Chapter Content
Chapter 43: The Restless Apes
Somewhere around one and a half million years ago, a spark of ingenuity ignited within an unnamed genius of the hominid world. He, or more likely she, picked up a rock and, with deliberate care, coaxed it into reshaping another. The result, a crude but undeniably revolutionary teardrop-shaped hand axe, stands as the planet’s inaugural piece of advanced tool-making.
Superior to the tools that existed before it, the hand axe became a sensation. Others rapidly copied the concept, fashioning their own versions. Soon, the entire hominid community seemed consumed by this singular pursuit. “They produced thousands upon thousands of these hand axes,” explained Ian Tattersall. “In parts of Africa, you can’t walk without tripping over them. It’s bizarre because they require considerable effort to make. They crafted them almost… for the sheer joy of it.”
In his bright, airy studio, Tattersall retrieved a massive replica from a shelf and handed it to me. The thing was nearly half a meter long and twenty centimeters at its widest point. It resembled a spearhead, but it was the size of a stepping stone. This particular model, fashioned from fiberglass, weighed a mere 150 grams. However, the original, unearthed in Tanzania, tipped the scales at a hefty eleven kilograms. “As a tool, it’s utterly useless,” Tattersall declared. “It would take two people just to lift it, and even then, striking anything with it would be an exercise in futility.”
“So, what was its purpose?” I asked.
Tattersall gave a slight shrug, clearly relishing the enigma. “We don’t know. Perhaps it held some symbolic significance. We can only speculate.”
These hand axes became known as Acheulean tools, named after Saint-Acheul, a suburb of Amiens in northern France where the first specimens were discovered in the 19th century. This distinguished them from the older, simpler Oldowan tools, initially found in Tanzania’s Olduvai Gorge. Early textbooks often depicted Oldowan tools as dull, rounded pebbles fit for gripping. Nowadays, paleoanthropologists believe they were sharp flakes chipped from larger stones, capable of slicing and cutting.
The mystery deepened with the emergence of early modern humans—the lineage that ultimately led to us. As they began their exodus from Africa, roughly 100,000 years ago, Acheulean tools were considered the must-have accessory. These early *Homo sapiens* clearly appreciated them. They carried these tools across vast distances, sometimes even transporting raw stone to be shaped into tools later. In short, they were obsessed. But, despite the proliferation of Acheulean tools in Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia, they are strangely scarce in the Far East. This presents quite the puzzle.
In the 1940s, a Harvard paleontologist named Hallam Movius drew an imaginary line, the "Movius Line," delineating the boundary between Acheulean tool-using and non-using regions. This line ran southeast, cutting through Europe, the Middle East, and extending as far as present-day Kolkata and Bangladesh. Beyond this line, encompassing Southeast Asia and China, only older, simpler Oldowan tools were found. We know that *Homo sapiens* migrated far beyond this region, so why did they abandon these advanced stone tools just before reaching the Far East?
"This problem bothered me for years," recalled Alan Thorne of the Australian National University in Canberra. "The entire modern anthropology is founded on the belief that humans migrated out of Africa in two waves. The first were *Homo erectus*, who became the Java Man, Peking Man, and so on. The second wave, later and more advanced, was *Homo sapiens*, who then replaced *Homo erectus*. But to accept this, you must believe that *Homo sapiens* carried these modern tools so far, then dumped them for some unknown reason. At the very least, it's extremely confusing."
Later discoveries only served to complicate matters further. One of the most perplexing unfolded in the Australian outback, Thorne’s own backyard. In 1968, a geologist named Jim Bowler was prospecting in the dry lakebed of Lake Mungo in New South Wales when something unexpected caught his eye. Emerging from a crescent-shaped sand dune was a human fossil. At the time, it was believed that humans had only inhabited Australia for approximately 8,000 years, but Lake Mungo had been dry for around 12,000 years. What could a human be doing in such a desolate location?
