Fieldbus Technology Industrial Network Standards For Realtime Distributed Control 1st Edition R Murugeshan Auth

Fieldbus Technology Industrial Network Standards
For Realtime Distributed Control 1st Edition R
Murugeshan Auth download
https://ebookbell.com/product/fieldbus-technology-industrial-
network-standards-for-realtime-distributed-control-1st-edition-r-
murugeshan-auth-4188898
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Pulsed Electric Fields Technology For The Food Industry Fundamentals
And Applications 2nd Edition Javier Raso
https://ebookbell.com/product/pulsed-electric-fields-technology-for-
the-food-industry-fundamentals-and-applications-2nd-edition-javier-
raso-46208700
And Applications Javier Raso Volker Heinz
the-food-industry-fundamentals-and-applications-javier-raso-volker-
heinz-4170174
And Applications Food Engineering Series 1st Edition Javier Rasopueyo
the-food-industry-fundamentals-and-applications-food-engineering-
series-1st-edition-javier-rasopueyo-1975238
Pulsed Electric Fields Pef Technology Role In Food Science And
Emerging Applications Lynch
https://ebookbell.com/product/pulsed-electric-fields-pef-technology-
role-in-food-science-and-emerging-applications-lynch-5699512

High Magnetic Fields Science And Technology Volume 1 Magnet Technology
Anbd Experimental Techniques Editors Fritz Herlach
https://ebookbell.com/product/high-magnetic-fields-science-and-
technology-volume-1-magnet-technology-anbd-experimental-techniques-
editors-fritz-herlach-2633008
High Magnetic Fields Science And Technology Fritz Herlach Noboru Miura
https://ebookbell.com/product/high-magnetic-fields-science-and-
technology-fritz-herlach-noboru-miura-1434530
Emerging Fields In Solgel Science And Technology 1st Edition Raul
Quijada
https://ebookbell.com/product/emerging-fields-in-solgel-science-and-
technology-1st-edition-raul-quijada-4594084
Pulsed Electric Fields In Food Processing Fundamental Aspects And
Applications Food Preservation Technology 1st Edition Gustavo V
Barbosacnovas
https://ebookbell.com/product/pulsed-electric-fields-in-food-
processing-fundamental-aspects-and-applications-food-preservation-
technology-1st-edition-gustavo-v-barbosacnovas-2426922
Applications Of Computer Science And Technology In Different Fields
Adele Kuzmiakova
https://ebookbell.com/product/applications-of-computer-science-and-
technology-in-different-fields-adele-kuzmiakova-33349932

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

67
68
Upper left, a borer. Right, two sides of a scraper. Below,
side view and bottom of a rostrocarinate. (After Peake and
Fleure, 1927; Moir, 1927; and Lankester, 1912.)
The fact that some eoliths were found in geological formations
much older than man—so far as we know his history—was an
argument against all of them, because the older and the more
recent looked so much alike. Another cogent objection was that
eoliths could have been made by natural forces, such as a landslide,
the pressure of heavy strata, or one stone knocking against another.
A heavy cart can make an eolith when it rolls over a smooth flint.
But in spite of arguments and antagonisms, which still persist, there
were two things that seemed to establish the eolith as the work of
man.
To begin with, some kind of tool, some form of experiment, had to
lie behind even the crudest hand ax. At first man must have picked
up a natural eolith and used its cutting edge. A little later he must
have improved the edge. In any case he threw the stone away when
he had finished the job, and later looked for and improved another
one. Gradually he developed his dawn-stone technique and made
tools that he would use until he lost them.
The second argument for the dawn stone was impressive. In 1910,
after years of search, J. Reid Moir found eoliths near Ipswich,
England, under unusual conditions. They came in two layers, which
seemed to indicate that early man had camped twice in this
neighborhood at different times. They were bedded in soft sand and
therefore could not have been chipped by geologic pressure. The
sand dated from the Pliocene Period which preceded the Great
Ice Age. Later, in the same district, he found eoliths in a layer
of delicate shells—again a sign that the eoliths had not been chipped
by natural forces.
[6]
Moreover, many of Moir’s eoliths had a new and
peculiar shape; they were keeled like an upturned boat or beaked

