Nexus - 0226 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Neanderthals. You have these reports in many parts of the world _ mobile big toe, sort of like our thumb, for grasping branches. So of various kinds of wild men, such as the Yeti or Snowman in the __ these footprints that were found in Africa, and are dated at 3.6 mil- Himalayas, Bigfoot or Sasquatch in North America, and other _ lion years, do not match those Australopithecus feet at all. such creatures in other parts of the world. So yes, I'd say this co- LL: Why do they choose Australopithecus to provide an expla- existence idea is quite a valid one. nation for them? . LL: Well, let's give this a fair look, Let's look at the evidence MC: Because they think that is the only creature existing at the We'll start at the beginning and kind of work our way forward, time that walked on two legs, and because they ignore all this because I was noticing that the farther back you go, you find very, other evidence, this massive evidence that shows that human very sophisticated finds, and as you come for- beings like ourselves were around at that time. It ward in time towards the present, there's less and just does not enter into their minds to draw the less of the highly sophisticated. But you do start obvious conclusion. You have these humanlike dating man—early man—farther and farther back footprints. A human must have made them. than the general establishment would lead you to LL: What of the Leakeys? How did they believe. Michael, let's detail a couple of these interpret the evidence? extraordinary finds that date back millions and MC: Well, Mary Leakey wanted to say it must millions of years before they're really supposed have been some kind of ape-man with humanlike to, according to the theory in place. Would you feet that made those prints. Now, if that's the like to start with a couple of examples? What I'd only evidence we had, you could say, well, like to know are the circumstances of their dis- maybe she was right, but in Forbidden covery, how well-documented they are, and Archeology we document many, many categories where they are today. of evidence: stone tools, all kinds of artefacts, MC: Well, I'll give you one very good exam- other human bones, complete human skeletons ple from recent history. It's one of my favourites. dating back to the same period. That's what In 1979 in Laetoli in Tanzania, a country in East makes us think they actually must have been Africa, Mary Leakey—who is the wife of Louis humans that made those prints. Leakey, one of the most famous anthropologists LL: Because it's corroborated by additional of the 20th century—found in some volcanic ash, evidence... about 3.6 million years old, some footprints—footprints of three MC: Right. individuals. Many footprint experts—physical anthropologists LL: Suggesting that human history has some very interesting and others—looked at these prints. This is all documented in chapters which are being ignored simply because we are encum- National Geographic magazine and various scientific journals bered by an inadequate theory, other explanations. This is an which we cite in our book. You can look it up, chapter and verse _ exciting story, and we'll continue with it. if you like, and see the photographs of these footprints: they are MC: Well, a very interesting case is a skeleton that was also absolutely indistinguishable from modern discovered in Africa, in the early part of this human footprints. One researcher said century, in 1913, by Dr Hans Reck who was that if you went out on a beach today and from Berlin University in Germany, I believe. looked at footprints in the sand, they He was in what is now the area called wouldn't be any different than these foot- Olduval Gorge... prints. Now, what I found very remark- LL: Very popular for finds, isn’t it? able is that despite that, the mindset of MC: Right. It's where the Leakeys later these investigators and researchers was did much of their work. In 1913 he found a such that they could not draw the obvious completely anatomically-modern human conclusion: namely, that these footprints skeleton fossilised in strata that were over must have been made by creatures very one million, almost two million years old. much like ourselves. Now that's extremely unusual because, LL: Well, on the one hand, they look according to modern scientific belief, you at the evidence and use it when it supports wouldn't have anatomically modern humans their case, but they refuse to look at equal- like ourselves until about 100,000 years ago ly valid evidence when it doesn't. I mean, | This chalk bafl was discovered in an Early | S0.-- isn't that being a little bit hypocritical? Eocene lignite bed near Laon, France. On the LL: How did they explain it? In 1913 MC: Ibis. We call ita ‘knowledge fie (a enon eicago’’ | Wasn't archaeology just getting a feel for ter', and in one sense we're not talking man? Why weren't finds like that put into the about some kind of diabolical plot to deceive the public. It's rather equation? a kind of self-deception that these people engage in. For exam- MC: Well, at that time, the modern ideas were already shaping ple, with these footprints they said, "Well, they must have up with the discovery of Java Man in 1894. Now this is very belonged to Australopithecus"—even though they know they have _ interesting. It gets into what you would call a detective story footbones of Australopithecus, an ape/manlike creature that sup- _ because | noticed Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in posedly existed three million years ago in Africa. They have foot- 1859, and that set off intellectual shock-waves that went around This mortar and pestle were found by J. H. Neale, who removed them from a mine-tunnel penetrat- ing Tertiary deposits (33 to 55 mil- lion years old) under Table Mountain, Tuolumne County, California, USA. bones from this creature, but they do not match these footprints. the world. The question that most people were interested in was LL: By a lot or a small degree? the origin of the human being. MC: By quite a bit because the footbones of the very ancient LL: We are rather self-preoccupied, aren't we? ape/manlike creatures, the australopithecines, have very long, MC: Right. We're not so much interested in the origin of but- curved toes. They have a big toe that's sort of like our thumb. If terflies or the crab. We're interested in where we came from. So | you look at a chimpanzee, look at its foot. It has a very large looked at modern textbooks and | could see that from 1859, when 12 « NEXUS JUNE - JULY 1995