Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

In 1961, Robinson “sank” the genus Telanthropus and reclassified the Swartkrans jaw as Homo erectus (Brain 1978, p. 140). Broom and Robinson (1952), however, had previously noted several differences between the SK 15 teeth and those of Beijing man and Java man, both of which are now classified as Homo erectus. In terms of these differences, the SK 15 teeth were more like those of modern humans. Broom and Robinson also described other ways in which the SK 15 teeth were similar to those of modern humans. But the lower front part of the jaw was damaged, making it “impossible to be sure whether there was a trace of a chin or not” (Broom and Robinson 1952, p. 110). The affinities of this apparently somewhat humanlike jaw remain a mystery.

Broom and Robinson found another humanlike lower jaw at Swartkrans. This fragmentary mandible (SK 45) came not from an erosion channel but from the main deposit containing the Paranthropus fossils. Broom and Robinson (1952, p. 112) said: “In shape it is more easily matched or approached by many modern Homo jaws than by that of Telanthropus.” Robinson later referred the SK 45 jaw to Telanthropus and then to Homo erectus (Brain 1978, p. 140). But there are reasons, admittedly not unclouded, to consider other possibilities. Emphasizing the ambiguous nature of the Telanthropus fossils, a recent worker (Groves 1989, p. 275) assigned them to an unnamed species of Homo.

11.3.5 Paranthropus a Toolmaker?

In the years 1979–1983, C. K. Brain of the Transvaal Museum recovered fossil bones of 130 hominid individuals, 30 crude bone tools, and some crude stone tools. The newly discovered Swartkrans fossils included a relatively small number of well-preserved hand and foot bones.

Speaking of the 8 hand bones from Member 1 at Swartkrans, Randall L. Susman (1988, p. 783) said they indicated “that the robust australopithecines had much the same morphological potential for refined precision grasping and for tool-behavior as do modern humans.” Susman (1988, pp. 782–783) noted, however, that the hand bones retained an apelike overall morphology.

The bone tools found at Swartkrans, according to Susman (1988, p. 783), have wear patterns indicating they were used for digging. Susman (1988, p. 783) therefore proposed that Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus had used stone and bone implements “for vegetable procurement and processing.”

Most workers believe the making of tools is an exclusive trait of the genus Homo, starting with Homo habilis. According to this view, big-jawed Paranthropus, a robust australopithecine unconnected to the Homo line, munched vegetable matter like the modern gorilla, without the aid of tools.

In a New York Times report (1988), Donald C. Johanson, discoverer of Lucy, the most famous representative of Australopithecus afarensis, said about the Swartkrans hand bones: “The big question is, how can we be 100 percent sure these hands are not from a Homo individual.”

Susman admitted that “the attribution of individual fossils to Paranthropus is complicated by the presence of a second hominid taxon (Homo c.f. erectus) at Swartkrans.” But he pointed out: “In Member 1, however, more than 95% of the cranio-dental remains are attributed to Paranthropus. This fact suggests that there is an overwhelming probability that any one specimen recovered from Member 1 samples [represents] Paranthropus” (Susman 1988 p. 782). But even Susman (1988, p. 782) admitted that a thumb metacarpal (SK 84) found in Member 1 at Swartkrans in 1949 probably belonged to a Homo individual rather than Paranthropus.

So any matching of hand bones with hominid species at Swartkrans is still uncertain. The only thing that could end this uncertainty would be the discovery of hand bones in undisputed connection with other Paranthropus fossils.

But even if the new hand bones do belong to Paranthropus, there is no guarantee that Paranthropus, rather than Homo, made any of the stone and bone tools found at Swartkrans. “Did the two species live side by side?” asks anthropologist Eric Delson of the City University of New York. “Did [P. ] robustus use leftovers of Homo erectus tool kits? There is no way to test these questions adequately” (Bower 1988, p. 345).

11.3.6 Makapansgat and Final Victory