69
like an eagle. Sir Ray Lankester called them rostrocarinates. In 1900
Mortillet had to admit man—or pre-man—to an Eolithic Age.
Flake vs. Core Industries
More difficulties beset Mortillet and his system of names and cultures
as time passed and as fellow scientists dug new caves and terraces,
and turned up stone tools of other patterns and other periods.
Implements appeared that did not fit into the Frenchman’s classic
system. A supplementary scheme had to be devised, and soon it,
too, failed to fit the facts.
The new system divided all paleolithic tools into two types—which
was sound enough—and assigned each type to certain peoples and
to those peoples only—which proved not so sound. The division lay
between cores and flakes. It lay between tools that had been made
out of the heart of a lump of flint, and tools that had been made
from chips flaked off the lump. The fact that there were core tools
and flake tools was plain enough, but the fondness of scientists for
strict classification led the prehistorians into theories that time
disproved.
First of all, they had to set up a time sequence. They decided, not
unnaturally, that man must have begun by hammering things with a
handy rock until his rude tool began to chip away into something
approaching an edge and eventually a point. Thus the hand ax, or
coup de poing, came into being (see illustration, page 71). In the
course of time man began to notice the chips, and to use the larger
ones to cut and scrape with. Soon—that is, after a couple of
hundred thousand years—he was deliberately knocking flakes
off a stone core, and using them for spear points as well as scrapers.
The prehistorians called hand axes the products of a “core industry,”
and chips the products of a “flake industry.” They believed that one

70
industry had preceded the other by hundreds of thousands of years,
and that the Abbevillian and Acheulean had stuck to cores and left
flakes to the Mousterian. Thus they believed that certain cultures
had devoted themselves exclusively to the core, and certain others
to the flake.
The theory that the early stone workers had a core industry and the
later ones worked flakes was rudely upset by the discovery of flaked
tools—called Cromerian—in an English stratum as old as the French
sources of the first hand axes, and possibly older. Some say they lie
at the beginning of the Great Ice Age or at the end of the earlier
period, the Pliocene. This demonstration of a very early flake
industry was reenforced by the discovery of a special type of flaked
tool—the Clactonian—which runs from late Abbevillian into
Acheulean times. Another type—the Levalloisian—laps over from the
Acheulean into the Mousterian.
The core industries and the flake industries simply would not stay
nicely separated. The first excavators had found only hand axes
because these tools were so much more interesting than scrapers;
later students found flake tools in the same ancient levels. No hand
axes turned up in Clactonian culture-sites, but they appeared at the
end of the Levallois, and the flake-loving Mousterians made them for
a time. “Flake and core run parallel to one another in time,” says W.
B. Wright, “and even intermix.”
[7]

PALEOLITHIC TYPES AND INDUSTRIES

71
A chart of the core-, flake-, and blade-making traditions
and industries, devised and dated by Robert J. Braidwood.
[8]
The dates indicate the approximate beginning and end
of the various types of artifacts. Usually the same group of
men made different kinds of tools within one industry. The
Solutrean was distinguished for double-faced, leaf-shaped
projectile points, rather than blades.

72
Three European hand axes that may bridge 300,000 years.
They are, top, Pre-Abbevillian; left, Abbevillian; and right,
Acheulean. The last is one of the tools found by John Frere
at Hoxne in 1715. Most hand axes are not so well formed.
Somewhat similar tools have been found in American Indian
cultures hafted at the top of a wooden handle or in the
middle, as a sort of spokeshave. (After Osborn, 1915;
Leakey, 1935; and Burkitt, 1933.)
If we do not try to apply the core-versus-flake theory too
broadly and too strictly, it suggests a fascinating picture of two
kinds of men and two kinds of life through the first two-thirds of the
Great Ice Age. One kind dominated during the cold of the
glaciations; the other, during the warmth of the interglacials. For the
flake tools of the Clactonian and Levalloisian peoples are found
mainly with the fossils of cold-loving animals in the north and east of
Europe, and the core tools of the Abbevillian and Acheulean peoples
with warmer-blooded animals in the west and south.
Science accepted Mortillet’s system of orderly cultures and the
theory of successive core and flake industries, and for fifty years
tried to apply it to new discoveries both in Europe and elsewhere.
Though the system has had to be modified in parts, and in parts
abandoned, its terms are still used, and used in a way that is
confusing because the terms are no longer exact. In Africa the
various types of tools resemble only approximately those of Europe,
and they do not seem to correspond in time. The hand ax may have
spread from Spain into almost all Africa, or, more probably, from
Africa into Spain, as well as southern India, but there are plenty of
flaked tools, too, in these regions. Central and northern Asia seem to
be devoted to the flake, and to eschew the hand ax in favor of a
kind of chopping tool made out of a core. Asia, like Africa, has tools
made out of large, smooth pebbles.

