Figure 3.1. Top of the family tree: history of interbreeding—a whole lotta “interaction.” Horizontal lines represent interbreeding, vertical lines represent offspring. According to Oahspe the relative proportion of the different races of men around 65 kya was: Ihins 100, Ihuans 3,000, Druks 5,000, Yaks 5,000.
“When species overlap in time, it is difficult to imagine one as an ancestor of the other,” comments one team of evolutionists,3 while one critic observes more bluntly that “coexistence makes evolutionists very nervous.”4 It should. Although contemporaneity of hominids makes it far less likely that one species was ancestral to another (its neighbor), the hardliners simply retort that they see no reason why ancestral species cannot coexist with daughter species. Some of the old type may remain, even when others of the same stock have evolved. Overlap of ancestral and daughter species does not bother us.
Figure 3.2. Suggested lineages of some well-known fossil men. Horizontal lines represent interbreeding, vertical lines represent offspring.
Arthur Keith, too, thought that certain archaic types could persist even after their cousins (or collaterals) branch out into new, more advanced forms. Nothing, he thought, is stopping a population, say, of Homo erectus, from surviving long after Homo sapiens appeared—as in Australia where H. erectus lived long after mods came on the scene.
But not everyone buys into this rationale. This reasoning, for one thing, contradicts the competitive exclusion model, which entails the survival only of the fittest, the ones with the advantages. For some, contemporaneity is grounds for disqualifying a phylogenetic relationship altogether. For instance, Charles E. Oxnard, in The Order of Man, would not allow Au on the human line. Why? Because some of them were contemporaneous with Homo. Multi-disciplinary scientist and author Carl Sagan said about the same: “Since H. habilis and A. robustus emerged at the same time, it is very unlikely that one was the ancestor of the other.”5 H. habilis, reasoned Goodman, was “a contemporary, and not a descendant, of Australopithecus.”6
Every shred of evidence that has been adduced to credit phylogeny from a more primitive ancestor comes, frankly, from the interbreeding of the world’s peoples and the splendid scrambling of their genes. Early and unstoppable mixings of the races of men preclude any need for evolution. Steady hybridization is the simple key to history’s racial mysteries. The peopling of our world is about mingling, not evolution.
ROCK BANGERS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS
In the mid-twentieth century, Columbia University’s T. Dobzhansky and University of Michigan’s C. Loring Brace led a generation of researchers in the single species hypothesis, arguing that “there has been only one hominid species at one time, and . . . the hominids of different time levels are lineally [phylogenetically] related. . . . Since the australopithecines evolved straight into the Pithecanthropines, the two could not have been present at the same time.” Competition within an ecological niche, it was argued, is fierce enough to preclude the coexistence of different types; only one will make it.
According to this competitive exclusion principle, two species, almost by evolutionary definition, cannot coexist, for the stronger or better, as Darwin maintained, “drives out its brutish ancestor. . . . Extinction at the hands of a successor is inevitable.”7 One species, then, preempts the niche; the other just fades away. But as the evidence against Darwin’s scheme was mounting, Brace et al. had to recant.
Anthropologists have only grudgingly accepted the coexistence of different hominids in Africa. Let us visit Africa, turning the clock back 70,000 years: by the rivers “both Asu [pre-Au] and [Ihin] dwell. . . . Asu burrowing in the ground to avoid the heat by day and the cold by night”; but the Ihins were “inspired to make villages and to hide their nakedness.” This passage indicates the coexistence of these two basic types: the first and second race of man.8 In early Africa, Zinj (almost a monster, probably a Yak) and H. habilis (almost a man) lived in the same age and so did H. habilis and H. erectus. How could H. habilis have “evolved” to H. erectus if they were contemporaries? Louis Leakey saw no evolutionary connection between the two, for they lived side by side in East Africa; and when his son Richard found Skull 1470 (a more advanced type) coexisting with Au and H. habilis, it was another blow to both the single species hypothesis and to evolution itself.