Radiocarbon dating revealed that the bones belonged to someone who lived when Lake Mungo was still a thriving, twenty-kilometer-long body of water, teeming with fish and surrounded by casuarina trees. To everyone’s astonishment, the fossil was dated to approximately 23,000 years ago. Other fossils found nearby were dated up to 60,000 years ago. This was shocking, almost unbelievable. Australia had been an isolated landmass since the dawn of hominids. Anyone reaching it would have had to navigate by sea, and they would have needed to come in sufficient numbers to sustain a population. They would have had to cross at least 100 kilometers of open water, with no guarantee of land ahead. And upon landing on Australia’s northern coast – presumably their point of entry – the Mungo people journeyed over 3,000 kilometers inland. This suggests, as one report in the Records of the Australian Academy of Science stated, "a human arrival time substantially earlier than 60,000 years ago."
How did they get there? Why did they go there? These questions remain largely unanswered. Most anthropological literature states that there is no evidence humans could speak or coordinate well enough 60,000 years ago, much less be able to construct boats capable of traversing oceans to discover new continents.
"We know so little about the prehistoric migrations of humans,” Thorne told me when I met him in Canberra. “Do you know that when anthropologists first arrived in Papua New Guinea in the 19th century, they found people cultivating sweet potatoes, a plant native to South America, in some of the most inaccessible highlands on Earth. How did it get to Papua New Guinea? We have no idea. Absolutely no idea. But it's certain that people migrated much earlier than we once thought, and they almost certainly shared both genes and information."
The problem, as always, lay in the fossil record. "There are so few places in the world where human remains can be preserved long-term," Thorne said. “If it weren't for the wealth of fossils found at Hadar and Olduvai in East Africa, we would know next to nothing. Look elsewhere, and the picture is bleak. The entire country of India has yielded only one hominid fossil dating back about 300,000 years. Between Iraq and Vietnam -- a distance of 5,000 kilometers -- only two have been found: one in India, and a Neanderthal fossil in Uzbekistan.” He chuckled. “There's not much damn stuff to study. As a result, we have these few areas, like the East African Rift Valley and here in Australia at Mungo, with comparatively abundant human fossils. And between those locations? Practically nothing. It's no wonder paleontologists have trouble piecing together this fragmented puzzle."
The traditional theory of human migration—still accepted by most in the field—posits two waves of migration into Eurasia. The first, beginning roughly two million years ago, saw *Homo erectus* rapidly expanding out of Africa. They settled in various regions, with these early *Homo erectus* eventually evolving into distinct hominid groups—Java Man and Peking Man in Asia, and *Homo heidelbergensis*, eventually leading to Neanderthals, in Europe.
Then, roughly 100,000 years ago, a more agile species—the ancestors of everyone alive today—emerged on the African plains and initiated a second wave of migration. According to this theory, these new *Homo sapiens*, replaced their more dim-witted, inflexible predecessors wherever they went. How they accomplished this remains a point of contention. There is no evidence of widespread slaughter, so most experts believe the newcomers outcompeted the earlier inhabitants, though other factors may have played a role. “Maybe we gave them smallpox," Tattersall said. "It's impossible to know for sure. The only certainty is that we're here now, and they aren't."
The details surrounding these earliest modern humans remain hazy. Ironically, we know less about ourselves than almost any other branch of the hominid family. Tattersall remarked, "The most recent major event in human evolution—the emergence of our own species—is perhaps the most obscure." Even the earliest fossil evidence of modern humans is debated. Many books cite the approximately 120,000-year-old fossils found at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa, but not everyone agrees they represent true modern humans. As Tattersall and Schwartz noted, "Whether they represent some or all of our species remains to be fully determined."
