Chapter 3 – Osteometrics of the Past - The Right Tools for the Job

You cannot pick up a book on anthropology that does not discuss tool manufacturing by early hominids and those tools’ relation to the cultural makeup of the group. Tools, burials, cooking hearths and other social activities are critical clues in the process of understanding ancient human beings. There are recorded finds of such materials long before the recorded skeletal finds of Neandertal. These tools when understood provided tremendous insight into the behavior and complexity of the groups and into the questions about origins. Entire manuscripts have been given to review an early hominid labeled Homo Habilis. Literally translated this term means handy human. Here is the juncture in the anthropological record where bipedal hominids begin to get the naming convention of Homo. Prior to this creature, the naming convention starts with Australopithecus. Homo Habilis maintained a cranial volume on the order of 30 percent larger than Australopithecus Africanus. Again the sheer size of the cranium is a key factor in separating the two species. Habilis versus Africanus presents some problems in the understanding of the origins of humanity. Roughly 2 million years ago Homo Habilis is known to have walked the African landscape making and using tools to his benefit. At roughly the same time it is well recorded in the bone finds that another creature, Australopithecus Rubustus (as well as Homo Erectus and Australopithecus Africanus) also walked the earth. Anyone looking at the two skulls can in most cases see a significant difference. Australopithecus Rubustus has a large sarengial crest along the top of his skullcap. Rubustus, as the name suggests also has a significantly thicker jaw and larger teeth. Coupled with the formation of center wear on the teeth, it is surmised that these physical adaptations are associated with diet differences. It is theorized that Rubustus subsisted on a diet of mainly tubers and roots. Whereas, it is assumed Habilis maintained a diet high in protein. There are multiple problems with our understandings of origins from our discussion. Adding to that additional information on sexual dimorphism only further complicates the topic.

Let us consider crossing over points first. If Erectus, Habilis, Rubustus and Africanus all lived within roughly the same time period then it is clear there was no individual crossover point at all. Rather there was a migration from one group to another. This assumes that there is relation to each other. The gradation of fossil finds indicates that there were osteomorphological transitions from one group to the next and the transitions occurred slowly over years. Assuming nature has constantly demonstrated relatively slow migration changes in phenotype it becomes impossible to define a discreet crossover point from one species to another. Therefore, as scientist, there is no discreet day, week, month, year, decade or even century that we can declare the transition complete. The transition from Australopithecus to Homo occurred over a period of at least 500,000 years. Certainly there are groups that claim that evolution never took place. Those old guards of the creationist theory dispute that these finds show any relation to present day human beings. It is easy to believe that this group would declare that present day humans have no relation to these ancient finds. This group is not the only group though. Present day researchers suggest that the transition of these forms led to evolutionary dead ends that never again contributed to the Homo sapien sapiens classification.

The last paragraph suggests that the gradation is clear enough that skulls removed from the ground can always be declared Australopithecus or Homo. The problem is this too is not true. There is a thesis within anthropological theory that suggests that Habilis should never have been given its own taxonomic assignment. The ambiguity arises due to a biological process called sexual dimorphism. Lions, Gorillas, Elephants and many other species have this trait. Typically however, not always, the male gender of the species is significantly larger than the female gender. Silverback gorillas are a classic example of the phenotypic difference that can occur across genders within the same species. It is proposed that Habilis and Rubustus are the same species and the sexual dimorphism coupled with standard hominid gradation can account for the differences in the osteomorphology. The differences noted in the sexual dimorphism even gives rise to suggested cultural understanding of these hominids. Perhaps, like other sexually dimorphic animals, the larger males lived in isolation while the females lived in groups. The males would then join with the females during times of procreation. The level of support provided to this theory is immaterial to our debate. What is important here is the fact that there is confusion over our origins and cultural practices. Throw into the debate the finds by Mary Leakey in 1959 of Australopithecus Boisei and other finds of a creature named Homo Rudolfensis found in 1993 the picture of evolution throughout the African continent was more complex than one might image between 2 to 1 million years ago.

Like with the Bible, the bone record provides us anecdotal evidence of the culture and intellectual ability of those that came before us. What we do know as fact is that between the period of 4 million and 1 million years ago there was a tremendous variance of human like creatures that walked the continent of Africa. Those that have evaluated the bone record of these locations have classified these bones into groups ranging from the small cranial structure of Australopithecus Afarensis, Africanus, Robustus and Boisei to the larger skulls of Homo habilis and Rudolfensis. The complexity of the variation over this time period makes it difficult for us to discern our origin from skeletal information. Again, remembering that the OMB places emphasis on culture perhaps that phenotypic review can be avoided anyway. Perhaps the tools that were left behind by the groups are really the keys to understanding their cultural identity. Perhaps we can understand our own beginnings from the stone tools left behind.

I will have to admit this section of the manuscript has provided me with the greatest impediment to the overall development of my thoughts. My knowledge of tools in ancient humans tremendously slows my progression. I must remind the reader, and myself this book is only intended to provide potential framework for understanding the current racial classification process. This document was never designed nor intended to be considered a reference manual on the individual topics that created the process. The lack of detail regarding our current understanding of tools is removed intentionally. There are many texts one may read associated with this matter and I highly encourage the reader to engage in them. However, for the purpose of brevity within this writing, I must ask the reader to certainly question my logic, but not to find fault in my lack of details.