“The clincher,” says Jeffrey Goodman, “for Homo erectus types and fully modern man running about Africa together comes from Border Cave,” as well as from Saldanha, Lake Eyassi, and Bodo specimens, which “make it clear that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens coexisted in southern and eastern Africa for a long period of time.”9
All kinds of different “neighbors” have been uncovered by the spade on African soil: At least four species of hominid, Discover magazine said in November, 2000, “coexisted on the shores of . . . Kenya’s Lake Turkana,” which explains why toolmaking industries were different from place to place in this region. “Early toolmakers cast off their rock-banger image”10: Some of these implements were made by “fairly unintelligent hominid[s]” while a nearby site indicates a more advanced people “capable of mass production.”
TABLE 3.1. CONTEMPORANEOUS HOMINID SPECIES IN AFRICA
Hominid Contemporary Where
Ar. ramidus (Asu) H. sapiens pygmaeus Along African rivers*38
Au. africanus H. habilis/Skull 1470 East Africa
Au. africanus (ER 1808) H. erectus Lake Turkana, Kenya, and Olduvai
Au. boisei (Zinj) H. habilis East Africa
Au. boisei/Au. robustus (KNM-ER 406) H. erectus (ER 3733) South and East Africa†39
Au. robustus (OH5) H. habilis (OH7) Tanzania
H. habilis H. erectus Several sites‡40
H. erectus (Omo II) H. sapiens (Omo I) Omo River, Ethiopia
At all periods some groups were doubtless more advanced than others.
ALES HRDLICKA, ET AL., EARLY MAN IN SOUTH AMERICA
Who exactly made those sophisticated tools? “A more advanced hominid genus co-existed [e.a.] with Australopithecus in Africa.”11 So here we are in Africa, looking for our evolutionary ancestor among Au or H. habilis or H. erectus but finding instead that they actually were all contemporaries. “Some form of Homo lived at the same time as some form of Australopithecus.”12
This revelation was only strengthened with the discovery of Tanzania’s very old (3.6 myr) Laetoli Man, a four-foot seven-inch primitive but mixed creature. Quite a bit more archaic than his modern-looking feet are his skull and teeth, the canines projecting. Yet the now-famous Laetoli footprints, preserved in lava, seem quite modern. Discovered by Mary Leakey, the prints show feet with the big toe neatly in line, not sticking out, not splayed (see chapter 12). Oddly, Lucy, who is younger, had feet more primitive than Laetoli’s. Now, given the early date assigned to Laetoli, Mary Leakey thought this is too old, it has to be strictly Au—never once considering that Au might have coexisted and indeed blended with some more “modern” type.
Things fall apart all over again on the next rung of evolution: H. erectus in Europe. Germany’s Bilzingsleben erectus was not so much a predecessor of AMHs, as their contemporary, coexisting with so-called archaic sapiens such as Germany’s Steinheim Man. Primitive Heidelberg Man, too, lived at the same time as those modernish Galley Hill Men (although certain “adjustments” have since been made for their date, see chapter 6).
Figure 3.3. From Homo erectus to mod in Asia, some continuity is discernible. Drawing by Karen Barry.
Even in the New World, we find mod and Druk who lived side by side: Brazilian skulls, for example, fell into “two different races, some being smaller and relatively well-formed [Ihin types], and others larger, of a most unfavorable form (d’une forme des plus desavantageuses), with a forehead more sloping than that of many apes.”13
In the Far East, as well, Louis Leakey found H. erectus and H. sapiens to be roughly contemporary in China. Here, continuity of types from Sinanthropus erectus to mod seems to indicate extensive Ihuan-Druk mergers. These Chinese fossils, in ot
her words, show no evolving, just a blending of stocks that bridges earlier hominids with modern Chinese; the pattern (which I get back to in chapter 11) is significant and known as continuity.
INTIMATE RELATIONS
All these contemporaries take the wind out of any evolutionary scheme. No missing links here or anywhere, just bedfellows. “We know indeed,” wrote Marcellin Boule almost a hundred years ago, “that men of relatively higher organization . . . existed from very early times in Europe simultaneously [e.a.] with the Neanderthal type.”14 Evidence abounds that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis shared the same general turf in the Middle East as well for thousands of years. And some of them “shared” more than turf (as we will see in chapter 5).
