern and eastern end of the same line there live the most brachycephalic,
 236

orthognathous, straight-haired, yellow-skinned of menthe Tartars and

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

equator, around which round-headed, oval-headed, and oblong-headed,

prognathous and orthognathous, fair and dark racesbut none possessing

the excessively marked characters of Calmuck or Negrogroup themselves.

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

one hand, and to America on the other, brachycephalic and orthognathism

gradually diminish, and are replaced by dolichocephalism and prognathism,

less, however, on the American Continent (throughout the whole length of

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

ethnologists assign to these people the special title of 'Negritoes.'

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

remaining undeveloped. The nasal depression, again, is extremely sudden, so

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

drawn perpendicular to the hinder extremity of the glabello-occipital line, but

even, in some cases, begins to shelve away from it, forwards, almost

immediately. In consequence of this circumstance, the parts of the occipital

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

the skull appears obliquely truncated. Many Australian skulls have a

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

diminished. The majority of skulls possessing these characters, which I have

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

small additional amount of flattening and lengthening, with a corresponding

increase of the supraciliary ridge, would convert the Australian brain case into

a form identical with that of the aberrant fossil.

And now, to return to the fossil skulls, and to the rank which they occupy

among, or beyond, these existing varieties of cranial conformation. In the first

place, I must remark, that, as Professor Schmerling well observed ('supra', p.

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 which I have examinedand especially has it a tendency

towards that occipital flattening, to the great extent of which, in 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

the typical Australians.

On the other hand, its measurements agree equally well with those of some

European skulls. And assuredly, there is no mark of degradation about any

part of its structure. It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have

belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of

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

squamosal suture, we meet with ape-like characters, stamping it as the most

pithecoid of human crania yet discovered. But Professor Schaaffhausen

states ('supra', p. 308), that the cranium, in its present condition, holds

1033.24 cubic centimeters of water, or about 63 cubic inches, and as the

entire skull could hardly have held less than an additional 12 cubic inches, its

capacity may be estimated at about 75 cubic inches, which is the average

capacity given by Morton for Polynesian and Hottentot skulls.

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

skeleton given by Professor Schaaffhausen, which show that the absolute

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

development of the muscular ridges noted by Dr. Schaaffhausen, are

 240

characters to be expected in savages. The Patagonians, exposed without

shelter or protection to a climate possibly not very dissimilar from that of

Europe at the time during which the Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable

for the stoutness of their limb bones.

In no sense, then, can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of

a human being intermediate between Men and Apes. At most, they

demonstrate the existence of a man whose skull may be said to revert

somewhat towards the pithecoid typejust as a Carrier, or a Pouter, or a

Tumbler, may sometimes put on the plumage of its primitive stock, the

'Columba livia'. And indeed, though truly the most pithecoid of known human

skulls, the Neanderthal cranium is by no means so isolated as it appears to be

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

is closely approached by the flattened Australian skulls, of which I have

spoken, from which other Australian forms lead us gradually up to skulls

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

Denmark during the 'stone period,' and were probably either

contemporaneous with, or later than, the makers of the 'refuse heaps,' or

'Kjokken moddings' of that country.

The correspondence between the longitudinal contour of the Neanderthal

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

occiput is quite as retreating, the supraciliary ridges are nearly as prominent,

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

Neanderthal skull, while some attain that proportion of breadth to length

(80:100) which constitutes brachycephalic.

In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil remains of Man hitherto discovered do

not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by

the modification of which he has, probably, become what he is. And

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

known await the researches of some unborn paleontologist?

Time will show. But, in the meanwhile, if any form of the doctrine of

progressive development is correct, we must extend by long epochs the most

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

people if they got it wrong, as some did no doubt. He totally dismissed

 242

Mayers conclusions as a research work, laden with numerous jocosities of

small size, but great ponderosity, directed at Charles Darwin and his

doctrine.

Thomas Huxley also picked up on forensics very quickly when Professor

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

without doubt would have been taken to task by them.

A NEW LOOK AND AN OLD PROBLEM.

I again looked at the data on early apes and the two human species,

Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man and of course the old problem of

dating the early apes and humans.

 243

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

came up with reference to the Neanderthals appearance on the Archaeology

canvas. Though expected by me, I was not prepared for gaps in their life

timeline, sometimes as much as a few thousand years.

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

planet as we know it today.

 244

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

Glaciation was in fact between 50 -30 thousand years in Europe when

Chatelperronian and H. Neanderthals were still around. Before that and in the

last suggested last interglacial period on the M-isotope new evidence,

120,000 60,000 years, = Mousterian and H. Neanderthal, the timeline data

therefore should be the start of the Neanderthals ( very early) at 90,000 to

35,000 years in Europe while the suggested timeline for Western Asia at

70,000 40,000 years.

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

when we consider the scanty remains discovered from western Europe,

through the Near East and into Western Asia. What we dont know yet, is if

any of the migrations during the interglacial period 120,000-60,000 years,

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

100,000 40,000 years ago were Neanderthals only.

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

the Pleistocene suggested glacial inter-glacial cycles of every 41,000 years

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

10,000 and 15,000 years.

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

DNA makeup of the Neanderthals and it was not God.

 246

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

evidence, such as it is.

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.

To do this I had to look hard at the Mousterian timeline.

and

This was a new form of stone tool technology and very closely linked with the

Neaderthals, known as the Mousterian name after a cave in the Dordogne

(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

suggests from the workmanship and refined Levallois flaked technique

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

by the tool maker.

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

at times living close to one another.

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

the tool finds.

With such development in tools other factors in time came into play such as

burial.

NEANDERTHAL BURIALS
 248

As I stated early on in my research I mentioned that what was taken as early

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

as a ritual burial as such.

Ritual burial guidelines I suggest should be;

Body placed in a pit on its side.

Flints under the head.

Stone axe or other tool close to the hands.

Bones of food animals also buried.

Flowers or shells placed on the body.

I have given some examples of this here.

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

ibex horns around the head forming a rough ring.

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

of a child lying on a limestone slab and evidence of red ochre on the

underside of the slab as well as small pit markings on the top of it.

A cave in Shandidar in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq has produced a number

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

as a bed that the body had been placed.

I have listed the flowers and plants that the pollen came from for reference.

Oak, pine,juniper,ash, yarrow,cornflower,St Barnabys thistle,ragwort, grape

hyacinth,hollyhock,woody horsetail.

To carry out such a ritual suggests strongly that this Neanderthal group at

Shanider did show emotion and even an understanding of the underworld,

could be called spiritual because the soul or spirit as we know it would not

have been named as such 60,000 years ago.

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

Neanderthal thinking was on such matters then. Religion is a mind process,

nothing more and nothing less and could mean nothing to research or mean

everything in the long term.

 250

THE PREY ANIMALS OF THE NEANDERTHALS IN EUROPE.

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

species just the common names.

Wooly mammoth.. Survived in Europe till the end of the last Glacial but in

North Asia at least 1000 years more.

Cave Bear. It took survived in Europe at the beginning of the last Glacial but

near its end the Cave bear vanished also.

Wild Horse. A small horse species and was hunted hard by the Neanderthal

groups for food and skins.

The Wolf. Still survives in the wilder part of Europe and Asia. Was at times a

risk factor to the Neanderthal groups in winter.

Cave lion. Much larger than the present day African and Asian lions. Vanished

from Europe at the end of the last Glacial.

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

may have a genetic link to the modren bison in Europe today.

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.

Suslik. Possible food and still lives in South Europe.

Saiga Antelope. Hunted for food and skins. Now lives in South Russia.

Ibex. Hunted for food and horns.

BIRDS. All species including ducks and willow grouse for food.

Fish. All species for food.

 252

FOSSIL EVIDENCE SO FAR OF NEANDERTHALS .

SPECIES. TIME LINE SITE. NOTES.

Early Pre Neanderthals.

More than 300,000 years.

Sima de Los Huesos Spain.

Arago,Tautavel, France.

Petralona, Greece.

Late Pre Neanderthals.

300,000 -150,000 years.

 253

Bilzingsleben, Steinheim, Masur, Germany.

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,

La Chapell aux-Saints, France.

Important fossil sites of Neanderthals in Europe.