It’s largely accepted that *Homo sapiens* first appeared in the Eastern Mediterranean region, in what is today Israel, around 100,000 years ago. Even there, though, they have been described as "patchy, taxonomically difficult and little known." (Trinkaus & Shipman) Neanderthals had already established themselves in this area and were using a tool technology known as Mousterian, which modern humans apparently found useful. No Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in North Africa, but their tools are widespread. Someone must have brought them there: the modern humans being the only likely candidate. We also know Neanderthals and modern humans co-existed for tens of thousands of years in the Middle East. "Whether they shared the same spaces or merely lived next door to each other, we don't know," Tattersall said. The fact that modern humans were happy to continue using Neanderthal tools also makes it difficult to say who was truly dominant. Equally strangely, Acheulean tools from the Middle East date back a million years, but these tools only appeared in Europe 300,000 years ago. The question is repeated; why wouldn’t those capable of making such tools have brought them along?
For a long time, it was thought that the Cro-Magnons, the European modern humans, pushed the Neanderthals west as they moved into the continent. With no other choice, it was believed the Neanderthals jumped into the sea or became extinct. We now know, in fact, that there were Cro-Magnons in the far west as the other migrated from the east. "Europe was an empty landscape at that time,” said Tattersall. “Even as they crossed into each other's paths, it would have been rare for them to come face-to-face. One of the puzzles of the Cro-Magnon arrival is that Europe was in the middle of what paleoclimatologists refer to as the Portleith Interglacial. European climates shifted rapidly from relatively warm to periods of cold. Whatever impelled Cro-Magnons to Europe, it was certainly not glacial climate.”
Regardless, the assumption that the Neanderthals were utterly crushed by the newly arrived Cro-Magnons at least runs contrary to what archaeological discoveries have provided. The Neanderthals were an incredibly stubborn and resilient group, having survived for tens of thousands of years in conditions that only the very small group of polar scientists and adventurers would ever experience. Blizzards accompanied by hurricane-force winds were regular occurrences during the harshest glacial periods. Temperatures fell often to -45 degrees Celsius, and polar bears wandered in the glacial valleys of Southern England. The Neanderthals naturally retreated during the harshest phases of climate. Even then, they endured conditions as terrible as today's Siberian winters. Without a doubt, they suffered, as Neanderthals were lucky if they lived to be 30 years old, but as a species, they were adaptable and hardy. They survived for at least 100,000 years, perhaps 200,000, from Gibraltar to Uzbekistan. It was quite successful for any given species.
What exactly they were, and what they looked like, continues to be shrouded in mystery. The prevailing view in anthropological circles until the mid-20th century was that Neanderthals were lumbering, stooping figures, barely distinguishable from apes. They were cavemen personified. A painful accident prompted scientists to reconsider this view. In 1947, a French-Algerian paleontologist named Camille Arambourg was on a field trip in the Sahara. During the heat of the day, he took shelter under the wing of his light aircraft. As he sat there, the aircraft's tire blew due to the heat, and he was struck heavily across the upper body. X-rays later revealed that his spine aligned with the stooped posture of the Neanderthals. Either he was anatomically similar to a primitive man, or the perception of the Neanderthals was skewed. The latter was naturally the answer. The Neanderthal spines are completely different than primates. This completely altered our view of Neanderthals – however, the realization seemed to be a passing fancy.
To this day, many still believe that Neanderthals lacked intelligence and could not compete with the more nimble, bigger-brained *Homo sapiens*. The following is a typical argument used in a recent book: "Modern man with warmer clothes, better fires, better shelters and the need for less food to survive triumphed against that advantage. A need to maintain a massive frame was the Neanderthal’s downfall”. In short, the advantages that had made them successful for over 100,000 years suddenly became crippling disadvantages.
Most importantly, a question that is rarely addressed is that the Neanderthal brain was noticeably larger than that of the modern humans; it is estimated to be at least 1.8 liters, as opposed to 1.4 liters in the modern human. The difference is greater than that of modern humans in comparison to later *Homo erectus*. The reasoning given is that the smaller brains were somehow more effective. I noted there was never an argument for this as amazing in other discussions of human evolution.