73
Dating Early Man in Europe
One good thing can be said for Mortillet’s modified sequence of
Abbevillian, Acheulean, Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrean, and
Magdalenian. It may not be complete enough, and it may not apply
too well to the world outside Europe; but it is chronologically sound
locally. It is a succession of cultures along a time scale. If an
archaeologist finds two or more varieties of paleolithic tools in a new
site, he finds, for example, Acheulean beneath Mousterian, or
Mousterian beneath Aurignacian. Similarly, when he comes upon
Abbevillian and Acheulean in separate terraces of the same river, he
always finds the Abbevillian in a higher terrace than the
Acheulean, and, as we have explained on pages 51 and 52,
the higher terrace is always the older.
Dating these cultures in terms of our years is another matter. The
first step is fairly simple. If the tools are found with the fossils of a
warmth-loving animal like the hippopotamus, they belong to an
interglacial period; if they are found with the fossils of an animal like
the hairy mammoth, which could survive a harsh climate, they
belong to a glacial time. The species of animal may determine which
glacial or which interglacial. If the tools are found in the gravel of a
certain river terrace, then they belong to the geological period when
the material of the terrace was being laid down. The terraces often
contain fossils, and this may cross-date the terrace materials with
cave deposits. But scientists are often faced with the problem of

74
picking the right glacial or interglacial period on scanty evidence,
and the still more difficult problem of setting the period in the terms
of our years. There is room here for much disagreement.
Glaciologists do not agree as to the age or the length of the various
glacials and interglacials (see illustration, page 55). Some
prehistorians accept and use the dates of one glacialist; some
choose another’s. They do not all concur as to which culture came in
which glacial period.
True Tools—Deceptive Skulls
Men who practiced Abbevillian culture had some flaked tools—which
they may have used for scraping—but their best-recognized output
was a crude hand ax. It was not too well formed. Undoubtedly they
also used wood and bone, but we have no sure evidence of this.
Some assign Abbevillian culture to the first interglacial period, about
500,000 years ago. Some move it up 200,000 years, into the second
interglacial. Some even place it in the third. Perhaps it lasted
through all three. At any rate, the men who made it liked a fairly
warm climate. As neither they nor their Acheulean successors made
fire or controlled it effectively, the early Europeans probably
retreated to Africa during the glaciations.

Ancient implements of bone and wood. Left, part of the
thigh bone of a mammoth, found at Piltdown, England, in

75
76
the same deposit as the now infamous skull; it, too, is a
forgery. Right, part of a wooden spear, its point hardened
by fire, found at Clacton-on-Sea, England, and probably
made by Acheulean or Mousterian man. (Left, after Dawson
and Woodward, 1917; right, after Crawford, 1921.)
The Acheulean hand ax was thinner and better, and it is found
with various kinds of scrapers and cleavers. Probably it was
this culture that left us part of a very crude wooden spear at
Clacton-on-Sea, in England, though some date it a little later. The
earliest association of human remains with tools in Europe is that of
the Swanscombe skull and Acheulean tools in Pleistocene gravels of
the Thames in Kent.
We are not too sure about the physical appearance of the men of
Abbevillian and Acheulean times. For the Abbevillian there is possibly
a fragment of jaw, a most interesting one, to be sure, but not
actually found with any kind of artifact. For Acheulean times there
are no dependable skeletons to help us, and not even complete
skulls. In fact, there are not as many candidates for the position as
we thought we had a decade or so ago.
Galley Hill man turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. He has
a thick skull and a few other primitive traits—a fossil type of modern
man, perhaps, but not nearly as old as we once thought. His bones
lacked a fluorine mineral content typical of other fossils that
belonged in the interglacial deposits where the Galley Hill skull
reposed, eight feet below the surface.
The same fluorine test—which fortunately applies to such fossilated
things as bone, antler, and ivory—exposed an even more notorious
impostor, expelling him from the select corps of early men. This was
Piltdown man, alias Homo eoanthropus dawsoni, alias Eoanthropus,
alias Dawson’s Dawn Man. It was demonstrated to be a fake and a
forgery that led its discoverer to try to match a reasonably human