PLACE YEARS AGO. FOSSILS.

Engis Belgium Not known. Child, Skull fragments and teeth.

Spy, Belgium. Not known. Adult bones of upper body.

Adult part of a skeleton.

Child,two teeth, right tibia.

Krapina, Croatia. 120,000 years. Remains of 13 bodies.

Vindija,Croatia. 40,000-28,000 years. Part remains of bodies.

Grotte du Renne,

Arcy-sur-Cure, France, 34,000 years. Cranial fragment (Temporal)

 254

La-Chapelle-aux-Saints, France.60,000-50,000 years.

Part of a skeleton.

La Ferrassie France. 70,000 years. Adult,skeletons 2

Child, upper skeleton.

Foetus humerus and femur.

Neonate, part of a skeleton.

Foetus, part of a skeleton.

Child, part of a skeleton.

LHortus,France. 70,000 years. 38 sets of human remains.

La Moustier,France. 40,000 years. Young adult and one child

Part of skeletons.

La Quina,France. 50,000 years. Fragments of skulls 11.

Marillac,France. 45,000 years. 1 adult mandible, skull fragments.

Regourdou, France. Not known. Adult part of a skeleton.

Roc de Marsal,France. 70,000 years. Child part of a skeleton.

Saint-Cesaire, France. 34,000 years. Adult part of a skeleton.

Ehringsdor, (Weimar) Germany. 100,000 years. 1 Adult skull fragments.

Feldhoffer Cave, Nenaderthal,Germany. 40,000 years. 1 adult part of

Skeleton.

Adult right humerus.

DISTRIBUTION of Neanderthal sites in Eurasia.

France,Germany,Spain,Italy,Greece,Black Sea area,North Africa, Turkey,

Shandidar, Teshik Tash.

 255

A FULL SUMMERY OF MY RESEARCH, NEANDERTHAL DAWN.

Ronnie Carleton 2012

 256

This research study on the Neanderthals of Europe came about because of

my doubts on the dating of bones from an archaeology point of view and also

what part this Homo had to play in modren Human advancment.

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.

It was easy to be critical of other researchers mistakes and even more so of

my own but in time I turned that around to constructive critical comment,

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

Neanderthal research had to be put to oneside as I waded through the data

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.

Before I proceeded with this research, I double checked, I pondered on the

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

The Author, bone hunting in Borneo.

THE MISSING LINK FROM AFRICA.

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

Europe. In my research on the DNA I came across many conflicts of ongoing

research as well as published data. Some of this I have had to include here

for possible debate and improve it possible.

THE DNA CONFLICT

All the DNA samples it seems came from recovered material from

Neanderthal bones and the samples examined in a number of DNA sampling

labs. However I have to question how the samples were taken and how much

cross contamanation happened during the processes.

 258

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.

In contrast to previous efforts to obtain ancient sequences by direct analysis

of Sequencing and Analysis of extracts met genomic libraries allow the

immortalization of DNA isolated from precious ancient samples, obviating the

need for repeated Neanderthal Genomic DNA. The Researchers for this data I

have named below;

James P. Noonan,1,2 Graham Coop,3 Sridhar Kudaravalli,3 Doug Smith,1 Johannes

Krause,4 Joe Alessi,1 Feng Chen,1 Darren Platt,1 Svante Pbo,4 Jonathan K.

Pritchard,3 Edward M. Rubin1,2*

Our knowledge of Neanderthals is based on a limited number of remains and

artefacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behaviour,

and relationship to ourselves. Here, we describe the characterization of these

extinct hominids from a new perspective, based on the development of a

Neanderthal metagenomic library and its high-throughput sequencing and

analysis.

Several lines of evidence indicate that the 65,250 base pairs of hominid

sequence so far identified in the library are of Neanderthal origin, the

strongest being the ascertainment of sequence identities between

Neanderthal and chimpanzee at sites where the human genomic

sequence is different.

These results enabled us to calculate the human-Neanderthal divergence

time based on multiple randomly distributed autosomal loci. Our analyses

suggest that on average the Neanderthal genomic sequence we obtained and

the reference human genome sequence share a most recent common

 259

ancestor ~706,000 years ago, and that the human and Neanderthal

ancestral populations split ~370,000 years ago, before the emergence of

anatomically modern humans. Our finding that the Neanderthal and human

genomes are at least 99.5% identical led us to develop and successfully

implement a targeted method for recovering specific ancient DNA sequences

from metagenomic libraries. This initial analysis of the Neanderthal genome

advances our understanding of the evolutionary relationship of Homo sapiens

and Homo neanderthalensis and signifies the dawn of Neanderthal genomics

.(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

as 30,000 years ago, humans and Neander-thals coexisted in Europe and

western Asia

(2). Since that time, our species has spread across Earth, far surpassing any

previous hominid or primate species in numbers, technological development,

and environmental impact, while Neanderthals have vanished. Molecular

studies of Neanderthals have been exclusively constrained to the comparison

of human and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplified Neanderthal

mitochondrial sequences, which suggest that the most recent common

ancestor of humans and Neanderthals existed. ~500,000 years ago, well

before the emergence of modern humans.

Further analyses of mito-chondrial data, including the comparison of

mito-chondrial sequences obtained from several Neanderthals and early

modern humans, suggest little or no admixture between Neanderthal and

modern human populations in Europe. However, a major limitation of all prior

molecular studies of Neanderthals is that mitochondrial sequences reflect only

maternal inheritance of a single locus.

 260

Accordingly, in the absence of Neanderthal autosomal and Y-chromosome

sequences, the assessment of human-Neanderthal admixture remains

incomplete.

Mitochondrial data also pro-vide no access to the gene and gene regulatory

sequence differences between humans and Nean-derthals that would help to

reveal biological features unique to each. These insights await the recovery of

Neanderthal genomic sequences.

The introduction of high-throughput sequencing technologies and recent

advances in metagenomic analysis of complex DNA mixtures now provide a

strategy to recover genomic sequences from ancient destructive extractions.

In addition, once an ancient DNA fragment is cloned into a metagenomic

library, it can be distinguished from contamination that might be introduced

during subsequent PCR amplification or sequencing by the vector sequences

linked to each library-derived insert.

Recovery of Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequences using a metagenomic

approach.

In this study, we applied an amplification-independent direct cloning method

to construct a Neanderthal metagenomic library, designated NE1, using DNA

extracted from a 38,000-year-old specimen from Vindija, Croatia.

We have recovered 65,250 base pairs ( BP) of Neanderthal genome

sequence from this library through a combination of Sanger sequencing and

massively parallel pyro sequencing. We have also used the metagenomic

library as a substrate to isolate specific Neanderthal sequences by direct

genomic selection.

Several lines of evidence indicated that the hominid sequences in this library

were largely Neanderthal, rather than modern human contamination

. Mitochondrial PCR analysis of the extract used to build the library, using an
 261

amplicon of similar size as the average hominid sequence identified in the

library, revealed that only ~2% of the products were from contaminating

modern human DNA, whereas the remaining 98% were Neanderthal

. Signatures of damage in the hominid sequences that are characteristic of

ancient DNA also suggested that they were ancient.

Finally and most importantly, comparison of hominid sequences from the

library to orthologous human and chimpanzee genomic sequences identified

human-specific substitutions at sites where the hominid sequence was

identical to that of the chimpanzees, enabling us to make estimates of the

human-Neanderthal divergence time.

We initially assessed the Neanderthal genomic sequence content of library

NE1 by Sanger se-quencing of individual clones, which allowed individual

library inserts to be completely sequenced and thus provided a direct

measure of hominid insert size that could not be obtained from the ~100-bp

pyro sequencing reads. We identified hominid sequences in the library by

BLAST comparison to the reference human genome sequence.

In many cases, the human BLAST hit covered only part of the insert, because

the direct cloning method we employed produces chimeric inserts consisting

of smaller fragments ligated into larger concatemers.

The small average size of these putatively ancient Neanderthal fragments (bp)

is similar to results we previously obtained from two Pleistocene cave bear

libraries, in which the average library insert size was between 100 and 200 bp,

whereas BLAST hits to reference carnivore genome sequences were on

average 69 bp. The small BLAST hit sizes and insert sizes in both cave bear

and Neanderthal metage-nomic libraries are consistent with the degradation

of ancient genomic DNA into small fragments over tens of thousands of years,

illustrating the general condition of nuclear DNA in ancient remains.