For the lower races sharing, of course, spelled an improvement. But for the higher races, it was a loss. The Ihuans (AMH) were slumming again; their “affairs” in Palestine are key, for at Mt. Carmel we find them sharing the Neanderthal’s turf, tools, hunting habits, and shelter types. This was 39 kya, which date is significant for it marks the second wave of Ihuans (Cro-Magnons), who would soon spread through Europe (around 36 kya) and intermingle (back-breed) with the “barbarians” (Druks and Neanderthals). Result? A degraded Cro-Magnon (Ihuan), but an upgraded Neanderthal.
A sure sign of such Ihuan retrogression, in other words, is the combination of modern morphology and a bigger brain with primitive behavior and tools. Neanderthal tools in such situations, were no less sophisticated than the implements made by their AMH contemporaries—both in Africa and the Middle East. Even earlier, mid-Paleolithic industries (ca 100 kya), fairly crude, were produced by virtually AMH people at Skhul (Israel), Klasies (South Africa), Krapina (Eastern Europe), and the Crimea. Although Israel’s Qafzeh people are “strikingly modern” in appearance, their tools are Neanderthal. The nearby Skhul (with its AMHs) and Tabun caves (with its Neanderthals) were at the same cultural level. Their tools were “almost indistinguishable in workmanship. . . . The two sites were contemporaneous.”15
Thus do Mt. Carmel’s old caves show Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis coexisting—and cohabiting. (Neanderthals at Tabun are the same age as mods at Skhul and Qafzeh.) This presents a problem to evolutionary thinking: Why did two different groups of humans occupy the same region, using the same tools, for 40,000 years? Did they get along? Did they fight? (see competitive exclusion, above). Did they do better than get along? We might well suggest this, since their skeletal remains betray “every variety of intergradations”16—a marvelous intermixture, fusing Neanderthal traits (such as the prodigious browridge) with modern ones (high forehead, well-sculpted chin). The fact that they shared the same burial practices*41 and were even buried together indicates they lived as one, or in proximity. Only reluctantly did physical anthropologists classify these specimens (Skhul and Qafzeh) as early moderns, belatedly conceding that they coexisted for a very long time in the Near East with Neanderthal people.
Mt. Carmel, as far as I can tell, gives us a classic case of retrobreeding, for here, the AMHs used only Mousterian (Neanderthal) tools. They were devolving rather than evolving. No sapiens explosion here in the Near East, where the (AMH) Ihuan Cro-Magnons violated the rule of endogamy, which enjoined: Marry only with your own kind.
Israel, it seems, continued to be a great mixing ground; some of today’s “Laron” (midget) cases are found here, suggesting a further type of racial blending at the Mt. Carmel archaeological site: Let’s fast-forward to the year 13,000 BP. Here, a small pre-Neolithic race, some less than five feet tall, was found and named Natufian. As I see it, the Ihins at this time broke their vows and lived clandestinely with the world’s people, begetting offspring in great numbers17—among them, the Natufians. This mixing of tiny Ihin and large Ihuan (and Ghans) took place in the Age of Osiris (just prior to the Neolithic); many of the little people “married with the Ihuans . . . and [they] were lost as Ihins.”18
Yet not all was lost. Possessed of “vastly superior” tools, the Natufians may have been the bringers of the agricultural revolution to the Levant. Steven Mithen dates these Natufians to 14 kya. A sedentary people, some tall, some short, (the short ones at Kebara), the Natufians were farmers. They lived in villages all year-round, and made regular use of mortar and pestles, as well as sickles.19 They were also fishermen, their bone hooks the oldest known in the world. In these people, who possess the distinctive gracile build of Earth’s first civilizers, we might recognize the principal culture bearers of Mesolithic Palestine.
These late Mesolithic mixings in western Asia began with the advent of the Ghans, around 18 kya, when Ihuan women laid the honey trap, seducing Ihin men, their offspring resulting in the Ghan race, also known as Homo sapiens sapiens (see appendix B). Later still, perhaps 15 kya, when the Ihins in turn mixed with these handsome Ghans, the Natufian race was born.
The mighty Ghans, whose glory days filled the Mesolithic, would be familiar to us as the builders of enormous megaliths and as founders of the Sun Kingdoms. These are the powerful and ambitious people who brought an explosion of culture, technology, and monumental works to the lands of Europe, Eurasia, North Africa, Oceania, Asia, and Peru. Tall and stately, the Ghans were a proud race who made themselves the elite, the aristocratic class of protohistory. In this connection, Hooton once observed: “[I]n every part of Europe the socially superior and economically elevated classes show a disproportionately large number of tall persons.”20 In Upper Paleolithic times, this tall man was the Ghan (late Cro-Magnon) end product of the “beautifying” reign of Apollo (see chapters 4 and 9).
