488 AJSTNTJAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



ular contour with wide interramal distance, (3) the small distance 

 between the occlusal plane and the mandibular articulation with the 

 skull, and (4) the slender construction of the mandible. None of 

 these features can be matched in the australopithecines. In some 

 respects "Telanthropus" is actually more advanced in the direction 

 of modern man than is Pekin man. On the other hand, in no known 

 feature is "Telanthropus" less advanced than either of the austra- 

 lopithecines. If the science of comparative morphology means any- 

 thing, then surely "Telanthropus" must be classed with that group 

 with which it shows closest and most fundamental resemblance. On 

 the basis of the available evidence, that group is clearly the hominines. 

 "Telanthropus" is often passed over lightly on the grounds that so 

 few specimens are known that its affinities cannot be determined. It 

 should be remembered, however, that these few specimens occur right 

 among the two largest australopithecine samples known and therefore 

 in the best possible situation for determining whether this form is an 

 australopithecine or not. Here again geograpliic differences do not 

 enter into the matter and time differences are in one case entirely 

 absent and in the other at worst very slight. Furthermore, although 

 not much is known about variation in "Telanthropus," a great deal is 

 known about that of both australopithecines froin that locality. 



STONE TOOLS ASSOCIATED WITH AUSTRALOPITHECINES 



The cultural level attained by the australopithecines is of great 

 interest and importance. Dart has argued that much evidence points 

 to the australopithecines having used bones, teeth, and horns as imple- 

 ments and weapons. One may, it seems to me, accept this in principle, 

 but with the reservations that {a) the case should not be carried be- 

 yond the legitimate evidence, and (&) the evidence so far available is 

 largely concerned with Australopithecus and does not necessarily 

 apply equally to Paranthropus. 



Tool using is well known among some nonprimate animals mani- 

 festly less advanced than australopithecines about which there is 

 now debate as to whether they should be classified as men rather than 

 as near-men. In view also of the fact that the australopithecines were 

 erect bipeds, it would be surprising indeed if they never used natural 

 objects as tools. These considerations, coupled wnth the evidence 

 provided by Dart (e.g., 1957a, 1957b, 1960), make it reasonable to 

 conclude that at least Australopithecus^ and possibly also Paranthro- 

 pus, were tool users. The distinction between tool using and tool 

 making can sometimes be rather fine, and I do not exclude from the 

 former a limited amount of constructive modification to natural ob- 

 jects used as tools. If such modification is a regular and normal 

 part of the situation, then one is dealing with toolmaking. 



