INTRODUCTION 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 Hominoidae, whose members 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 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 paleoanthropology. It is the intersection of the disciplines of paleontology (the study of ancient lifeforms) and anthropology (the study of humans). 2 HOMINID SPECIES The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record, except that the robust australopithecines are kept together (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence). Each name consists of a genus name (Australopithecus or 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. Australopithecus ramidus This species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White et al.1994; Wood, 1994). It is the oldest known hominid, 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 have both apelike and human characteristics, 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 bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (Rumor has it that White et al. have since discovered some spectacular new ramidus remains) 3 Australopithecus afarensis A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 2.8 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 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 (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Some scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage. 4 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 in shape to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). (see p. 90 of Boule and Vallois (1957) for an illustration) 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 ramidus. Australopithecus afarensis and africanus (and probably ramidus) are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust") Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans. 5 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) 6 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, 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 of their more powerful builds. 7 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 human-like. 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. Others believe that habilis combines specimens from at least two different Homo species. 8 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 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. 9 Homo sapiens (archaic) Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. 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. 10 Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (was Homo neanderthalensis) Neandertal man existed between 125,000 and 35,000 years ago. The 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. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead and chin. The midfacial 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. Neandertals 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. Neandertals 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 sophisticated 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) 11 Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 100,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, and eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent. 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). 12 TIMELINE 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 ****** | | | | A.boisei ***********| | | A.aethiopicus **** | | | | | | | | | A.ramidus * | | | | | A.afarensis ************ | | | | A.africanus *********** | | | | | | | | | | H.habilis ********** | | | | | H.erectus **************** | | | | archaic sapiens *****| | | | | Neandertals *| | | | | modern sapiens ** | | | | | | |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| 13 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. 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, or missing if unknown. If the fossil was originally placed in a different species, that name will also be given. Abbreviations: KNM-ER Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf KNM-WT Kenya National Museum, West Turkana SK Swartkrans Sts Sterkfontein TM Transvaal Museum OH Olduvai Hominid AL Afar Locality ARA-VP Aramis "ARA-VP, Sites 1, 6 & 7", Australopithecus ramidus Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Bernard Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994) in 1992 and 1993 at Aramis in Ethiopa. 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. 14 AL 128-1, Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is about 3.9 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 (Johanson and Edey, 1981). It provides the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism. AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981). 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 (the larger of the two lower leg bones) 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. 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 about 3.5 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. 15 "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. AL 444-2, Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopa. Estimated age is about 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of an 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 species known to be sexually dimorphic. 16 "Taung baby", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa. The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial 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. 17 (*) 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 quadrupedal posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column. The Taung baby, and all the other hominids discussed here (with the possible exception of A. ramidus) have a foramen magnum positioned like that of humans. 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 skull. Sts 5, "Mrs Ples", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It consisted of an almost complete, very well preserved skull, minus the lower jaw, and is the best specimen of africanus. The brain size is about 485 cc. 18 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 been adapted to the strong striding gait of modern humans (Burenhult, 1993). KNM-WT 17000, "The Black Skull", Australopithecus aethiopicus Discovered by Alan Walker in 1985 at West Turkana in Kenya. Estimated age is 2.5 million years. This find is a skull with most of the braincase and face intact. 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. This was the first specimen of robustus. 