hominine species, Homo habilis, from Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, Tobias, and 

 Napier 1964), the habiline teetli Eound by Howell at Omo (1968), and 

 gracile hominid remains from Lothagam and Koobi Fora near Lake 

 Rudolph, as well as by the Telanthropus material from Swartkrans, which 

 Simonetta (i<). r >7) and Robinson (1961) have re-allocated to H. erectus, but 

 which I consider probably to belong to the same taxon as that to which 

 H. habilis has been allocated. This applies, too, to the recently reconstructed 

 hominine from Swartkrans (Clarke, Howell, and Brain 1970). 



Tentatively, I have concluded from the direct evidence that Australo- 

 pithecus was a tool user and that, at least in southern Africa, he made tools 

 of bone, horn, and tooth, but only occasionally of stone. 



The evidence from Olduvai is summarized with characteristic caution 

 by Dr. Mary Leakey as follows: 



. . . insofar as the hominid remains from Beds I and II are concerned, it must be 

 stated that there is no direct evidence for linking any particular culture or cul- 

 tural phase with any particular fossil skull. Both H. habilis and Australopithecus 

 remains have been found on Oldowan and developed Oldowan living floors, and 

 it is impossible to determine whether either or both represent the tenants of the 

 camp sites or their victims. The position may be briefly summarized as follows: 



Bed 1 and Lower Bed II: 



No. 5 (Zinjanthropus), Nos. 6, 7, 8 (H. habilis), and No. 10 (?) found on 

 Oldowan living sites. 



No. 4 (H. habilis) and No. 16 (?) not associated with cultural material. 



Middle and Upper Bed II: 



No. 3 (ansiialopithecine), No. 13 (? H. habilis), Nos. 14 and 15 (?) associated 

 with the developed Oldowan. 



No. 9 (cf. H. erectus) not associated with any culture. 



No hominid remains are known either from Acheulian or Acheulian- 

 developed Oldowan contact sites. 



On the balance of evidence, none of which is conclusive, the repeated associ- 

 ation of H . habilis and Australopithecus with the Oldowan and its derivative 

 strongly suggests that one or the other must be responsible for that culture, with 

 the scales tipped in favour of II. habilis on account of greater brain size and a 

 degree of manual ability. It must be remembered, however, that the hand bones 

 of the Olduvai australopithecines are not known. [M. D. Leakey 1967, 441-42] 



Summation on Australopithecus and culture 



When we combine the dim ( and indirect evidence, a general inference 

 seems permissible. It is that Australopithecus was indeed characterized by 



3* ■:;" 