 262

Sanger sequencing of individual clones from library NE1 suggested that it

contained sufficient amounts of Neanderthal sequence to conduct a random

sequence survey of the Neanderthal genome. However, the small percentage

of clones we identified as containing hominid sequences indicated that we

would have to sequence a very large number of clones to obtain enough

Neanderthal genome sequence for this analysis. We therefore carried out

deep sequencing of pooled inserts from library NE1 using massively parallel

pyro sequencing.

To obtain pooled inserts, we amplified transformed NE1 library DNA in liquid

batch culture and recovered library inserts from purified plasmid DNA by PCR

We generated 1.47 million pyrosequencing reads, compared each to the

human genome sequence with MEGABLAST, and obtained 7880 hits.

Assembly of these reads and re-analysis of the resulting scaffolds by BLASTN

produced 1126 unique Neanderthal loci, yielding 54,302 bp of Neanderthal

genomic sequence.

Assessment of pyrosequencing data qual-ity by comparison to Sanger

sequence data. The pyrosequencing approach generates significant amounts

of sequence but does so with a higher error rate than Sanger sequencing.

To assess the quality of Neanderthal pyrosequencing data, we generated

consensus sequences from pyrosequencing reads overlapping the same

Neanderthal genomic locus and filtered out low-quality positions in the

resulting contigs (quality score < 15).

To determine whether these contigs contained additional errors not detectable

by quality-score filtering, we also used Sanger sequencing to analyse, 19,200

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

Sanger sequencing and pyro-sequencing results for these 130 Neanderthal

loci agreed at 99.89% of un-gapped positions. In addition, Sanger sequencing

and pyrosequencing yielded Neanderthal sequences that were nearly equally

divergent from the human reference sequence (pyrosequencing = 0.47%

divergence, Sanger sequencing = 0.49%).

These results indicate that the frequency of single-base errors is probably no

greater in Neanderthal genomic sequence obtained from assembled quality-

filtered pyrosequencing data than in sequence obtained from Sanger

sequencing.

The low complexity of library NE1 made these analyses possible, because it

resulted in a limited number of clones in the library that were amplified by

batch culture and PCR and then sequenced in depth.

We estimated that the coverage obtained in library NE1 (~0.002%) is

significantly lower than that previously obtained in cave bear metagenomic

libraries prepared from samples of similar age as the Neanderthal sample

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.

Nevertheless, we were able to obtain substantial amounts of authentic

Neanderthal genomic sequence from the library by deep sequencing.

Comparison of orthologous Neanderthal, human, and chimpanzee genomic

sequences.

To ascertain whether the library NE1 hominid sequence we obtained was a

representative sampling of the Neanderthal genome, we identified each NE1

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

human chromosomes [43,946 bp in 1,039 loci.

 264

The amount of Neanderthal sequence aligned to each human chromosome

was highly correlated with sequenced chromosome length, indicating that the

Neanderthal sequences we obtained were randomly drawn from all

chromosomes (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.904, ).

The hominid hits included Y-chromosome sequences, demonstrating that our

sample was derived from a Neanderthal male. We annotated each

Neanderthal locus according to the annotations (known genes, conserved

noncoding sequences, and repeats) associated with the aligned human

sequence. Neanderthal sequences obtained by both Sanger sequencing and

pyro-sequencing showed a distribution of sequence features consistent with

the known distribution of these features in the human genome.

These sequences are therefore likely to represent a random sampling of the

Neanderthal genome.

Comparison of authentic Neanderthal sequence with orthologous

human and chimpanzee genomic sequences will reveal sites at which

Neanderthal is identical to chimpanzee but at which the human sequence has

undergone a mutation since the human-Neanderthal divergence. Determining

the number of human-specific mutations is critical to dating the human-

Neanderthal split.

To identify these events, we constructed alignments of orthologous human,

Neanderthal, and chimpanzee sequences and identified mutations specific to

each lineage by parsimony. We identified 34 human-specific substitutions in

37,636 human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee aligned positions, including

substitutions on chromosomes X and Y that were not considered in

subsequent analyses.

We also identified 171 sites with Neanderthal-specific substitutions relative to

human and chim-panzee.

 265

It has been shown that nucleotides in genuine ancient DNA are occasionally

chemically damaged, most frequently because of the deamination of cytosine

to uracil, resulting in the incorpora-tion of incorrect bases during PCR and

sequencing. This results in an apparent excess of C-to-T and G-to-A

mismatches (which are equivalent events) between the ancient sequence and

the modern genomic reference sequence. We observe a significant excess of

C-to-T and G-to-A mismatches (relative to T-to-C and A-to-G mismatches)

between human and NE1 hominid sequences obtained by both Sanger

sequencing and pyrosequencing [P << 0.0005, Fisher).

This accounts for the large number of Neanderthal-specific substitutions we

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

Neanderthal genomic sequence, the overall frequency of these events is

low (~0.37% of all sites), indicating that the vast majority of human-

Neanderthal-chimpanzee aligned positions are not likely to be significantly

affected by mis-incorporation errors.

The length distribution of ancient DNA fragments, when combined with the

sequence signatures of ancient DNA described above, offers another metric

for assessing the degree of modern human contamination in our library.

Based on the assumption that modern contaminating DNA fragments would

be longer than authentic ancient DNAs, which is supported by the observation

that contaminating modern human DNA fragments in the cave bear libraries

were on average much longer than the cave bear sequences (116 versus 69

bp), we examined the distribution of human-Neanderthal mismatches in our

data set as a function of alignment length.

 266

If a substantial fraction of the hominid sequence recovered from the

Neanderthal sample were actually modern human DNA, we would expect to

see a lower human-Neanderthal sequence divergence in the longer BLASTN

alignments than we observe in the entire data set, because the longer

hominid sequences would be enriched in modern human contaminants.

The excess of damage-induced Neanderthal-specific mismatches described

above would also be expected to decrease as alignment length increases,

because individual bases in the longer modern human fragments would show

relatively few chemical modifications. However, we did not observe these

trends in our Neanderthal sequence. The human-Neanderthal sequence

divergence in all autosomal alignments greater than 52 bp was similar to the

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

sequence we obtained is predominantly Neanderthal in origin.

Coalescence time of human and Neander-thal genomic sequences.

This data allowed us to examine for the first time the genetic relationship

between humans and Neanderthals using nuclear genomic sequences. We

first considered the average coalescence time for the autosomes between the

Neanderthal genomic sequence that we obtained and the reference human

genome sequence. We observed 502 human-chimpanzee autosomal

differences in the human-Neanderthal-chimpanzee sequence alignments we

constructed. Based on comparison to the Neanderthal sequence, 27 of these

differences were human-specific and therefore postdate the most recent

common ancestor (MRCA) of the human and Neanderthal sequences.

 267

Using this information, our maximum likelihood estimate of the average time

to the MRCA of these sequences is 706,000 years, with a 95% confidence

interval (CI) of 468,000 to 1,015,000 years.

Amount of unique Neanderthal sequence obtained from library NE1 by

Sanger sequencing of individual clones, as well as Sanger sequencing and

pyrosequencing of clones in batch culture. (N A.,)

Individual clones Batch culture Sequencing chemistry Sanger

Pyrosequencing Reads 9984 19,200 1,474,910

Average insert 134 bp 196 bp (N A )

Average BLAST hit 52 bp 52 bp 48 bp

Unique loci 131 69 1126

Total unique hominid 6845 bp 4103 bp 54,302 bp sequence

This calculation does not make use of Neanderthal specific changes, because

many of those events are due to DNA damage as described above.

In addition, we restricted our analysis to autosomal data, because these

represent 97% of our total data set and population genetic parameters are

likely to differ between the autosomes and sex chromosomes.

Our estimate uses a mutation rate obtained by setting the average

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

Inaccuracies in the human-chimpanzee divergence time would shift all the

time estimates and CIs presented here in proportion to the error.

Split time of ancestral human and Neanderthal populations.