19 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. The 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 at Lake Turkana in Kenya. This find was a complete, intact skull (Lewin, 1987). Estimated age is about 1.5 million years. The brain size is about 510 cc. (see also ER 3733) KNM-ER 732, Australopithecus boisei Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1970 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. The skull is similar to that of OH 5, but is smaller and has other differences such as the lack of a sagittal crest. 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. 20 Homo habilis Discovered by the Leakeys in the early 1960s 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 mandible and two cranial fragments of a child. 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, some hand bones and a tooth fragment. Estimated age is about 1.8 million years. The foot bones had most of the adaptations to bipedality possessed by modern man. OH 13 (Cindy), found in 1963, consisted of a lower jaw and teeth, bits of an upper jaw and a bit of skull. 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. OH 24 (Twiggy) was found in 1968 by Peter Nzube and consisted of a crushed skull and seven teeth. It is about 1.8 million years old and has a brain size of about 590 cc. 21 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, much less robust than any australopithecine skull, and also without the robustness and large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. A number of leg bones were found within a couple of kilometers, 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. 22 KNM-ER 1805, "the Mystery Skull" Discovered by Paul Abell in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974). Estimated age is 1.5 million years. This find consisted of an almost complete heavily built cranium and lower jaw containing many teeth. Its brain size is about 600 cc. Some skull features, such as the sagittal crest, are typical of A. boisei, but the teeth are too small for that species. (Willis, 1989; Day, 1986) 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" (That makes two out of only 8 hominid skulls discovered in this region). It may be a new species of hominid. (Willis, 1989) 23 OH 62, "Dik-dik hominid", Homo habilis Discovered by Tim White in 1986 at Olduvai 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 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. 24 Trinil 2, "Java man", Homo erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus) Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893 near Trinil in Java. Estimated age is 500,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skull cap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone (Trinil 3) found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The estimated brain size is about 920 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 600,000 years. This find consisted of a complete lower mandible with a receding chin and all its teeth. The teeth are very similar to those of Neandertals, but the jaw is more robust. It is therefore identified as erectus on the basis of its age, but could be an archaic sapiens. 25 "Peking Man Site", Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) Between 1929 and 1937, 14 partial skulls, 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 old. (A number of fossils of modern humans were also discovered in the Upper Cave in 1933) 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 skull 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) 26 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 cranium with a brain size of 1050 cc. OH 12, Homo erectus Discovered by M. Cropper in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It is similar to but less complete than OH 9, and smaller, with an estimated brain size of 750 cc. It is estimated to be between 600,000 and 800,000 years old. 27 Sangiran 17, "Pithecanthropus VIII", Homo erectus Discovered by S. Sartono in 1969 at Sangiran on Java. This consists of an almost complete cranium and face, with a brain size of about 1000 cc. It is the most complete erectus find from Java. 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 1.5 million years. This superb find consisted of most of a skull, except for a missing lower jaw. The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is very 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) 28 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. (Some scientists believe erectus matured faster than modern humans, and that he was really about 9 years old (Leakey, 1994)) It is the most complete known specimen of erectus, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was about 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 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", Homo sapiens (archaic) (was Homo rhodesiensis) Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia). This was a complete skull (minus the lower jaw) 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. 29 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 Neandertal 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", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Johann Fuhlrott in 1856 in the Neander valley in Germany. The find consisted of a skull, 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) 30 (There were actually two earlier Neandertal finds. A partial cranium of a 2.5 year old child found in 1829 in Belgium was not recognized until 1936. An adult skull found on Gibraltar in 1848 gathered dust in a museum until it was recognized as Neandertal 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 Neandertal physique was a pathological condition, but also erroneously concluded that Neandertal Man walked with bent knees. "Krapina Site", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis 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. 31 "Old Man", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis 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 about 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 ape-like 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 have had a complex social structure. 