To this point within this section we have demonstrated that a distinct crossover from ape to upright hominid is at best limited to 500,000 years and at worst impossible to derive from the bone record itself. But the OMB has given us a direct requirement to determine the origin of ourselves, and they have placed geographic conditions on those origins. This suggests to me that isolated groups crossed over and gave rise to what we consider present day humans. These isolated groups are not to be defined phenotypically but rather culturally. Homo Habilis is the oldest recorded osteo find in which we can find collocated tools. As stated before hence the name means handy man. However, certainly these crudely crafted stones in no way compare to our present day tool set. Even the least educated school children are vividly aware of the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt and perhaps even the Stonehenge of England and other great societies. A blade crafted from a rock for the purpose of cleaning skins, cutting meat and killing and scavenging game are in no way comparable to the complexity of the levers and fulcrums of these people 6000 years ago. Recent studies with chimpanzees show these animals are for virtual means as well adapted to crafting tools as Homo habilis. There are clearly anthropological arguments provided that these crafted tools are far superior to any tool since crafted by apes, but a rapid return to Socratic evaluations of the tools provides more insight into why Ussher may have been correct and the OMB has a valid case for its position on origins.

A tool is built with intention. At least that is how we see it today. When Bob Villa comes on your television to advertise Craftsman’s newest device, he presents a clear picture of the Socratic concept. Villa allows another home worker like you repair several different objects around the house while his voice is overlaid on the action. His process provides you intent for the tool. He provides ideas of the many ways the tool can be used. Villa always addresses the versatility of the tool and the ease of use. Ancient tool evaluation addresses what we will term for ease the “Villa process”. Looking at flaked rocks becomes a difficult endeavor. Has the rock been broken by weather and time? Or was it purposely worn down from retooling and reshaping. If the tools were actually recycled into newer tools, perhaps the acumen of the toolmaker was greater than we may be led to believe initially. But the story does not end there. The critical part comes from a Homo erectus find by Alan Walker.

If we are to assume there was a “Villa” process occurring with the tools, it is worth to conjecture how the Socratic intention was transferred from hominid to hominid. We know that chimps today can demonstrate the creation and function of a tool with the express intention of obtaining food for immediate need. The young chimps learn that immediate needs can be addressed by using a stick or a box to master a difficult situation that prevents them from obtaining food. But the chimps lack the forethought and communication skills to improve on the tool in a fashion that is experienced by modern humans. If only Bob Villa were around for the chimps, he could demonstrate how they would build an electric sifter to farm termites instead of licking them off the twig stripped of its leaves. In order for Villa to present this new tool he first needs a complex method to represent abstractions and thoughts. Villa presents in his commercial; value propositions such as timesavings, safety and abstract ideas. Villa talks about spending time with the family and how satisfied you will be when the job is completed. Villa does not address the more primal issues of hunger or shelter. There is an important distinction to be made here. Chimps are concerned with the more primal satisfactions when constructing their tools. Chimps lack the ornate abstractions seen in actions forethought and language.

This returns our thoughts to origins and crossing over. If we are to consider our origins, perhaps we can define that point when upright hominids became human. This humanization is an artifact of speech and advanced abstraction. Alan Walker argues that his find in Ethiopia shows complex language and ultimately advanced thought could not have come from Homo Erectus at all. Walker spends a tremendous amount of time in his book “The Wisdom of the Bones” discussing the relationship between the phenotype of the skeletal remains and the social understanding they would provide. In this compelling book, he elaborates on the relationship between cranial volume and humanness, and a small area called the Broca’s spot. The Broca’s spot is considered a critical component in osteo studies that indicates the ability of hominids to speak. Walker assumes through must of the book that these skeletal remains must have certainly belonged to an upright hominid similar to himself. Then in the book something sets the Homo erectus skeleton apart. The inner diameters of the vertebrae are not large enough to have accommodated the nerves for fine control of intercostals muscular control. To the average reader this may mean little. To those who understand speech the information is startling. Homo Erectus could not have spoken as we do. Homo Erectus lacked the fine muscle control needed to express complex sounds. Our origins have been moved forward. Maybe Ussher is right. Perhaps speech provides for a crossing point; a time when people could speak and express abstract thought. Perhaps that is what Genesis means about Adam and Eve. Could it be that simple that the “Planet of the Apes” movies have had the analogy right all along? It is not the tool. It is when the head monkey is able to say no. It is the expression of abstractions. The crossing point can be defined as the point when physically; hominids could begin to express themselves in complex mannerisms. Thus enters stage left a return to where we began in the bone search – Neandertal. Perhaps the entire conjecture of the book is wrong because Neandertal has origins of Europe. Perhaps we are white and not black. If this is the case then did black skinned people originate from Neandertal? Or is it more complex than this? Do white skin people descend from Neandertal and Black skinned creatures descend from another form of beast. Is there a distinct time that two different but very similar species evolved from similar but different upright Hominids? Does this information conclude that we are not all black and not all white but that Blumenbach was more correct than he knew when he separated the races by phenotype?