Our estimate of the average common ancestor time reflects the average time

at which the Neanderthal and human reference sequences began to diverge

 268

in the common ancestral population, not the actual split time of the ancestral

populations that gave rise to Neanderthals and modern humans. To estimate

the actual split time of the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations, we

developed a method that incorporated data from the human and Neanderthal

reference sequences, as well as genotypes from 210 individuals with

genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data collected by the

International Hap Map Consortium .

We included the HapMap data because they indicate what proportion of sites

in the Neanderthal sequence fall within the spectrum of modern human

variation. For example, if the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations

split long ago, before the rise of most modern human genetic diversity

captured by the HapMap data, then Neanderthal sequence would almost

never carry the derived allele, relative to the orthologous chimpanzee

sequence, for a human SNP. Conversely, a more recent population split

would result in Neanderthal sequence frequently carrying the derived allele for

human SNPs.

To formalize this idea, we considered an explicit population model for the

relationship between Nean-derthals and each HapMap population (East

Asians, (A) Representation of each Neanderthal chromosome in 43.9 kb

amount of Neanderthal sequence aligned to each. Chromosomes X and Y of

NE1 hominid sequences displaying a statistically unambiguous best are

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.

(B) Representation of sequence features each human chromosome minus

gaps. Chromosomes are ranked by the in the NE1 hominid sequence shown

in (A). (Europeans, and Yoruba) separately.

 269

We assumed that Neanderthals and modern humans evolved from a single

ancestral population of 10,000 individuals and that the Neanderthal population

split away from the human ancestral population instan-taneously at a time in

the past, with no subsequent gene flow.

In order to model the demographic histories of the HapMap populations, we

made use of models and parameters estimated by Voight et al. based on re

sequencing data from 50 unlinked, noncoding regions.

Frequency distribution of 171 Neanderthal-specific substitutions observed in

37,636 bp of aligned human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee genomic

sequence. Complementary substitutions (such as C to T and G to A) are

considered equivalent events.

. (A) Log-likelihood curve of the time to the MRCA of the Neanderthal and

human reference sequences.

(B) Smoothed relative log-likelihood estimates of the split times between

different human pop-ulations and the Nean-derthal population.

(C) Impact of changes in the ancient population size on split time estimates

for five models that are consistent with modern polymorphism data.

KY, thousand years.

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

constant population size or the contraction modest bottlenecks for East

Asians and Europeans and modest exponential growth for Yoruba.

We then constructed a simulation-based composite likelihood framework to

estimate the time of the human-Neanderthal population split.

 270

At each site in the human-Neanderthal-chimpanzee alignments we

constructed, we recorded the Neanderthal and human reference alleles

relative to chimpanzee. We also determined, separately for each population,

whether each site was a HapMap SNP in that population and if so, the allele

frequency.

We used simulations to estimate the probability of each possible data

configuration at a single site as a function of the human-Neanderthal split time.

The simulations used the estimated population demography for each HapMap

population and a probabilistic model of SNP ascertainment to match the

overall density and frequency spectrum of HapMap Phase II SNPs.

Likelihood curves for the split time were computed by multiplying likelihoods

across sites as though they were independent. In practice, this is an excellent

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-

specific allele or SNP. Bootstrap simulations confirmed that our composite

likelihood method yields appropriate CIs for the split time.

Using this approach, the maximum likelihood estimates for the split time of the

ancestral human and Neanderthal populations are 440,000 years (95% CI of

170,000 to 620,000 years) based on the European data, 390,000 years

(170,000 to 670,000 years) for East Asians, and 290,000 years (120,000 to

570,000 years) for Yoruba.

(These values predate the earliest known appearance of anatomically

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.

The average of these estimates, ~370,000 years, is thus a sensible point

estimate for the split time.

 271

Substantial contamination with modern human DNA would cause these

estimates to be artificially low, but 2% contamination, the rate suggested by

mitochondrial PCR analysis of the primary extract used to construct the library,

would have essentially no impact .

Our estimates of the human-Neanderthal split time might depend heavily on

the assumption that the ancestral effective population size of humans was

10,000 individuals. To address this, we explored a set of models in which the

ancestral human population expanded or contracted at least 200,000 years

ago. We found that much of the parameter space, though not the original

model, could be excluded on the basis of modern human polymorphism data

from Voight et al.. We repeated our likelihood analysis of the Neanderthal

data using models incorporating ancient expansion or contraction that are

consistent with modern data and found that these did not substantially change

our population split time estimates.

Our data include three sites at which Neanderthal carries the derived allele for

a polymorphic HapMap SNP. These sites are unlikely to represent modern

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

transition in Neanderthals that is characteristic of chemical damage to DNA.

These observations indicate that the Neanderthal sequence may often

coalesce within the human ancestral tree. Based on simulations of our best-fit

model for Yoruba, we estimate that Neanderthal is a true out

group for approximately 14% (assuming a split time of 290,000 years, the

Yoruba estimate) to 26% (assuming a split time of 440,000 years, the

European estimate) of the autosomal genome of modern humans, although

more data will be required to achieve a precise estimate.

 272

Lack of evidence for admixture between humans and Neanderthals.

Because Neanderthals coexisted with modern humans in Europe, there has

long been interest in whether Neanderthals might have contributed to the

European gene pool.

Previous studies comparing human and Neanderthal mitochondrial

sequences did not find evidence of a Neanderthal genetic contribution to

modern humans. However, the utility of mitochondrial data in addressing this

question is limited in that it is restricted to a single locus and, due to the

maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, is informative only about

admixture between Neanderthal females and modern human males .

Moreover, it has been argued that some aspects of modern human autosomal

data may be the result of modest levels of Neanderthal admixture.

If Neanderthal admixture did indeed occur, then this could manifest in our

data as an abundance of low-frequency derived alleles in Europeans where

the derived allele matches Neanderthal.

No site in the data set appears to be of this type. In order to formally evaluate

this hypothesis, we extended our composite likelihood simulations to include a

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

contribution to modern genetic diversity is zero.

However, the 95% CI for this estimate ranges from 0 to 20%, so a definitive

answer to the admixture question will require additional Neanderthal

sequence data.
 273

Targeted recovery of specific Neanderthal sequences by direct genomic

Selection

. Although we have recovered significant amounts of Neanderthal genome

sequence using a metagenomic approach, hundreds of gigabases of

sequence would be required to achieve reasonable coverage of a single

Neanderthal genome by this method. Moreover, our results indicate that at

least 99.5% of the Neanderthal sequence that would be obtained would be

identical to the modern human sequence. The human-Neanderthal sequence

differences that would yield great insight into human biology and evolution are

thus rare events in an overwhelming background of uninformative sequence.

We therefore explored the potential of metagenomic libraries to serve as

substrates to recover specific Neanderthal sequences of interest by targeted

methods. To this end, we developed a direct genomic selection approach to

recover known and unknown sequences from metagenomic ancient DNA

libraries. We first attempted to recover specific sequences from a Pleistocene

cave bear metagenomic library we previously constructed and designed PCR

probes corresponding to 96 sequences highly conserved among mammals

but not previously shown to be present in the cave bear library.

We amplified these sequences from the human genome and hybridized the

resulting probes to PCR-amplified cave bear library inserts produced as

described above. Recovered library DNAs were amplified by PCR and

sequenced. We successfully recovered five targets consisting of a known

enhancer of Sox9 and conserved sequences near Tbx3, Shh, Msx2,and Gdf6.

In principle, these sequences could be derived from contaminating DNA

rather than the cave bear library. Critically, the captured cave bear sequences

were flanked by library vector sequence, directly demonstrating that these

 274

sequences were derived from a cloned library insert and not from

contaminating DNA introduced during direct selection.

Based on these results, we attempted to recover specific Neanderthal

sequences from library NE1. We focused on recovering sequences that we

had previously identified by shotgun sequencing because of the low

complexity of library NE1, and were able to recover 29 of 35 sequences we

targeted. The authenticity of these sequences was confirmed by the presence

of library vector sequences in the reads.

Our success in recovering both previously unknown cave bear and known

Neanderthal genomic sequences using direct genomic selection indicates that

this is a feasible strategy for purifying specific cloned Neanderthal sequences

out of a high background of Neanderthal and contaminating microbial DNA.