32 "Shanidar Site", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Ralph Solecki discovered 9 Neandertal 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). Solecki in 1971 wrote a book called "Shanidar, the First Flower People", 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 Neandertal", 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 Neandertal 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 Neandertal tool kit. 33 "Cro-Magnon Site", Homo sapiens (modern) 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 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 the species descended from a common ancestor) but it is not yet known if this is the case here. H. 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 1470. The smaller habilis-like specimens such as 1813 and 1805 are variously assigned to habilis, H. ergaster, or to another as yet unnamed species. Some scientists have also proposed splitting Homo erectus. The Turkana Boy and 3733 fossils would then become Homo ergaster (Tattersall, 1993). 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. 34 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 discovery of ramidus is so recent that it is hard to say what effect it 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 Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens. 35 Brain sizes have been given in many cases. It should be noted that brain size can vary widely in a species (between 900 and 2000 cc for modern humans), and is not usually correlated with intelligence. Between species, however, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size is applied, is a good 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 many fossil hominids. However it seems australopithecines were roughly as smart as, or maybe a bit smarter than, chimps. H. habilis and H. erectus were intermediate between chimps and modern humans. Walker and Leakey (1993) has a good overview of attempts to estimate the relative intelligence of hominid species. 36 CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOMINID FOSSILS 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 "apes" were bipedal, had teeth with many human characteristics, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. The differences between some Australopithecine and some Homo fossils are smaller than those between the former and apes, or between the latter and modern humans, and there are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis, 1989) Like scientists, creationists find it hard to decide where the dividing line between apes and humans should be. No matter where it is placed, however, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it are going to be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes. Although scientists put them in genus Homo, most creationists do not accept the smaller- brained habilis specimens as human (but see below). Erectus is more doubtful. Some creationists claim that at least some erectus finds are apes, but others claim they may be 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). There is no explanation about why these adverse conditions would cause erectus to be so powerful, and in fact erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana boy fossil). It is also a puzzle 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. 37 On the other hand, Taylor (1992) gives the following definition: "Homo erectus: an assemblage of bones of a large type of extinct ape; this classification includes 'Peking Man' and 'Java Man'." The brain size of erectus skulls can exceed 1200 cc, about 90% of the average size for a modern human. Despite the primitive features, they are unmistakably human, and it is impossible to call them apes. 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 claims 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, as the skull is a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is 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 less obvious but still significant differences from modern humans. 38 The Homo habilis skull ER 1470 was discovered in 1972, and publicized as both amazingly human-like, 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 as large as that of a modern Cro-Magnon skull, despite a much smaller brain size, and the cranium has a markedly different shape. It is interesting to note that, 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. But if 1470 is human, one could then make a strong case that the very similar but smaller skull 1813 is also human (a photographic comparison is in Weaver (1985)). Creationists, however, are unlikely to find the idea of a human with a brain size of 510 cc very appealing. 39 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 human-like as previously thought. This is 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 the status of 1470. Gish elsewhere 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 changing it from a human to an ape. 40 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 as support for 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 paleoanthropology 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 Lubenow considers 1470 to be human, he would place the smaller habilis fossils such as OH 24, OH 26, ER 1805 and ER 1813 in the australopithecines. The largest of these has a brain size of about 600 cc (1470 is 750 cc), hardly enough to constitute "the significant gap" that Lubenow says separates australopithecines from humans. And Lubenow does not mention that there are two other habilis skulls (OH 13 (650 cc) and OH 7 (680 cc), neither of which are adult), that fall squarely into the middle of this gap. 41 ER 1813 (510 cc) has many of the same features that creationists use to justify calling 1470 a modern human. 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 larger than those of modern humans, but similar in shape. Another transitional fossil! In fact, despite its larger brain size, Cronin et al.(1981) consider 1470 to be more primitive, with more australopithecine features, than 1813. 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. 42 No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered in England in 1912, and a second specimen in 1915. It consisted of parts of a surprisingly modern-looking skull associated with a surprisingly ape-like lower jaw. In 1953 it 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. 43 Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was named from two human-like 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 a pig. The other side of this story is told by Gould (1991). The finders, and the scientific community, never identified the tooth as belonging to a human ancestor, only to a higher primate. 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. 