按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
quite who they were and what they were like remain matters of disagreement anduncertainty。 right up until the middle of the twentieth century the accepted anthropologicalview of the neandertal was that he was dim； stooped； shuffling； and simian—thequintessential caveman。 it was only a painful accident that prodded scientists to reconsiderthis view。 in 1947； while doing fieldwork in the sahara； a franco…algerian paleontologistnamed camille arambourg took refuge from the midday sun under the wing of his lightairplane。 as he sat there； a tire burst from the heat； and the plane tipped suddenly； striking hima painful blow on the upper body。 later in paris he went for an x…ray of his neck； and noticedthat his own vertebrae were aligned exactly like those of the stooped and hulking neandertal。
either he was physiologically primitive or neandertal’s posture had been misdescribed。 infact； it was the latter。 neandertal vertebrae were not simian at all。 it changed utterly how weviewed neandertals—but only some of the time； it appears。
it is still monly held that neandertals lacked the intelligence or fiber to pete onequal terms with the continent’s slender and more cerebrally nimble newers； homosapiens。 here is a typical ment from a recent book： “modern humans neutralized thisadvantage ＇the neandertal’s considerably heartier physique＇ with better clothing； better firesand better shelter； meanwhile the neandertals were stuck with an oversize body that requiredmore food to sustain。” in other words； the very factors that had allowed them to survivesuccessfully for a hundred thousand years suddenly became an insuperable handicap。
above all the issue that is almost never addressed is that neandertals had brains that weresignificantly larger than those of modern people—1。8 liters for neandertals versus 1。4 formodern people； according to one calculation。 this is more than the difference between modern homo sapiens and late homo erectus ； a species we are happy to regard as barelyhuman。 the argument put forward is that although our brains were smaller； they weresomehow more efficient。 i believe i speak the truth when i observe that nowhere else inhuman evolution is such an argument made。
so why then； you may well ask； if the neandertals were so stout and adaptable andcerebrally well endowed； are they no longer with us？ one possible （but much disputed）answer is that perhaps they are。 alan thorne is one of the leading proponents of an alternativetheory； known as the multiregional hypothesis； which holds that human evolution has beencontinuous—that just as australopithecines evolved into homo habilis and homoheidelbergensis became over time homo neanderthalensis； so modernhomo sapiens simplyemerged from more ancient homo forms。homo erectus is； on this view； not a separate speciesbut just a transitional phase。 thus modern chinese are descended from ancient homo erectusforebears in china； modern europeans from ancient european homo erectus； and so on。
“except that for me there are no homo erectus；” says thorne。 “i think it’s a term which hasoutlived its usefulness。 for me； homo erectus is simply an earlier part of us。 i believe onlyone species of humans has ever left africa； and that species ishomo sapiens。”
opponents of the multiregional theory reject it； in the first instance； on the grounds that itrequires an improbable amount of parallel evolution by hominids throughout the old world—in africa； china； europe； the most distant islands of indonesia； wherever they appeared。 somealso believe that multiregionalism encourages a racist view that anthropology took a very longtime to rid itself of。 in the early 1960s； a famous anthropologist named carleton coon of theuniversity of pennsylvania suggested that some modern races have different sources oforigin； implying that some of us e from more superior stock than others。 this hearkenedback unfortably to earlier beliefs that some modern races such as the african “bushmen”
（properly the kalahari san） and australian aborigines were more primitive than others。
whatever coon may personally have felt； the implication for many people was that someraces are inherently more advanced； and that some humans could essentially constitutedifferent species。 the view； so instinctively offensive now； was widely popularized in manyrespectable places until fairly recent times。 i have before me a popular book published bytime…life publications in 1961 called the epic of man based on a series of articles in lifemagazine。 in it you can find such ments as “rhodesian man 。 。 。 lived as recently as25；000 years ago and may have been an ancestor of the african negroes。 his brain size wasclose to that of homo sapiens。” in other words black africans were recently descended fromcreatures that were only “close” to homo sapiens。
thorne emphatically （and i believe sincerely） dismisses the idea that his theory is in anymeasure racist and accounts for the uniformity of human evolution by suggesting that therewas a lot of movement back and forth between cultures and regions。 “there’s no reason tosuppose that people only went in one direction；” he says。 “people were moving all over theplace； and where they met they almost certainly shared genetic material throughinterbreeding。 new arrivals didn’t replace the indigenous populations； they joined them。 theybecame them。” he likens the situation to when explorers like cook or magellan encounteredremote peoples for the first time。 “they weren’t meetings of different species； but of the samespecies with some physical differences。”
what you actually see in the fossil record； thorne insists； is a smooth； continuoustransition。 “there’s a famous skull from petralona in greece； dating from about 300；000 yearsago； that has been a matter of contention among traditionalists because it seems in some ways homo erectus but in other ways homo sapiens。 well； what we say is that this is just what youwould expect to find in species that were evolving rather than being displaced。”
one thing that would help to resolve matters would be evidence of interbreeding； but that isnot at all easy to prove； or disprove； from fossils。 in 1999； archeologists i