This raises the possibility that, should multiple Neanderthal metagenomic

libraries be constructed from independent samples, direct selection could be

used to recover Neander-thal sequences from several individuals to obtain

and confirm important human-specific and Neanderthal specific substitutions.

Conclusions.

The current state of our knowledge concerning Neanderthals and their

relationship to modern humans is largely inference and speculation based on

archaeological data and a limited number of hominid remains. In this study,

we have demonstrated that Neanderthal genomic sequences can be

recovered using a metagenomic library-based approach and that specific

Neanderthal sequences can be obtained from such libraries by direct

selection. Our study thus provides a framework for the rapid recovery of

Neanderthal sequences of interest from multiple independent specimens,

without the need for whole-genome re sequencing.

 275

Such a collection of targeted Neanderthal sequences would be of immense

value for understanding human and Neanderthal biology and evolution.

Future Neanderthal genomic studies, including targeted and whole-genome

shotgun sequencing, will provide insight into the profound phenotypic

divergence of humans both from the great apes and from our extinct hominid

relatives, and will allow us to explore aspects of Neanderthal biology not

evident from artefacts and fossils.

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

to state that it should be on-going and the results published.

On saying that I have placed another DNA research project here below.

Such research in important but only when it relates directly to the

Neanderthals and this Research on the Neanderthals.

Neandertals and Moderns Mixed, and It Matters

JOA O ZILHA O

Twenty-.ve years ago, the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe

could be represented as a straightforward process subsuming both the

emergence of symbolic behaviour and the replacement of Neandertals by

modern humans.

The Aurignacian was a proxy for the latter, during which enhanced cognitive

capabilities explained ornaments and art. The few instances of Neanderthal

symbolism were deemed too long postdate contact and dismissed as

imitation without understanding, if not geological contamination.

 276

Such views were strengthened by the recent finding that, in southern Africa,

several features of the European Upper Paleolithic, including bone tools,

ornaments, and microliths, emerged much earlier.

Coupled with genetic suggestions of a recent African origin for extant humans,

fossil discoveries bridging the transition between archaic and moderns in

the realm of anatomy seemingly closed the case.

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

the nuclear genome rejecting strict replacement models based on mtDNA

alone, the small number of early modern specimens that passed the test of

direct dating present archaic features unknown in the African lineage,

suggesting admixture at the time of contact.

In the realm of culture, the archaeological evidence also supports a

Neanderthal contribution to Europes earliest modern human societies, which

feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are

characteristic of such Neanderthal-associated archaeological entities as the

Cha telperronian and the Uluzzian.

The chronometric data suggest that, north of the Ebro divide, the entire

interaction process may have been resolved within the millennium centred

around 42,000 calendar years ago. Such a rapid absorption of the

Neandertals is consistent with the size imbalance between the two gene

reservoirs and further supports signi.cant levels of admixture.

This review uses a calibrated time production rendered calibration im-

scale. Suggestions that spikes in 14C possible in the period of the Middle-to-

Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe1,2 are now superseded, and the

different calibration tools available.

 277

The notion that the patterns of variability in extant humans mtDNA indi-Key

words: Neandertals, modern humans, orna-cate a recent African ancestry has

Cha telperronian, Aurignacian been central to complete replacement models

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

is considered, the picture changes.

For instance, a unique pattern of nucleotide polymor-phism is now known that

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

implica-tion is that the early Upper Pleisto-cene expansion of modern humans

in-volved some level of admixture with contemporary archaic groups.

Based on a standard phylogeo-graphic technique, the multilocus nested-clade

analysis, the most recent review of the evidence from 25 non-recombining

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 .

with isolation by distance, and that the complete re-placement model is

rejected with a P-value of <10-17. This study, however, does not exclude the

possibility that total replacement occurred in restricted areas; conceivably, the

Neandertals, in particular, could well have become extinct without descent

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

todays humans and undetected in early modern European1214 has been

used to support precisely such notions of the Neandertals fundamental

separate-ness from the human tree.

However, because of several unresolved technical and methodological

problems, such DNA studies must be taken with great caution.

 278

For instance, DNA degrades with time, a process that can generate

mutational artefacts. The production of such artefacts in the extraction chain

has also been observed in controlled experi-ments; some loci in particular

seem to be repeatedly, non-randomly affected, and among them are those

where Neanderthal divergence has been ob-served.15,16 Contamination is

another unresolved issue, particularly where the a DNA of early moderns is

concerned.

As Paabo pointed out, Cro-Magnon DNA is so similar to modern human

DNA that there is no way to say whether what has been seen is real.

Thus, failure to identify Neanderthal mtDNA in a given early modern hu-man

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

paleontological grounds, is clearly Neanderthal, current criteria of

authentication dictate rejection of the results, not the conclusion that the

material belonged to a genetically modern Neanderthal.

The logical implications are, .first, that early modern DNA data cannot at

present be considered and, second, that current perceptions of Neanderthal

aDNA variability may well be constrained. Given these problems, it is clear

that the current framework of aDNA research is inherently biased against

admixture, which makes it all the more signi.cant that the combined fossil and

extant genetic evidence is consis-tent with levels of Neanderthal contribution

to Europes earliest modern humans as high as 73.8%.14,2023 A re-cent

simulation study suggests that such levels must have been negligible if not nil

(at most, 0.1%),24 but this conclusion is already contained in the

anthropologically premises of the tested admixture model.25

Genetics, therefore, does not reject Neanderthal-modern admixture.

 279

But is there any positive evidence that it oc-curred? Arguably, that is exactly

what the most recent developments in the field of human palaeontology

suggest. Over the last few years, direct dating of the remains has

demonstrated that the large majority of Europes purported early modern

human data were instead of Holocene age. Their marked morphological

modernity and contrast with even such late Neandertals as Saint-Cesaire

supported suggestions of major physical anthropological discontinuity and

hence, complete population replacement at the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic

transition. The illusory nature of such a contrast is now apparent.

Moreover, the data forecast shows that it sufficiently complete to be

taxonomically diagnostic and, in the process of that determination were shown

to date to within a few millennia of the time of contact, feature a diverse array

of anatomically archaic, often specially Neanderthal traits unknown in the

Middle and early Upper Pleistocene of Africa. These fossils .nds are Oase

(Roma-nia), Mladec. (Czech Republic) and Lagar Velho (Portugal), the latter

being of relevance here despite its significantly later chronology, because

Neandertals survived in Iberia for much longer than elsewhere in Europe.

Where the Mladec. crania are concerned, the existence of traits such as

prominent occipital buns, broad inter-orbital breadths, and juxtamastoid

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

symphyseal prole, and the presence of a suprainiac fossa.

In the Oase fossils, the list includes lingual bridging of the mandibular

foramen, a parietal/frontal curvature fully in the Neanderthal range, and third

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

susceptible to change during the ontogenetic cycle, they must resect

inheritance, the persistence in these overall modern individuals of genes

transmitted by archaic ancestorsin Europe, the Neandertals. Although this

proposition initially faced a certain level of inevitable scepticism, the body of

data and arguments subsequently brought to support it remain unchallenged.

In sum, nothing in the genetic and fossil evidence reviewed here suggests the

existence of fundamental biological barriers preventing fruitful interaction

between Neandertals and moderns at the time of contact.

At least, most now agree that the issue should be approached with no

pre-conceptions, and that it is up to the empirical record to decide whether

such admixture actually occurred.

How can archaeology contribute to this debate?

Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends

on human volition, not natural selection), detecting a biological contribution

from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an

equivalent signature must exist in the realm of culture. However, if such a

signature is found to exist, then the case for admixture is strengthened.

Throughout the 1990s, any assessment of this issue was bound to be

controversial because there was no consensus on the chronology of the

archaeological entities providing a cultural background for the relevant human

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

represent the first such people to enter the continent.

 281

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

support in the patterns of spatio-temporal distribution of the latest Neanderthal

remains. In fact, nowhere north of the Ebro divide, from El Sidron, Spain, in

the west to Lakonis, Greece, in the east, do Neandertal remains or cultural

manifestations that can be securely associated with them, such as the

Chatelperronian of France, the Uluzzian of Italy, or the Micoquian of

Germany, postdate the 42nd millennium calBP.