77
skull to the jaw of an ape. The jaw and its teeth had been modified
by the faker—not Dawson—to make it appear less apelike. Both jaw
and skull had been artfully treated with chemicals to appear as
antiquated as the unusual assortment of fossils with which they
were salted into early interglacial deposits. Many of the fossils, while
authentic in their own right, also were chemically stained and
planted. And tools were added to complete the assemblage. The
latter included a bone pick thoughtfully carved from the femur of an
elephant, but it was carved with a modern steel knife, as careful
scrutiny under a powerful lens disclosed, and not with the stone
flakes of prehistoric man. (See illustration, page 74.)
The British scientists Kenneth Oakley, J. S. Wiener, and Sir Wilfrid Le
Gros Clark exposed the forgery in a most conclusive manner.
[9]
In
laying the ghost of Piltdown, these authorities resolved four decades
of controversy as to his place in human evolution. Although
Piltdown’s contribution to human evolution now is known to have
been nil, his contribution to physical anthropology has been
considerable. As the academic dust settled on this issue, the
anthropologists returned to their laboratories with greater confidence
in their science and with somewhat sharper tools in their
research kits. It is unlikely that any new hoax will ever acquire
the same importance as Piltdown.
Ancestors from Heidelberg and Swanscombe?
We still have at least four authentically early human fossils from
which European men may have descended. Each has its own
interesting story.
[10]
The fragment of jaw found under 80 feet of sand at Mauer,
Germany, we call Heidelberg man, although he is the least human of

78
the lot. He seems also to be the most ancient, perhaps belonging to
the first interglacial period. At least the bones of horses, elephants,
bears, and other animals found at the same level in the sand pit
derive from the early stages of the Ice Age. Heidelberg man clearly
lacks a chin, and his molar teeth are reminiscent in some ways of
cattle rather than men or even monkeys, for that matter. This is an
important clue, for the same thing, “taurodontism,” occurs much
later among some of the Neanderthals.
Heidelberg was not found with or near any stone tools. He seems to
belong to that part of the Pleistocene in which the Abbevillian tools
were made. Although he shares a few physical traits with
Neanderthal man, who lived much later and made excellent tools,
some specialists point out that the Heidelberg jaw bears an even
closer resemblance to the early man-apes of South Africa, who had
no toolmaking tradition.
For the long, cool, and somewhat arid second interglacial period, we
have two good prospects, both probably females. One of these is
from Swanscombe. In 1936, A. T. Marston found there among the
undisturbed Middle Gravels a fragment of fossil skull. Except for its
unusual thickness, it was not unlike an equivalent portion in the skull
of modern man. Marston’s discovery was all the more exciting since
this fragment fitted very well with another, obviously from the
same skull, which he had found in place the previous year,
only a few paces away. The two pieces, from the left side and back
of the skull, provided the earliest undisputed evidence for a very
early form of modern man. Twenty years later, in 1955, Mr. J. Wymer
recovered a third fragment, from the right side of the same skull.
The spots from which the three fragments of the Swanscombe skull
were recovered mark a triangle, the sides of which measure 24, 49,
and 51 feet. Near the Swanscombe bones and at the same level
were found more than two hundred stone flakes as well as four
small hand axes of Acheulean type, a stone knife, and fragments of
other tools. As we have mentioned, the gravels appear to be an
undisturbed deposit. Accordingly, they are now adequately protected