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 also claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apparently apocryphal, since no scientific evidence was presented at the trial. 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). 44 Many creationists, including Duane Gish, 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 100 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). It may be true that the femur and skull cap do not belong together, but the skull cap definitely does not belong to any ape. It is far too large (920 cc, compared to 97 cc for a gibbon), and is similar to the many other Homo erectus fossils that have been found, which creationists often recognize as human. One of these is the Sangiran 17 skull, also found on Java, which has most of its face and is clearly a primitive human. 45 Peking Man is another favorite 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; ancestor and descendant species can 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 feces 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 disqualify Peking Man from being a primitive human. 46 Gish's claim that the skullcaps are of apes is similarly farfetched. The largest skullcap, about 1225 cc, is twice the size 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. The skullcaps are, however, very similar to (but larger than) those of some Homo erectus skulls, one of which is attached to a body (the Turkana Boy) that even Gish recognizes as human. 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". 47 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. 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, or any of the other authors quoted by them. The opinions are divided as to whether Sinanthropus is advanced enough to be called human or not, 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 Hominians", 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". 48 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 of the original material, not reconstructed skulls. 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 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 cranium, 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). 49 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 possibly closer to an ape) 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. 50 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 extensively photographed, described, and had casts made of them, before Weidenreich ever saw them. In addition, many scientists 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 Boule and Vallois' claim that Peking Man is intermediate between ape and man is indisputable if Weidenreich's model is considered accurate. Even if, against all the evidence, Gish does not accept the model, it is strikingly similar to modern erectus skulls such as WT 15000 and ER 3733. Therefore, these fossils are, according to Gish, indisputable transitional forms. =================================== 51 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. If he had any evidence for these 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) 52 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 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. 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 exist at the same time as a descendant species. A new species can form by splitting off its parent. There is no reason that the parent species must become extinct, otherwise the total number of species could never increase. Finally, the claim that the stone circle is an artifact 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. 53 Creationists say things about Neandertals such as: "The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease'" "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. 54 Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, many creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely diseased modern humans. Duane Gish, in a debate with Michael Shermer, said that Neandertals were simply modern humans with rickets (or arthritis). Malone (1994) agreed: "However, more recent tests have revealed that all of the specimens [he is talking about discoveries from the late 1800's] suffered from pathological diseases such as rickets or arthritis". (I suspect these tests are either fictional or misrepresented) 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 Neandertal features. Straus and Cave (1957) 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 Neandertal in a business suit could walk down a city street and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement which is probably false. 55 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." The exhibit on Neandertals at ICR 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 powdrful bones and muscles. This argument is especially ridiculous because even Neandertal 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 Neandertal morphology may be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe, 1971) or congenital syphilis (Wright, 1971). Both of these papers are often cited by creationists. According to Day (1986), neither of these cases was adequately supported or subsequently justified. Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace. 56 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" (p 412). 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 (but _not_ proven) as evidence that the various "missing links" wdre contemporaneous, or that man and these creatures wdre contemporaneous"). 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 usually neglect to mention their extremely small size and the fact they are similar to the feet of the australopithecines living at the same time (exactly how similar is a matter of debate). KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid": this is a very worn fragment of a lowdr left humerus (the upper arm bone), discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965, which is probably between 4 and 5 million years old. Lubenow (1992) states that this is indistinguishable from a human bone, Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. It is indeed very similar to modern humans, but it is equally possible that it belongs to an australopithecine, and its small size is compatible with that. 57 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 ones. The bones are modern in form, but exceptionally thick, with 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 sapiens. 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. Howdver 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 dver accepted it as genuine. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992) 58 Oldoway Man: a skull and skeleton found by Hans Reck at Olduvai in 1913. In 1932 it was shown to be a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older deposits that had been exposed by faulting. (Johanson and Shredve, 1989) Kanjera Man, Kanam Jaw: discovered by Louis Leakey in 1932, and claimed by him to be very old. The dating howdver proved to be uncertain, and both are probably modern bones. (Johanson and Shredve, 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. Galley Hill Man: 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). 59 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 his source material 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) 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 separate finds which belong to the same species (the knee joint AL 128-1, and Lucy). 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. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard, 1994). 60 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 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. 61 Creationists are also 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 "Australopithicine" [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. It is worth noting that two of these three quotes were made before Lucy, and A. afarensis, was even discovered. Zuckerman's views have long since been discredited. Leakey was merely making a suggestion, not stating an opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but he has also stated that they were bipedal, just not in the human manner (Oxnard, 1987). Furthermore, the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. 62 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 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 partly 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. Fossil footprints? No, we have those. Fossilized Reeboks? Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the bottom of the skull. Gish 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 f.m. is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it moves backwards during growth), and 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. 63 When reading creationist literature about the human fossil record, one notices some striking patterns. Fossils that have not been considered part of the hominid record for decades are dwelt upon with loving detail (Ramapithecus, Piltdown, Nebraska Man). Discussion of Homo erectus is usually limited to the supposed improprieties surrounding Java Man and Peking Man. Other erectus specimens are ignored or dismissed as humans. ER 1470 is usually treated the same way, while other habilis specimens are rarely even mentioned. Australopithecines are usually dismissed as apes. The fossils are rarely shown in photographs, described in any detail, or compared with other fossils or with modern humans or apes. Lubenow (1992) comes closest to addressing the evidence fairly, but even he fails to discuss many 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). Gish (1985) usually does not even mention them. 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 literature 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 potshots at irrelevant fossils, misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the strongest evidence for human evolution. 64 FURTHER READING Short articles which give a good account of human evolution are Weaver (1985) (which has excellent comparative photographs), Brace (1983) and Berra (1990). For good book-length treatments, I would recommend Reader (1981), Johanson and Edey (1981), Leakey and Lewin (1992), Willis (1989), and Trinkaus and Shipman (1992), which is more wide-ranging than its title might indicate. Academic works of interest are Brace et al. (1979), which contains line drawings and brief descriptions of about 50 important fossils, and Day (1986), which contains a far more extensive and detailed list of fossils obtained from about 50 major sites, along with many photographs. The best creationist book on human fossils is probably Lubenow (1992). Lubenow has studied the scientific literature very carefully, and limits his arguments to fossils accepted by evolutionists. His work is of a considerably higher standard than any other creationist literature I have read. However I believe his arguments are flawed, and will address more of them in a future version of this file. Gish (1985) is a very influential creationist book that has a large section on hominid fossils. Another relevant creationist book which I have not read is Malcolm Bowden's "Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy?". This FAQ file will be added to on a regular basis. Contact the author (jim.foley@symbios.com) with corrections, criticisms, or suggestions for further topics. The current version can be obtained by mailing the author, or at the following addresses on the Internet: ftp://ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/fossil-hominids http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids http://www.anatomy.su.oz.au/danny/usenet/sci.anthropology.paleo/i nfo/hominid-FAQ Pictures of many of these fossils can be viewed in the Paleoanthropology Exposition, maintained by Rex Kwok, at the address: http://www.cs.su.oz.au/~rkwok/myexp/html/index.html. REFERENCES Berra, T.: The evolution of life and the rise of humans. In: Evolution and the myth of creationism, Stanford,California:Stanford University Press, 1990, p. 70-119. Boule M. and Vallois H.: Fossil Men, New York:Dryden Press, 1957. (outdated, but with a lot of information about early finds) Brace C.L., Nelson H., Korn N. and Brace M.L.: Atlas of human evolution, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979. Ed. 2 Brace, C.L.: Humans in time and space. In: Scientists confront creationism, edited by Godfrey, L.R. Toronto:George J. McLeod, 1983, p. 245-282. Broom R.: A new fossil anthropoid skull from South Africa. Nature 138:486-488, 1936. (announcement of the discovery of the second Australopithecine fossil) Broom R.: The pleistocene anthropoid apes of south africa. Nature 142:377-379, 1938. (announcement of the discovery of Australopithecus robustus) Brown F., Harris J., Leakey R.E. and Walker A.C.: Early Homo erectus skeleton from west lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 316:788-792, 1985. (announcement of the discovery of the Turkana Boy skeleton) 65 