The two putative exceptions are no more. That the ca. 29-28 kyr 14Cbp

results for the Neanderthal material in level G1 of Vindija could only be

minimum ages has now been vindicated by reanalysis of the samples.

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

multiple reliable dates in excess of 36 kyr 14Cbp.

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

radiocarbon dating of bone samples having a geological context and chemical

characteristics that indicated incomplete decontamination.

The impact of such factors on the chronology of samples from this period is

now widely accepted.

Radiocarbon results for the Klisoura 1 cave in Greece place the Uluz-zian at

ca. 44 kyr calBP.

Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends

on human volition, not natural selection), detecting a biological contribution

from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an

equivalent signature must exist in the realm of culture.

 282

However, if such a signature is found to exist, then the case for admixture is

strengthened. cave sites the Uluzzian stratigraphic ally underlies a region-

wide chronos-tratigraphic marker, the Campanian Ignimbrite, consistently

dated by 39A/ 40A to ca. 39 kyr calBP, and is further separated from that

marker by Aurignacian levels or by levels with a mix of Uluzzian and

Aurignacian material. Where the Chatelperronian is concerned, all

accelerator mass spectrometry results recently obtained for the sites of

Brassempouy, Caune de Belvis, Grotte XVI, La Quina, Roc-de-Combe and

Chatelperron, place it before ca. 42 kyr calBP.

In the light of these results, it is clear that the key site of the Grotte du Renne

can be no exception . Moreover, the notion that a very late Chatelperronian

would be demonstrated by the pat-terns of interstrati.cation observed at El

Pendo, Roc-de-Combe, Le Piage, and Chatelperron is now all but

abandoned.

Careful geological and taphonomic analysis of these sites, coupled with some

re-excavation, showed that the El Pendo sequence is entirely re-deposited;

that the putative Chatelperronian lens sandwiched between Aurignacian

deposits at Le Piage is in fact a mixed deposit in secondary position; and that

excavation error and faulty intra site correlations lay behind the Roc-de-

Combe pattern. At Chatelperron itself, the study of the museum collections

and associated documentation shows that the Chatelperronian levels

putatively situated above a lens of Aurignacian material are no more than

back dirt from the nineteenth-century excavations.

In western Europe, the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian are followed by the

Aurignacian, associated with diag-nostic modern human remains at La Quina

and Les Rois.

 283

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

older than ca. 38 kyr calBP.

The dental material from the Aurignacian of Brassem-pouy, dated to ca. 37

kyr calBP, is also of modern human, although the issue remains controversial.

On the basis of cultural continuity, it is in any case reasonable to assume that

the same people who manufactured the Aurignacian ca. 38-37 kyr calBP were

also responsible for earlier manifestations of the techno complex.

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

Aurignacian, and with the traditional view of the latter as a long-lasting

archaeological entity united by strong elements of cultural continuity.

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.

Among the sites that yielded Chatelperronian ornaments, the Grotte du

Renne stands out. Following recognition that the human remains from the

corresponding levels were of Neandertals, it was suggested that the

ornaments re-ected trade with or scavenging from abandoned sites of

contemporary Aurignacian modern humans, if not simply intrusion from an

overlying Aurignacian level.

Because most ornaments come from basal level X, not from level VIII, which

is in direct contact with the Aurignacian, these interpretations are inconsistent

with the stratigraphic distribution of the .nds and with the manufacture by

products indicative of the in-situ production of ornaments, bone tools, and

decorated bird bone tubes. Moreover, the often-quoted ca. 32-33 kyr 14Cbp

dates are clearly rejuvenated.

 284

As indicated by the discrepancy between results for outside and inside

areas of the same levels at Fumane (Italy) and Sesselfels (Germany), the

cause is bone digenesis after occupation, when collapse of the roof

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

indicator of its age here.

Recent developments have strength-ened the view that we are not dealing

with an epigonical Aurignacian-impacted phenomenon restricted to a

peripheral region inhabited by residual Neanderthal survivors.

The notion that incomplete decontamination systematically rejuvenates bone

samples from this time range, especially in the examples given, is now

accepted even by those who most vocally opposed it.

Study of the human teeth confirmed their Neanderthal affinities.

Publication of the lithic assem-blages yielded quantitative data that greatly

strengthen the inconsistency of the hypothesis that the ornaments are

intrusive.

The conclusion that these pierced and grooved teeth, bones, and fossils stand

for the emergence of symbolic behaviour among Neandertals before modern

human immigration is further supported by similar .nds from Quinc ay,where

contamination from later occupations can be completely excluded because

none exists.

Vertical Distribution of the Archaeological Finds in the Grotte du Renne.

Neanderthal. Level Culture Lithics % Ornaments % Bone Awls %

Teeth % VII VIII IX X Aurignacian Chatelperronian 11,901 8763 11,856

62,684 12.50 9.20 12.45 65.84 7 4 4 25 17.50 10.00 10.00 62.50 8 4 5 36

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,

characterized by large numbers of Font-Yves points and Dufour blade-lets of

the long, slender Dufour sub-type, both made on blanks extracted from

unidirectional prismatic cores in the framework of a single, continuous

reduction sequence , previ-ously considered to be a Mediterranean variant of

the classical Aurignacian, is instead a chronological phase.

The recent re-excavation of the key cave site of Isturitz and the revision of

the stratigraphy of Le Pi-age show that, in France, as in Italy or Spain, this

Proto Aurignacian stratigraphic ally precedes the Aurignacian I with split-

based bone points and carinated scrapers.

These developments, combined with detailed critiques of the available corpus

of radiocarbon results, eliminated the apparent discrepancy between

stratigraphic and chronometric patterns: At ca. 42-41 kyr calBP , the

Proto-Aurignacian postdates the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian.

The Aurig-nacian I is nowhere earlier than ca. 40.5 kyr calBP.

Suggestions that at least some Aurignacian occurrences could actually

predate the Neanderthal-associated early Upper Paleolithic cultures of Europe

are based on four sites only.

At Chatelperron, the claim is that spit B4 of Delportes 1950s excavations

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,

which yielded a small assemblage of artefacts in secondary position sitting on

an eroded surface that yielded selected charcoal dated to ca. 43 kyr calBP.
 286

However, as recently acknowledged by the sites researchers, dating small

charcoal fragments dispersed in soli.ucted layers must be avoided because

of the lateral supply of older charcoal fragments.

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.

A related situation exists at Keilberg-Kirche, Germany, where most .nds

come from surface collections and displaced deposits.

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

Aurignacian diagnostics are carinated burins characteristic of the Evolved

Aurignacian (II-IV), every-where else dated to <ca. 37.5 kyr calBP.

Where the Geissenklosterle is concerned, the controversies2,40 surrounding

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

accord with the Au-rignacian I af.nities of the Lithics.

A recent proposition is that the pre-Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic entities of

central and eastern Europe, such as the Bachokirian of Bulgaria or the

Bohunician of Moravia and Poland, which are dated to the ca. 44-42 kyr calBP

interval, represent a precocious extension of the modern human range into

the Danubian basin.

This scenario is based on perceived similarities with a Levantine entity, the

Emirian or Initial Upper Paleo-lithic (IUP), assumed to be a product of modern

human culture. The assumption is reasonable, but the link with the Danube is

extremely weak. It rests on the observation that Levallois blade production is

unknown in Moravia before the Bohunician, and that the latters reduction
 287

strategy of aiming at the extraction of morpho-logically Levallois points via

non-Le-vallois prismatic methods is akin to that in the basal levels of Boker

Tachtit, Israel.

These arguments assume that the technological transition observed at Boker

Tachtit is a unique event, but the independent emergence and disappearance

of prismatic blade technologies is recorded at different moments in time and

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

separating it from the local Micoquian.

In nearby southern Poland, the sites of Piekary IIa and Ksiecia Jozefa

document the in-situ development of volumetric Upper Paleolithic methods of

blade debitage out of Levallois .

. The latest evidence of Neandertals north of the Ebro divide and the IUP

Bohunician hypothesis of a Danubian wedge of modern human settlement ca.