79
and the object of a most intensive and careful excavation. From
them may come yet more information about this ancient ancestor.
[11]
This is early man, indeed. Swanscombe, from all the evidence now
available, is very close physically to modern man, closer than many
fossil men from the third interglacial period. And judging from the
accompanying stone tools, we may say that Swanscombe was
culturally as well as physically human.
Until additional remains of Swanscombe are recovered, we cannot
with certainty assign these remains to a precise place among man’s
ancestors. There are a few who suspect that the facial bones, should
these be recovered, would place Swanscombe closer to Neanderthal
than to modern man. However profitless such a conjecture may
seem, it is at least suggested by our third early European fossil, the
Steinheim skull.
Twenty-three feet beneath the surface in a gravel quarry at
Steinheim, Germany, this now famous skull was found. First
reported in 1933 by Curator Fritz K. H. Berckheimer, of the nearby
Stuttgart Natural History Museum, this skull was well within a layer
of gravels which now are believed to be of second interglacial age.
Steinheim is now considered more or less a contemporary of
Swanscombe, perhaps just slightly less ancient. In the Steinheim
skull there is a strong resemblance to the Swanscombe skull and to
that of modern man. But most of the right side of the Steinheim face

80
is intact, along with a few molar teeth, and in these there is little
likeness to Homo sapiens.
Given the Swanscombe bones alone, probably no anatomist would
dream of constructing for it a Neanderthal-like face. But in the
Steinheim skull there can be no mistake. Here we find a skull of
reasonably modern shape but equipped with enormous bony ridges
over the eye sockets, a markedly broad nose, and a somewhat
projecting mouth—all suggestive of Neanderthal. In the main, even
these features may be somewhat closer to an early type of modern
man. It has been asked: Could Steinheim be an ancestor to both
Neanderthal and modern man?
Putting the Neanderthal in His Place
Neanderthal man was a latecomer. We will mention him here but
wait until farther along to take a closer look at him. He came to
Europe late in the third interglacial period. His culture was advanced
and his remains are diverse, numerous, and well studied. His bones
differ so distinctly from those of modern man that at most he can be
considered a distant cousin, only marginally ancestral. But his
remains immediately precede those of modern man in Europe, and
the stone tools of his Mousterian culture are found directly under
those of modern types of early Europeans.
It was, therefore, with something akin to relief that
anthropologists received the findings of Mlle. Henri-Martin at
Fontechevade. This was in 1947, some 90 years after Neanderthal
had been academically accepted for what he was, an effectively
extinct kind of non-sapiens man. At Fontechevade, in Charente, west
central France, is a cave in which the litter of millenniums discloses a
cultural record ranging from that of recent Frenchmen back through
the Old Stone Age, which includes the tools and debris of the

81
Neanderthals’ Mousterian culture. The Mousterian materials were
bottommost, resting upon what seemed to be the cave floor. Mlle.
Henri-Martin noted that this “floor” was in fact a thick layer of
stalagmite deposit, and she began excavating. Upon breaking
through this culturally sterile layer, the archaeologist came to more
than 20 feet of additional deposits above the actual floor. In these
lower levels, the cultural debris represented quite a different tool-
manufacturing tradition, the Tayacian. This featured crude flake
tools, rather than worked cores. With the flake tools there were
fragments of fossil mammals, dating the deposit as third interglacial.
There also was a human skullcap and a fragment of a second skull.
Not much to go on, but it was sufficient to show that these were the
remains not of Neanderthal man but of something closer to modern
man in most respects, and perhaps to Swanscombe. Here, for the
first time, was clear and unmistakable proof that a more modern
form of man definitely preceded the brutish Neanderthal.
Fontechevade man resembled Homo sapiens more than Neanderthal
—the first evidence that the latter was not our direct ancestor.
These four early men—Heidelberg, Swanscombe, Steinheim, and
Fontechevade—are of unquestionable antiquity. There are many
other fossil men from Europe, equally interesting but less reliably
dated. In addition there are hosts of Africans and Asians who,
perhaps, are really of greater consequence in human
evolution. None of these is dated as well as the early Europeans,
whose bones and stone tools can be assigned to rather specific
periods within the sequence of glacial and interglacial phases of the
Ice Age.
Ancient Man in Java and China
In the 1880’s a Dutch Army surgeon named Eugène Dubois decided
to go to Java to find a kind of ape-man that the great German