Burenhult G.: The first humans: human origins and history to 10,000 BC, New York:HarperCollins, 1993. (large beautifully illustrated book, but with more emphasis on cultural aspects than on evolution) Cronin J.E., Boaz N.T., Stringer C.B. and Rak Y.: Tempo and mode in hominid evolution. Nature 292:113-122, 1981. (argues that hominid evolution is an example of gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium) Day M.H.: Guide to fossil man, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1986. Ed. 4 (a comprehensive listing of hominid fossils) Feder K.L. and Park M.A.: Human antiquity: an introduction to physical anthropology and archaeology, Mountain View, California:Mayfield Publishing, 1989. (an introductory university-level anthropology textbook) Fezer K.D.: Creation's incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution 13(2):5-21, 1993. Gamble C.: Timewalkers: the prehistory of global colonization, Cambridge, Massachussets:Harvard University Press, 1993. Gish D.T.: Evolution: the fossils say no, San Diego:Creation-Life Publishers, 1979. Ed. 3 (this is the third edition of a book first published in 1972 and is somewhat out of date) Gish D.T.: Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record, El Cajon, CA:Creation-Life Publishers, 1985. (an updated version of Gish 1979) Gould, S.J.: An essay on a pig roast. In: Bully for brontosaurus, New York:W.W.Norton, 1991, p. 432-447. (an essay about the Nebraska Man episode) Gould, S.J.: Men of the thirty-third division. In: Eight little piggies, New York:W.W.Norton, 1993, p. 124-137. (an essay about Eugene Dubois' theories on Java Man) Huse S.M.: The collapse of evolution, Baker Book House Company, 1983. Jia L. and Huang W.: The story of peking man, Beijing:Foreign Languages Press, 1990. (the senior author, Jia Lanpo, has been involved with the Peking man site since 1931) Johanson D.C., Masao F.T., Eck G.G., et al: New partial skeleton of Homo habilis from Olduvai gorge, Tanzania. Nature 327:205-209, 1987. (announcement of the discovery of the fossil OH 62) 66 Johanson D.C. and Edey M.A.: Lucy: the beginnings of humankind, New York:Simon and Schuster, 1981. pp. 1-409. (a short history of paleoanthropology, and the discovery and analysis of Australopithecus afarensis) Johanson D.C. and Shreeve J.: Lucy's child: the discovery of a human ancestor, New York:Early Man Publishing, Inc, 1989. (some paleoanthropological history, and the discovery of OH 62) Leakey L.S.B.: A new fossil skull from Olduvai. Nature 184:491-493, 1959. (announcement of the discovery of Australopithecus boisei) Leakey L.S.B.: New finds at Olduvai gorge. Nature 189:649-650, 1961. (announcement of the discovery of OH 7 and OH 9 fossils) 67 Leakey L.S.B., Tobias P.V. and Napier J.R.: A new species of the genus Homo from Olduvai gorge. Nature 202:7-10, 1964. (paper proposing Homo habilis as a new species) Leakey R.E.: Evidence for an advanced plio-pleistocene hominid from east rudolf, Kenya. Nature 242:447-450, 1973. (announcement of the discovery of the skull KNM-ER 1470) Leakey R.E.: Further evidence of lower pleistocene hominids from east rudolf, north Kenya, 1973. Nature 248:653-656, 1974. (announcement of discoveries including ER 1805 and ER 1813) Leakey R.E.: The origin of humankind, New York:BasicBooks, 1994. Leakey R.E. and Lewin R.: Origins reconsidered: in search of what makes us human, New York:Doubleday, 1992. Leakey R.E. and Walker A.C.: Australopithecus, Homo erectus and the single species hypothesis. Nature 261:572-574, 1976. (discusses the significance of the KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 fossils) Lewin R.: Bones of contention: controversies in the search for human origins, New York:Simon and Schuster, 1987. (discusses in detail some of the major controversies that have occurred in paleoanthropology) Lippard J.L.: Lucy's knee joint: how creationists deal with their errors, 1994. (talk.origins FAQ file) Lubenow M.L.: Bones of contention: a creationist assessment of human fossils, Grand Rapids,MI:Baker Books, 1992. (the best creationist book on human fossils) Malone B.: Search for the truth: A-1 anthropology, 1994. (posted on talk.origins newsgroup) Morris H.M.: Scientific creationism, Santee,California:Master Books, 1974. Morris H.M. and Parker G.E.: What is creation science? San Diego:Creation-Life Publishers, 1982. Morris J.D.: Has the "missing link" been found? Acts & Facts 23(11):1994. (ICR commentary on Australopithecus ramidus and afarensis) Oxnard C.: Fossils, teeth and sex, Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press, 1987. 68 Reader J.: Missing links: the hunt for earliest man, Boston,MA:Little,Brown, 1981. (a good history of paleoanthropology, with many excellent pictures) Straus W.L.,Jr. and Cave A.J.E.: Pathology and posture of neanderthal man. Quarterly Review of Biology 32(4):348-363, 1957. Tattersall I.: The human oddyssey: four million years of human evolution, New York:Prentice Hall, 1993. (based on the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History) Taylor P.S.: The illustrated origins answer book, Mesa,Arizona:Eden Productions, 1992. Ed. 4 (a creationist book, notable for its excellent index and list of references) Theunissen B.: Eugene Dubois and the ape-man from java, Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. Trinkaus E. and Shipman P.: The neandertals, New York:Alfred E. Knopf, 1992. Walker A.C. and Leakey R.E.: The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton, Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press, 1993. (a volume of papers about the Turkana Boy skeleton WT 15000) Weaver K.F.: The search for our ancestors. National Geographic 186(5):560-623, 1985. White T.D., Suwa G. and Asfaw B.: Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature 371:306-312, 1994. Willis Delta: The hominid gang: behind the scenes in the search for human origins, New York:Viking, 1989. Willis Tom: Lucy goes to college. Bible-Science Newsletter January:1-3, 1987. (claims that Lucy consisted of fossils found at two different sites) Wood B.A.: Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355:783-790, 1992. (review article on the taxonomy of Homo habilis) Wood B.A.: The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281, 1994. (commentary on the discovery of Australopithecus ramidus) Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins Jim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 END****************************************************************************