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

lack of associated human remains.

Parsimony dictates that there is no need to look into the Middle East for the

source of the Bohunician if a better local alternative is available.

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

regional Middle Paleolithic suggests that it relates to Neandertals

 288

. The same reasoning pertains to the Bachokirian of Bulgaria.

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

being a taxonomically un-diagnostic left mandibular fragment with deciduous

1.rst molar. Moreover, the recent review of the relevant collections fully

confirmed previous reservations concerning the diagnosis of the relevant

assemblages from Bacho Kiro and Temnata as Aurignacian or pre-

Aurignacian.

In fact, technologically, these are Middle Paleolithic assemblages where, in

contrast with the IUP and the Bohunician, blade production is fully within the

Levallois concept.

This evidence indicates that Europe remained entirely a Neanderthal

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

onset of Greenland Interstadial (GIS).

In terms of archaeological entities, these conclusions have two corollaries of

crucial importance:

1. Any manifestations of human behaviour predating the 43rd millennium BP

must be attributed to Neandertals, who were therefore the authors of the

Chatelperronian, the Uluzzian, the Bohunician, and equivalent early Upper

Paleolithic cultures of Europe dis-playing features of regional continuity with

the preceding Middle Paleolithic.

 289

2. Any manifestations of human behaviour postdating the 41st millennium BP

must be attributed to modern humans, who were therefore the authors of the

Aurignacian I and the Aurigna-cian II, including at Vindija, where level G1 is a

palimpsest covering an extended interval of time. The Neanderthal remains

are in all likelihood associated with that levels Szeletian material, not with the

split-based point also found there.

INTERACTION

Given the preceding, ambiguity is now restricted to the particular

archaeological entity that available dates place in the exact interval during

which, by whatever mechanism, Ne-andertals were replaced by modern

humans, the Proto Aurignacian. In fact, depending on potentially regionally

variable patterns of interbreeding (extensive, negligible, or non-existent),

manifestations of human behaviour from the time of contact may relate to

modern humans, Neandertals, or variously mixed populations.

That the dispersal of modern humans into Europe is clearly involved in the

emergence of the ProtoAurignacian, is suggested by several lines of evidence:

1.

Technologically and typologi-cally, the ProtoAurignacian is virtually

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.

Chronologically, the two entities are broadly contemporary. At Ksar Akil, in

Lebanon, the Early Ahmarian is undated but lies between the Aurignacian and

the IUP; U cag.izli, in southern Turkey, provides a solid chronological

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

date for Kebara (ca. 40.5 kyr calBP, on hearth charcoal).

 290

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.

In marked contrast with the geographical fragmentation of the immediately

preceding Neandertal-associated techno complexes, the ProtoAurignacian

extends uniformly across Europe, from Romania (Trinova) and Austria

(Krems-Hundsteig) in the east to Cantabrian Spain (Morin) in the west.

A further point of cultural similarity resides in the fact that the two entities

feature marine shell beads as orna-ments.

One species in particular, Nassarius ( Arcularia) gibbosula, represents 40%

of all beads in the Early Ahmarian of Ksar Akil and is also well represented

among ProtoAurignacian marine shell ornaments; the latters range of taxa is

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

Bay levels of Blombos, are marine shell beads.

Since the single species used, Nassarius kraussianus, is very similar to

Nassarius gibbosula, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the IUP, the

Early Ahmarian, and the ProtoAurignacian are lithic technological expressions

of a single deeply rooted cultural tradition extending all the way back into the

Middle Stone Age of southern Africa and, therefore, modern human-related.

Such speculations are in any case fully consistent with the evidence of the

long-term stability of traditions of personal ornamentation, which, throughout

 291

the Upper Paleolithic, often remain unchanged for tens of millennia.70

Both the ProtoAurignacian and the subsequent Aurignacian I however, also

have other types of personal ornaments, ones that are as completely

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

obviously cannot be attributed to raw-material availability, and can only relate

to cultural preference.

It is thus of great significance that those ProtoAurignacian novelties

correspond precisely to the only kinds of personal ornaments recorded in the

Bachokirian, the Uluzzian, and the Chatelperronian; that is, to the kinds of

personal ornaments in use among the Neanderthal societies that immigrating

modern humans encountered in Europe.

The conclusion that the ProtoAurignacian represents the blending of two

separate traditions of personal ornamentation thus seems inescapable.

In any other archaeological or anthropological context, few would question it.

Clearly, the alternative view that, after 30,000 years of total and absolute

conservatism, moderns would have suddenly decided to adopt such kinds of

ornaments at precisely the time of contact with the Neandertals, but

in-dependently of any influence from them, amounts to a virtually impossible

coincidence.

COGNITION

A corollary of the chronological patterns I have reviewed is that fully symbolic

sapiens behaviour, as measured by exactly the same standards currently

used to assess the African evidence, emerged in Europe when the continent
 292

was still exclusively inhabited by Neandertals.

Many have attempted to suggest specially modern human behaviour as

opposed to a specially Neanderthal behaviour, and all have met with a

similar result: No such evidence exists that does not end up with data that

some modern humans as behaviourally Neanderthal and some Neanderthal

groups as behaviourally modern.

In the realm of subsistence, for in-stance, early OIS-3 Neandertals were

logistically organized hunters at Sal-zgitter-Lebenstedt, in northern Ger-many,

where they exploited reindeer in exactly the same manner as the

Ahrensbourgians who recolonized the area 40,000 years later.

In the Le-vant, however, they had a broad-spectrum economy, including

signi.cant .

Many have attempted to de.ne a specially modern human behaviour as

opposed to a specially Neanderthal behaviour, and all have met with a

similar result: No such de.nition exists that does not end up de.ning some

modern humans as behaviourally Neanderthal and some Neanderthal groups

as behaviourally modern.

Exploitation of small mammals and plant foods, as revealed by recent studies

of phytoliths and macro plant remains from Kebara, Amud, and Tor Faraj.

In areas of the Iberian Peninsula where the present-day coastline is

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

Mousterian. In sum, Neanderthal adaptations ranged through the entire gamut

of ethno-graphically documented settlement-subsistence strategies.

There is no such thing as Neanderthal behaviour.

 293

It has been argued that modern cognition depended on the acquisition of

enhanced working memory (EWM), a cognitive feature associated with the

emergence of language and related to the ability to hold in mind

representations currently not held in view.

This feature is apparent in paleotechnic systems reacting remote action and

contingency planning, such as the production of artificial raw materials

requiring procurement in disparate sources and careful control of chemical

variables throughout a complex chain of technical operations.

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-

bark pitch found in the Micoquian site of Konigsaue, in Germany, fully

matches their requirements for EWM in the archaeological record: It was

produced through a several-hour smouldering process that required a strict

manufacture protocol under exclusion of oxygen and at a tightly controlled

temperature between 340C and 400C.80.

One can hardly imagine how such Pleistocene high-tech could have been

developed, transmitted, and maintained in the absence of symbolic thinking

and language as we know them.

In a nutshell, when only technological systems are considered, the hallmark

of cognitive modernity is documented among Neandertals 40,000 years

before comparable examples are offered by modern human societies.

In this regard, one must also note that the widespread notion that the first

modern humans in Europe were in fact astonishingly precocious artists

mis-represents the facts.

After 150 years of intensive archaeological research, evidence to that effect is

actually non-existent. Where both mobiliary and parietal art are concerned,

the earliest anywhere in the world are the .gurines of the German
 294

Aurigna-cian82 and the Chauvet cave paint-ings.

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

by some 5,000 years the arrival of moderns in Europe.

This art, therefore, holds the same relevance for the explanation of patterns

of cultural interaction at the time of Neanderthal-modern human contact as do

PowerPoint presentations for the explanation of the rise of Sumerian

civilization.

DEMOGRAPHY

Even if a certain level of long-distance stimulus generated by contacts along

the frontier with contemporary, presumably modern human societies of the

Levant was involved in these processes, the conclusion is obvious:

Neandertals and moderns featured similar levels of cognitive development

and behavioural modernity.