82
scientist Ernst Haeckel had envisioned fifteen years before. In 1891,
beneath ancient deposits of the Solo River, Dubois discovered what
he was looking for—or perhaps a slight improvement on it. What he
found was the skull top, two molar teeth, and a thigh bone of a
thing which was much more man than ape, but which received the
name Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man). For some years the
skullcap of this Java man—a handier name—stood alone as the only
fossil of really ancient man. Now it has been joined by portions of
two other adults from the same geological level and the cranium of a
child and portions of a rugged, robust male skull from a still older
level, the discoveries of G. H. R. von Koenigswald. Reconstructions
of Java man give us a fellow with a low sloping forehead, no chin,
not much room for brains, and a very prominent ridge of bone above
his eyes. This human of 300,000 or more years ago probably looked
a good deal like the most primitive of modern men, the native
Australians, who seem to have miraculously and uniquely survived
without much change from the beginnings of Homo. Java man left
no tools with his bones, but the massive Patjitanian stone choppers
and crude flakes found in southern Java are thought to be of about
the proper age.

JAVA MAN—Pithecanthropus erectus
Except for two molars and a thigh bone, the skullcap above
was all that Dubois first found of Java man. The
reconstruction, actually the right side of the skull, has been

83
reversed for comparison. (The skullcap after Osborn, 1915;
the reconstruction after Weinert, 1928.)
Java man has a slightly younger relative in Peking man, also beetle-
browed. The first finds were made in 1929, about forty miles
southwest of Peking in the Choukoutien Cave, on Dragon Bone Hill.
Since then parts of about forty men and women have been dug out.
We now have four skulls that are more complete than those of Java
man. We also have 148 teeth and thirteen jaws, and some odd
pieces of other skulls. We have fire hearths and a large number of
implements, ranging from eoliths to hammerstones and crude
choppers and scrapers. We also have some fossil bones of monkey,
baboon, ostrich, rhinoceros, and mammoth, besides animals
common to China today. The most interesting bones, of course, are
those of man himself, and our concern with them is increased by the
odd and disturbing fact that the thigh bones had been cracked for
their marrow as only a man could crack them, and the skulls
had suffered violence. If Peking man was not a cannibal, he
had a neighbor who was. And that is probably true for the
Abbevillian and Acheulean times of Europe. But at least Peking man,
like Java man, stood erect.
“Giant Ape”—a Mythical Ancestor?
Behind Java and Peking man, it was once supposed, a giant ancestor
lurked. Ideas of giants occur in the myths and folklore of most
peoples, but here the germ was planted by reputable scientists. It
began between 1935 and 1939, when von Koenigswald discovered in
a Hong Kong apothecary’s shop three molars that had six times the
volume of our teeth and were greater than the equivalent teeth in
any other man or ape, living or fossil. Their owner obviously was
related to man, but how closely we cannot guess. He was promptly

84
dubbed “giant ape,” Gigantopithecus. Then, in Java in 1941, von
Koenigswald recovered part of a massive jaw with a few huge teeth
intact. Their great size again prompted a fanciful name, “the giant
man of ancient Java,” or Meganthropus palaeojavanicus.
Gigantopithecus—giant ancestor of man? A normal human
molar contrasted with one of a number of teeth found in a
Hong Kong store. (After Koenigswald, 1947.)
Professor Franz Weidenreich speculated that the Hong Kong teeth
would require a beast twice the bulk of a gorilla, while the jaw and
teeth of the Java “giant” indicated an ancient man half again as
large as a gorilla. Gorillas stand, quite uncomfortably, five and a half
feet or so; some weigh more than 600 pounds. Further
evidence appeared in 1957, when Pei Wenchung reported the
discovery in Kwangsi Province, China, of a jaw bone with teeth,
which he claimed to be Gigantopithecus. Pei added that it was closer
to man than any other ape yet discovered, and he must have been
12 feet tall.
[12]
The logic of including giants among our ancestors stems in part from
the fact that many Pleistocene mammals were larger than their
modern descendants. What these great teeth and jaws mean, we do
not yet know. In the complete absence of such clues to stature as
thigh and other bones, there are few who would now speculate that