So, you might ask, how did they fail to survive, if they were as strong and adaptive with such large brains? The controversial response is that they might still be in us. Alan Thorne is a leading proponent of the "multiregional origin" hypothesis, which argues that human evolution was a continuous process—from *Australopithecus* to *Homo habilis* and *Homo heidelbergensis*, and then to Neanderthals and *Homo sapiens*, with modern humans evolving from older *Homo* species. According to this view, *Homo erectus* was not a distinct species but merely a transitional stage. Thus, modern Chinese are descendants of ancient Chinese *Homo erectus*, modern Europeans are descendants of ancient European *Homo erectus*, and so on. "To me, *Homo erectus* simply doesn't exist," Thorne said. "I think it's an outdated concept. *Homo erectus* was just an early stage of *Homo sapiens* that migrated from Africa.”
Opponents of the "multiregional origin" hypothesis immediately reject this theory. They argued that the idea rests on the improbable notion that hominids in geographically isolated regions—Africa, China, Europe, and the remote Indonesian archipelago—evolved in parallel ways. Some also argue that this theory lends itself to racial views, an idea which the anthropological community has tried to avoid for years.
In the early 1960s, Carleton Coon, a prominent anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania, suggested that some modern races had different origins, implying that some of us were descended from superior lineages. This was an uncomfortable echo of earlier views that relegated certain groups—the African Bushmen, or San people, and Australian Aboriginals—to a more primitive status.
Regardless of what Coon himself intended, his argument, to many, implied a hierarchy of races, a notion that continues to be abhorrent. This once-prominent viewpoint was broadcast as recently as the publication of a popular 1961 Time-Life book, *The Epic of Man*, based on a series of articles in *Life* magazine. In it, one could read: "Rhodesian Man... who lived nearly 25,000 years ago, may be the ancestor of the African Negro. His brain capacity approximates that of *Homo sapiens*." In other words, the ancestors of African Negroes only "approximated" *Homo sapiens*.
Coon would be quick to refute (which I firmly believe) that there was any racial component to his view. He argued that the constant exchanges between different cultures and regions show humans evolved out of a single, original source. “There is no reason to assume that humanity only evolved one way,” he said, "as humans roamed throughout the world, and interbred, sharing genes. The new people never replaced the natives, but instead assimilated into their lives. " He gave an analogy, that when the first explorers like Magellan and Cook ran into people who lived in far off lands, “they didn’t meet different races, but instead met their fellows who had slightly different physical features.”
Thorne maintains that what you observe in human fossils is a balanced and continuous shift. A set of famous bones that were discovered in Petralona, Greece, dated for about 300,000 years, has been contentious to traditionalists because they seemingly have characteristics from both *Homo erectus* and *Homo sapiens*. We should be saying, that is what we would expect from the species; they are evolving, not being replaced.
Evidence of interbreeding would assist in resolving the problem. In 1999, Portuguese archaeologists found the skeleton of a four-year-old child who died 24,500 years ago. The skeleton appeared modern overall but possessed certain archaic features, perhaps Neanderthal: unusually thick leg bones, protruding teeth, and, according to some, a small dent on the back of the skull known as the occipital bun, a distinctive Neanderthal trait. Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis, a leading authority on Neanderthals, declared the child a hybrid, evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals. Others were puzzled by the child's inconsistent mix of Neanderthal and modern human characteristics. As one critic observed, "If you look at a mule, you don't see something that looks like a donkey in front and a horse in the back."
Ian Tattersall considered the child to simply be "a robust modern human child." He acknowledged that "hybrids" may have existed but do not believe they had much success bearing offspring.
"In the realm of biology, I've never heard of two creatures so dissimilar that could belong to the same species," he said.
With the fossil record offering little assistance, scientists are turning to genetic research, specifically mitochondrial DNA. Discovered in 1964, Mitochondrial DNA was discovered but in the 1980s, scientists discovered at the University of California that it had two key features: it is inherited down the maternal line, meaning it does not mix with parental DNA; and it also mutates up to 20 times faster than normal DNA, which makes genetic tracking easier to achieve.
