Archaeology Magazine - October 1968 - 72

Pleistocenehominid from the lowest levels of Bed I at Olduvai is
much closer to the human line.
Unfortunately, only cursory descriptions of the fragments designated Homo habilis have yet been
published; their description in Olduvai Gorge, volume V, will be
eagerly awaited. A critical evaluation of the evidence for Homo
habilis can only be made when
these studies are complete.
At this stage it would be easy
to exaggerate the distinctness between the two lineages of Australopithecus. Tobias' work suggests
that the members of each line
should not be regarded as generically distinct from those of the
other. The evidence from the fossil
record is taken to indicate that the
two lineages were perhaps in the
same evolutionary grade by homology or real genetic relationship.
The evidence from the present
study seems to indicate that (1) it
is unlikely that they were genetically isolated from each other during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene; and/or (2) they had a not
very remote commonancestry.
The identification of Homo
habilis as a more advanced hominid
in Bed I has provided Tobias with
a lynch pin for his succinct summary of the evidence for the toolmaking abilities of early man. He
concludes that the Oldowan stone
tools of the A. boisei floor (FLK
I), as well as those from the area
where the juvenile H. habilis was
found, were the work of the latter.
His argument is based largely on
evidence of association of various
fossil types with stone tools. At
every Australopithecine site where
stone tools are found in association
with hominid remains, there is evidence of the existence of a more
advanced hominid who was sympatic and synchronic with the
australopithecine. Furthermore, at
every early stone tool site where
human remains are found, the
skeletal remains include traces of
a more advanced hominid. Indeed,
at every early site which has
yielded a more advanced hominid,
stone tools are present. This hypothesis in no way prejudges the
issue of how many kinds of more
advanced hominids were involved,
nor does Tobias deny all implementai activities to A. boisei. The
Australopithecine of Bed I may
312

have been a toolmaker as well as
H. habilis, but present archaeological evidence has not revealed any
trace of two typologically distinct
stone industries on the FLK I floor,
where, incidently, the teeth of H.
habilis were found as well the
Zinjanthropus cranium.
The Australopithecines as a
whole are more hominisedthan the
great apes. Their brains are bigger
in somewhat smaller bodies, their
teeth are small and crowded, and
they possess a structural basis for
sitting upright and for general manipulations essential to the toolmaker. In addition, the Australopithecines lived in a habitat which
provided little natural protection
and had no natural weapons of
offense or defense. There is no direct evidence for the associationof
stone implementswith the Australopithecines, and the best direct
evidenceof cultural activitiesis provided by Dart's so-called osteodontokeratic culture. This concept is
based on a study of the systematic
splitting and fracturing, as well as
use of, animal bone fragments
found at Makapansgat. Dart's hypothesis represents to Tobias, and
to the present reviewer, a plausible
explanation of the selection and
fracture of the Makapansgat bones.
This is not to say that acceptanceof
the general hypothesis means that
one agrees with all that Dart has
claimed for the osteodontokeratic
culture. More properly, they should
perhaps be labeledosteodontokeratic
activities. The animal bones found
at Makapansgat perhaps represent
a major cultural outlet of Australopithecus who did not perhaps more
than tinker with stones. The reviewer remains unconvincedby the
stone "implements" so far found
in the bone beds at Makapansgat,
although it is more than probable
that Australopithecus must have
loomed large in their pattern of
life, to a far greater extent than
that of the apes. A. boisei, whose
close relationship to the Australopithecinae as a whole has been
established,must have been subject
to the same cultural dependenceas
the others. If he was the victim of
a more skillful hunter at Olduvai,
the absence of fractured bones of
osteodontokeraticform on the FLK
floor would be explained, but this
is pure speculation.
The acceptance of this exciting

I
I
I

A new theory
based on
new evidence

á§3p

J
/'

I
I
I

Stonehenge
of the
Kings
A PEOPLE APPEAR

I
I
!
I
1
I
1
I
ji
1
I
g
I
1
1
I
1
i
1
I
1
I
I

By PATRICK CRAMPTON.
"This book began and was intendedas a personalsearchfor
the peopleof Stonehenge.
It has
suddenly become a fantastic
chase, with the quarry in
sight. . Withthesewords,Patrick Crampton,author of The
PrehistoricRidge Way, opens
his accountof the recent findin theShetland
ingsat Clickhimin
Islands,findingswhich are reof Iron
castingour understanding
Ageand BronzeAgelife.
Mr. Crampton believes that
wasnot a prehistoric
Stonehenge
of
computerbut theheadquarters
a warriorsocietyruledby kings.
Stonehengeof the Kings is a
skillful reconstruction of this
societyand its possiblecontacts
with the people of Mycenae
3000yearsago.

1
1
1
1
1
S

"An absorbingre-interpretation
of Stonehengeculture, concentrating on the people and only
secondarilyon the monuments
they left behind."
- Publishers'Weekly

Withmaps,photographs
§
and diagrams.
1
I
or from
$7.50at bookstores,
I THEJOHN DAYCOMPANY
1 SalesOffice:200MadisonAve.
I
NewYork,N.Y.10016

Archaeology Magazine - October 1968

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - October 1968