His view was "that stone tools can only be attributed to australopithecines 

 with any certainty if it is known that nothing more advanced was living at 

 their time level" (Robinson 1962, p. 105). Spelled out more fully, this view 

 is as follows: 



If it can be proved that australopithecines occur in direct association with a stone 

 industry over a significant period of time when no evidence whatever exists of the 

 presence at that level of anything more advanced than the australopithecines, 

 then there will be a sound case for regarding the australopithecines as tool-makers. 

 In fact there is evidence throughout the entire australopithecine period either 

 proving or suggesting the presence of a more advanced form of hominid. There 

 are the large parietals in the "pre-Zinj" level of Olduvai, "Telanthropus" at 

 Swartkrans associated directly with Paranthropus, and at Sangiran "Pithecanthro- 

 pus" and "Meganthropus" occur in association. There is thus no period in the 

 past in which australopithecines are known to occur in association with stone 

 artefacts but about which all students are agreed that nothing more advanced 

 than australopithecines occurs. [Robinson 1962a, p. 102] 



I accept this argument in general (though not in all details; for instance, 

 as applied to Indonesia, I do not consider that the case for an australopithe- 

 cine there is yet proved). Accordingly, I followed up Robinson's statements 

 with a detailed analysis of skeletal and cultural associations at a number of 

 African sites (Tobias igfir,d, 1965c). From some 15 sites, levels, or living 

 floors analyzed, I was able to show that: 



1. At every australopithecine locality with stone tools there is evidence 

 of the coexistence of a more advanced hominid. 



2. Wherever we find Australopithecus together with a more advanced 

 hominid, there too we find stone tools. 



3. Wherever early stone tools are found with hominid remains, the 

 skeletal remains include a more advanced hominid, with or without Aus- 

 tralopithecus as well. 



4. Every early locality that has yielded a hominid more advanced than 

 Australopithecus has stone tools in addition. 



Although it is a dangerous procedure to speculate on the identity of the 

 early stone tool maker in terms of negative evidence, it does seem to me that 

 the evidence of these correlations from 15 localities may suggest a balance of 

 probabilities. Unless we are to resort to a series of special pleas, the most 

 reasonable hypothesis to explain these data would seem to be that Aus- 

 tralopithecus was not the maker of the earliest cultural stone implements, 

 but that more advanced hominids almost certainly were. The nature of such 

 more advanced hominids is suggested by the recently described lowly 



135 l€ 