Such issues can thus be effectively re-moved from any further consideration

as potential barriers to admixture. But if the eventual disappearance of

anatomically archaic but behaviourally modern Neandertals was not due to a

putative biologically based competitive disadvantage, how do we then explain

it?

That no Neanderthal mtDNA survives today simply indicates that a particular

maternal lineage that existed 50,000 years ago is no more, but tells us little

about when and why it disappeared.

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

dramatic climatic oscillations recorded in the climate proxies of Oxygen

Isotope Stage 3 (OIS-3), their demographic corollaries are often overlooked.

Most assessments of mtDNA histories through the critical period before and

after the time of contact only consider two population scenarios, stability and

expansion. It is clear, however, that contractions must also have occurred,

producing bottlenecks that must go a long way toward explaining patterns of

lineage loss and survival.

A case in point with major implications for the issues at stake here is the

environmental crisis associated with the emergence of the Aurignacian I in the

archaeological record, soon after moderns are .first documented in Europe

. At this timeHeinrich Event 4, ca. 40-39 kyr calBPextremely cold

conditions prevailed, imposing on human populations the highest level of

climatic stress recorded in the entire Upper Pleistocene.

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

human settlement in Europe must have contracted by as much as 30%,

implying a major population crash.

No modelling of the genetic history of OIS-3 Europe and of the role that

Neandertals played in it can be considered realistic if it does not account for a

demographic crisis of such significance.

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

contribution of Neandertals, still visible in skeletal traits of people dated to

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

most parsimo-nious explanation is demography, which suffices to propose a

broad his-torical reconstruction of the process.

Europe is one-third of Africas size, and during glacial times only a narrow belt

of the continent south of 53 N was available for settlement, the loss to

mountain glaciation compensated for by the exposure of extended areas of

the present-day continental platform. Moreover, as in todays subarctic areas,

European territories would have had lower carrying capacities than the

subtropical savannahs of Africa, with attendant implications for human

population density.

In sum, because modern humans were African and Neandertals European,

the modern human gene reservoir must have been many times larger than the

Neanderthal one. As long as the two reservoirs remained largely isolated,

Neanderthalensis could be and was maintained. But once populations

expanded in the two continents as a result of technological im-provements

that led to major gains in the inefficiency of resource exploitation, signi.cant

contact and interaction would have begun along what previously had been a

largely impermeable frontier.

At that time, the two reservoirs effectively merged. In such a situation, even a

minor edge of moderns in demographic parameters other than simple

numbers, such as fertility, would, in less than one millennium, suffice to bring

about the demise of the Neandertals, especially if inter-breeding was common.

One millennium is the empirically observed interval during which the

interaction game was resolved.

As different authors have discussed the technic innovations is best explained

by population growth requiring increased levels of inter-group and intragroup

social interaction eventually resulting in the emergence of systems of personal

 297

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

Africa provided by the very fact of Neanderthalensis suggest that the

European process was largely independent, and there is no reason to

suppose that it was not dictated by similar underlying causes.

In fact, vast areas deserted during OIS-4 times, including southern England,

Belgium, Germany, and Poland, feature a relatively dense network of OIS-3

sites that, in central Europe, are clearly related to each other by a shared,

very particular technology, the Micoquian.

This simultaneous emergence or re-emergence of personal ornamentation

can thus be taken as a proxy for levels of population increase leading to the

crossing of a demographic threshold and precipitating contact, followed by

admixture and, eventually, absorption of the smaller population by the larger

one.

CONCLUSION

When modern humans entered Europe, they encountered people with the

same cognitive capabilities and featuring identical levels of cultural

achievement. In such a situation, the entire gamut of interaction situations,

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

size of the gene reservoirs involved explaining the eventual loss of

Neanderthal mtDNA lineages among later and extant humans.

 298

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

genetic studies that a contribution of Neandertals to present Europeans is

currently undetectable and, therefore, must be negligible, and that patterns of

extant humans ancestry are essentially related to the recent Out-of-Africa

dispersal of anatomically modern people.

The European evidence, however, does have a major implication for studies

of modern human origins where issues of symbolism, language, and cognition

are concerned. The Blombos cave .nds effectively refuted the notion that the

appearance of ornaments and art could be explained by cognitive

developments precipitated by a genetic mutation occurring ca. 50 kyr calBP.

By the same token, if Neanderthal-associated archaeological cultures

featuring all elements of behavioural modernity existed in Europe many

millennia before the arrival of modern humans, and if contact entailed

significant levels of interaction and admixture, then the acquisition of fully

sapiens behaviour cannot be construed as the outcome of an genetic bio

cultural process restricted to the African Homo heidelbergensis lineage.

The ultimate implication of the European evidence, thus, is that the hardware

requirements for symbolic thinking must have been in place before the Middle

Pleistocene divergence of the Neanderthal lineage. This conclusion has three

corollaries: .first, that the much later appearance of personal ornaments and

art represents a qualitative leap in culture, the operation of demographic and

social factors triggered by technological improvements and adaptive success;

second, that it is highly unlikely that the Neanderthal-sapiens split involved

differentiation at the bio-species level; and third, that the search for the

genetic and cognitive processes underly-ing the emergence of language and

symbolism in the human lineage needs to be refocused on aspects of the

 299

Lower Pleistocene emergence and evolution of Homo erectus people.

It is easy to see that the above research is more in depth than the first

example and as far as I am concerned accurate and presents the evidence

well. Below I have placed some of the mentioned artefacts for reference

linked to the second part of the example research above.

 300

Note the small shells used for decoration.

 301

I am not concerned that I have not been able to include all the photographic

material connected to the Neanderthals of Europe because not only would it

take up many page spaces but there is always the risk that some of the

photographic data may be wrong. I have therefore included only a small

selection that I feel is more related to this research of mine.

Skull from France

Tools from France

 302

A TABLE FOR GUIDENCE NEANDERTHAL MAN.

THE KNOWN BONES OF THE NEANDERTHALS.

This of course includes skulls and at times locations but as an end to my

research I needed to include many of the graphics for comparison and

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

BONES AND MORE BONES.

Fossil Hominids from Kenya dating 1 and 2 million years ago

H. habilis, H.erectus (Early) and robust Paranthropus.

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

what we know of the Neanderthals in Europe that Neanderthals were ever in

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

other Neanderthal skulls. The sunken cheek is I am sure of, is due to

distortion and not a natural feature but damage during the fossilization

process.
 305

The Saccopastore skull from Italy. Petralona skull Greece 300,000 years.

120,000 years old. Small brain. Looks like a Neanderthal.

The skull at the back however H.erectus.

The Saint-Cesaire skeleton in a rock shelter. France.

 306

From the French sites of La Chapelle-aux Saints.

Gibraltar Croatia

Two female Neanderthal skulls is from Krapina in Croatia and on left is the

Gibraltar skull. The data is in the research file above.

 307

St. Cesaire French skull.

36,0000 years Neanderthal hand

Modern human pelvis Neanderthal pelvis

 308

As many of the remains of the Neanderthals are found in caves, sometimes at

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.

What is also needed is consideration of bones being brought to a cave by wild

animals of the time, carnivores of all types, and a skull or bone found on its

own points directly to this possibility.

Damage to Neanderthal remains may be post mortem and therefore care

needs to be taken in interpretation of damage to bones or skull. Mistakes are

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

insect casings as well.

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.

Skull major points modern human.

310
311
 312

The above is a guide what you should be looking

for either in part or a full Skeleton. A little or fragments of bones is much

better than none at all.

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

of someone with good Osteology knowledge and practice.

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

To finish of this research I have placed here suggested timelines by others .

314
315
316
317
 318

THE READING LIST AND RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THIS

RESEARCH. 2012
In Search Of The Neanderthals; Stringer and Gamble.
Collins Archaeology Dictionary.
Archaeology; Renfrew and Bahn.
Origins Reconsidered; Leakey and Lewin.
The Human Past, Thames and Hudson publishers.
Open University Library.
Study of Man; J.Z Young.
Mismeasurement Of Man; Gold.
Wisdom Of Bones; Walker and Shipman.
OTHER READING RESEARCH SOURCES.
Biblical Archaeology.
K.Kris Hirst, Archaeology on line.
World Atlas Of Archaeology.

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.

Ronnie Carlton 2011

319