Culminating in the Magdalenian peak time of the great representational cave art of Europe, the Ghan is best known to us from the great paintings at Altamira, Spain—which petered out in time due to retrobreeding. These were the clever people who introduced small objets d’art, oil paint and brushes, engraving, frescoes, crayons, oil lamps, bodkins, and awls.
What does the fossil record tells us about the different racial groups coexisting in the Upper Paleolithic? Backpedaling to around thirty thousand years ago, we find mods like Cro-Magnon Ihuans shared the planet with at least three other human types: H. floresiensis, H. neanderthalensis, and the recently discovered (2010) Denisova, or X Woman, found buried in a cave of the Altai mountains in Siberia. The Denisova evidence suggests that H. sapiens (Ihuans) had interbred with them.21 Publication of the Neanderthal genome in 2010 supported—some say proved—the idea that an AMH man “enjoyed intimate relations” with other races, including Siberia’s Denisovans. “It is possible,” reported an article titled “Pinkie Pokes Holes in Human Evolution,” that Denisova “was descended from the hybrid spawn of an ancient tryst between her ancestors and Neanderthals.”22 The Barnes Review said that “to discover that the Denisova hominin was a hybrid . . . would change the view of man’s prehistory.”23
Was X Woman a Yak (i.e., an Asu/Druk blend)? Known to us through genetic analysis of a single finger, X Woman’s mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) belonged to neither a Neanderthal or early mod, but someone whose forebears had cohabited with Homo. It is “a totally different humanlike creature. . . . All three probably came in contact.” Modern technology (beautiful bracelets discovered nearby) could not possibly belong to Denisova Woman, but only to her more cultivated neighbors. It’s a big step to argue that the Denisova hominid created them, argued one worker: “If you find a Coca-Cola bottle near a mummy’s tomb, you don’t assume that the mummy invented Coke.”
HYBRIDS, HYBRIDS, NOTHING BUT HYBRIDS
The tall AMHs of the Solutrean (ca 18–25 kya), known in Europe as Cro-Magnon, were Ihuans—impressive souls, “red and brown and tall and majestic.”24 A cross of Druk and Ihin genes, these Ihuan men and women were remarkably robust. “The great Ihuan race [were] half-breeds betwixt the Druks [H. erectus] and the Ihins,”25 even though the chosen had been commanded to marry among themselves. But the Druks “burnt with desire . . . and my chosen came unto them, and they bare children to them” (producing the second wave of Ihuans). Later
(third wave), the sacred little people again mixed with the ground people (Druk), for the latter came to them in the winter as beggars; and the chosen were tempted, and it came to pass that the Ihuans were again born into the world.
“Now these Cro-Magnon,” reasoned Boule, “who seem suddenly to replace the Neanderthal people in France, must previously have existed somewhere, unless we can imagine a mutation so great and so sudden as to be altogether out of question.”26 Thus is Cro-Magnon’s sudden appearance called an evolutionary saltation (meaning a jump). But wasn’t it simply a new wave of hybrids? A hybrid race needs no implausible mutations or saltations to explain it. The second wave of Ihuans appeared suddenly in Europe 39 kya—not because they came from elsewhere or “mutated”; the Ihuans were produced, quite simply, by crossing, and no less than three times: 70 kya, 39 kya, and 18 kya.
The Ihuans have degenerated by marrying with the Druks.
OAHSPE, BOOK OF FRAGAPATTI 39:1
But each round was lost through retrobreeding: Cro-Magnon’s final “disappearance” ca 12 kya came about through the back breeding of the last (third) wave of Ihuans, explaining then the mysterious disappearance of the great Lascaux cave artists of Magdalenian France.
“I raised up Ihuan and I gave them certain commandments, amongst which was not to cohabit with the Druks [H. erectus], lest they go down in darkness. But they obeyed not my words, and lo and behold, they are lost from the face of the earth.”27
Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man Page 11