In 1987, a team of scientists led by Allan Wilson at Berkeley concluded from a study of mitochondrial DNA from 147 individuals that modern humans arose in Africa within the past 140,000 years, and that all people are descended from that population. It came as a major blow to supporters of the "multiregional origins." But then they reviewed the data and found that the so-called “Africans” were African-Americans, their genes having been significantly merged. Doubts over assumed mutation rates also came quickly.
By 1992, the study was largely discredited, but genetic analysis continued. In 1997, scientists at the University of Munich extracted and studied DNA from the original Neanderthal’s arm. This time the evidence was conclusive. The Munich researchers found that Neanderthal DNA was unlike any DNA ever found. This clearly means that there was little genetic connection between Neanderthals and modern humans. This dealt a huge blow to the "multiregional origins" hypothesis.
Then, in late 2000, *Nature* and other publications reported that a group of Swedish scientists studied mitochondrial DNA from 53 people. They surmised that all modern humans originated in Africa within the past 100,000 years and from a population of less than 10,000 people. Later, Eric Lander, director of the Whitehead Institute and the MIT Center for Genome Research, announced that modern Europeans, and possibly some others further afield, are descended from "a few hundred Africans who left their homeland at least 25,000 years ago."
As we've mentioned elsewhere in this book, modern humans display minimal genetic variation, or what some authorities point out, “a population of 55 chimpanzees would display greater difference than that between all humans.” Because we evolved recently from a small group of ancestors, there was not time for evolution. This seemed to be another attack on the "multiregional origins". "In the future," Penn State researchers told the *Washington Post*, "people won't pay much attention to the 'multi-region origin' theory because there is so little evidence to support it."
In the middle of it all, the Mungo humans were able to offer unimaginable information in some capacity. Thorne and his Australian colleagues announced in 2001 that they extracted DNA from the oldest Mungo specimen, dated to 62,000 years ago. The study revealed that it showed the “distinctive genetic characteristics.”
According to these discoveries, the Mungo humans anatomically showed modern characteristics, but possessed what was extinct genetic series. With his mitochondrial DNA that could not be found among living species.
"Again, this overturns everything.” Thorne stated.
Afterwards, some more mysterious results arose. Rosaline Harding, a geneticist who researched the genes that were a part of Oxford University in biological anthropology, located two mutations of Globulin. The mutations were more common among Asian and Australian people who resided originally in the land, as the mutations weren’t present among African populations. She assured that the genetics came around 200,000 years ago, and came from the land of modern *Homo sapiens*, which appeared in East Asia. The explanation was simple and rational: Ancient Hominids, like Javanese people, came from Asian descent. Interestingly enough, modern humans in Oxford also displayed the same mutations, or the “Javanese Genetics,”
I found myself confused, so I visited Harding. She was a petite, humorous, and cheerful Australian researcher who came from Brisbane.
I quizzed her regarding whether people from Oxford possessed the globulin, which they shouldn’t possess. “I don’t know,” she chuckled. She thought for a bit, before adding in a serious tone that the records would usually support the idea that humans lived outside of Africa. However, “the geneticists don’t acknowledge these situations. We need to gather much more info, and we still have not achieved it. We’re barely starting.” She wasn’t able to provide a view regarding old Asians in Oxford’s origins, so she simply stated that things are quite hard. "At this stage, all we can say is that it is highly unusual, but we really don't know why this is happening."
As we met in early 2002, Oxford also had some researchers in the institution. Their names were scientists such as Brian Sykes, whose book was the popular *Seven Daughters of Eve*. He declared that he could trace almost all European people back to seven women, as the females were scientifically considered to be in the Old Stone age, as they were in the history of 45000-10000. Sykes made up details for these women, creating stories based on them.
When I addressed this book with Harding, she had a laugh while carefully deciding on how she wanted to discuss this topic. “He should be commended, I feel, for creating a scholarly field and making it for the public.” She paused, before mentioning that “He might be correct with the possibility of one-in-ten-thousand times.” She pondered, while noting that one single gene could not reflect anything certain. "If you follow a string of mitochondrial DNA, it may take you somewhere - Ursula, Jasmine, or someone else. However, you will be transported somewhere else."
