far exceeds what had earlier been thought. These new bodies of information 

 culled by specialists in Primate behavior have as yet scarcely made their 

 impact upon the interpretation of archaeological problems and of australo- 

 pithecine cultural potentialities. That is why I make no apology for having 

 dwelt on them at such length here: for they must alter the climate of opin- 

 ion in paleoanthropology, and they must influence the way in which we 

 consider the claims made for the australopithecines. In fact, the accretion of 

 this new information in the last decade has been paralleled by a steady de- 

 cline in the resistance to claims made about implemental activity of the 

 australopithecines. 



NINE 



U THE CULTURAL CAPACITY 

 y OF AUSTRALOPITHECUS 



Our discussion of the cultural potentialities of Primates has brought us 

 directly to the basic questions: did Australopithecus have the capacity for 

 tool-using and tool-making? If so, in what manner and in what directions did 

 he use these capacities? Answers to these questions are provided by 2 main 

 avenues of thought: indirect inference and direct evidence. 



Indirect evidence bearing on the cultural 

 capacity of Australopithecus 



Much indirect evidence points to the cultural adaptation of Australo- 

 pithecus (Tobias 1963d. 1968c, 1969b). Such evidence stems from (a) the 

 ecological situation in which australopithecine fossils have been found; (b) 

 the possession by Australopithecus of the basic anatomical equipment re- 

 quired for implemental activity; and (c) the fact that Australopithecus was 

 structurally advanced over the apes, especially in those respects relevant for 

 tool-making. 



&• 



The argument from ecology. Remains of Australopithecus have been 

 found in areas of comparative aridity, as well as in somewhat moister cli- 

 mates. Climatological evidence, past and present, suggests that they were 

 well adapted to life in open savannah country. In contrast, the African great 



3£ 1*4 