It would be almost like walking along the highway as you leave the city of London. After traveling for a bit, you will arrive at the destination of John Corner, so you conclude that people came from the North in Scotland. Harding mentioned it can be said that every one of these genes were separate highways. “Not every gene can show the big picture.” She mentioned.
If this was a case, would genetics be unbelievable?
“Oh, usually, you can trust most studies.” She said, “You can’t rely on these to arrive at conclusions. “
She was of the view that 95% of the evidence was the view that humans lived outside of Africa. “However, there should be some consideration, as sides tend to stick with views. It could mean that the story might be more complex than either think. It’s starting to become evidence that people travel in various directions, and these were all the part of the human genetics. Categorizing those would be quite difficult to do.”
There were also reports that challenged the collection of old genetics. Scholars in an article in Nature were concerned regarding whether the old man’s skull was painted. An archaeologist licked the peak of the bones, then concluded that the thing was painted. “In this method, human genetics have entered in this skull.” As the skull can no longer be used, the scholar mentioned. I asked her for her view, so she said that things were probably polluted by the genetics. “Breathing and even touching that can affect the skull. There is new DNA near our vicinity, and we would need conditions that are sanitized to collect some genetics.”
Would the conclusions here also be questioned, I asked? Harding mentioned yes, in a serious way.
If we want to know more and more about why we had to originate there in that spot, I can take you to a spot along the edge of the Ongar Mountain, located in the city of Nairobi. By traveling to the East in the city, and taking the route that leads to Uganda, climbing across the large slopes would show us the fantastic view of the plains.
It would cover 4800 Kilometers, and the area drifted over to Asia. We would be roughly 65 kilometers away, and the terrain would be the area, otherwise known as Olorgesailie. Before 1919, there was an old lake there. He discovered odd rocks that looked painted and artificially drawn. He was able to see more parts where the stone was artificially made, which he heard from Ian before.
A chance came for me during the trip in the Autumn of 2002. The purpose of the trip was regarding a collection about human origins, and the person I came with included the visit to Olorgesailie in the schedule.
After J.W. Gregory found that area, no one visited for more than 20 years. A couple visited the location and started a collection, which goes on to this very day. The couple was the well-known Louis and Mary Leakey. From the time of 1.2 million to 200,000 years ago, there was around 4000 square meters in the place they located, where the stones were made for one million years. The making of the areas were now covered with big barns. Otherwise, the stones were left where they were dumped, and the Leakeys have found.
My tour guide was one of the members of the Kenya National Museum, and his name was Gilani Angori. The stones that old man made were hardly located within the area. “The people had to move the stones to the city,” he said. He nodded, while pointing to some mountains that were close by to Olorgesailie and Ol Esakut. Both mountains were around 10 Kilometers away.
What can one mention for why old settlers have to go all the way there? Obviously, they had to move the stones while lugging them, but what was even more important was how they worked together as an organization. It implied that the place had areas for making hand axes, and also the tools to help sharpen them. One way to put it, Olorgesailie was a factory which worked for one million years.
Many of the replicated stones display that the hand axe was extremely delicate, and took some effort to make. It would take hours, despite whether it has been created before. For various reasons, the hand axis had to fit in such criteria like cutting, scraping, and even chopping. Thus, we consider for millions of years that individuals worked in a specific spot, to make the tools, even though they never assisted each other for an extended period.
We can only consider that these individuals existed as the old *Homo Erectus*. During their period of great success, there were workers in the Olorgesailie site that had a similar mindset to children now. Despite these facts, the archeological site contained no human bone, so these things can't be mentioned.
"All of these make a mystery," Gilani responded.
The *Homo Erectus* departed around 200,000 years ago, and the cracks started to get dry. During that period, *Homo Erectus* have counted what days remained for their existence. The world would be ruled by humans. Nothing would be the same as before.