85
the huge teeth mean more than a fossil ape of otherwise moderate
proportions. There is not always an exact correlation between size of
teeth and stature, as comparisons among modern man, Peking and
Java man, and South African man-apes indicate. The smallest teeth
occur among some of the tallest humans; the largest teeth are found
among some of the smaller man-apes.
“Java” Men in Africa and Europe?
Halfway around the world, at Ternifine, near Oran, in Algeria,
Professor Camille Arambourg recovered a portion of a youthful skull
and three jaws in 1954-55. He called these Atlanthropus.
[13]
This
was not a valid new genus, however, for there are strong
resemblances between these jaws and those of Peking and Java
man. Here is an African cousin of Pithecanthropus. (There are
others. A fragment of jaw found near Rabat, in Morocco, also is
thought to resemble Java man.) The Ternifine jaws seem to belong
to the second interglacial period. At the bottom of an ancient spring
from which Arambourg recovered his fossils, he also found a number
of stone tools, including fist axes of the Acheulean type. This
perhaps is the earliest association of Acheulean artifacts with human
bones. You will recall that Acheulean fist axes also were found
with Swanscombe. Have we, then, a single type of culture for
two quite different kinds of men? Our accumulating evidence is
beginning to make it clear that some half-brained form of man
closely related to our Java “ape-man” was widely distributed across
the inhabitable regions of the Old World during the long second
interglacial period.

86
Man-Apes or Ape-Men in Africa
While Sunday supplements and scientists alike were occupied with
Dubois’s “missing link” and his Peking cousin, primate fossils of even
greater consequence were being recovered in southern Africa by
Professor Raymond Dart and the late Dr. Robert Broom. In 1925,
Dart named them Australopithecines or “southern apes.”
[14]
Arousing
little scientific curiosity at first, they were considered by some as a
parallel, perhaps profitless, line of evolution. By 1950, such fossils
were becoming impressively abundant. A bewildering array of names
was assigned to them, without scientific justification. The first had
been called Australopithecus africanus; later, another species,
prometheus, was added. Others were labeled as distinct genera,
taking note of their near-human features—Telanthropus,
Plesianthropus, and Paranthropus (with two species, robustus and
crassidens). In 1959, a new and important form was added,
Zinjanthropus boisei. Zinj is the Arab name for East Africa. Expert
opinion now inclines toward lumping these all together, possibly
under our own genus, Homo, or at most, within a single genus,
Australopithecus. Their status of “ape” is being reassessed: man-
apes, some still maintain; ape-men, say others; a few believe they
included the earliest true men.
The dividing line between ape and man is drawn partly upon
physical grounds, but the greatest difference is a cultural one. Men
possess and transmit culture, a process ordinarily regarded as
involving language. Men make tools; apes do not. The
smallest, crudest, and perhaps earliest of the
Australopithecines have long been championed by Dart, who argues
most persuasively that they were at least tool users, if not
toolmakers. With their remains were those of other animals, a
source of bones for picks and clubs, teeth for cutting and scraping,
and so on. Perceiving crude, ready-made tools of bone, tooth, and
horn, Dart coined the term “osteodontokeratic” for this pre-Stone

87
Age assemblage.
[15]
This nomenclature was criticized by physical
and cultural anthropologists alike. Whether this “culture” of the
Australopithecines is real or—as many believe—imagined, there is no
doubt about the equipment of Zinjanthropus. Associated with his
bones are stone tools of the Oldowan culture, an Abbevillian-level,
“Pre-Chelles-Acheul” industry of worked stone flakes. In the words of
his discoverer, Dr. L. S. B. Leakey, here was the oldest maker of
stone tools so far known. By 1960, the skull of Zinjanthropus had
not been fully studied. In certain of its features, it favors
Paranthropus, Australopithecus, or Homo. On first glance it seems as
nearly human as Java man, which Leakey says it predates.
[16]
There are two main difficulties in placing the Australopithecines on
the line of human evolution. Although they might be said to
resemble man more than the apes, they actually resemble neither,
for their features are so specialized that it is difficult to conceive of
them as ancestral to either. It is difficult, too, to place them in
geologic time. Except for Zinjanthropus, who clearly belongs to the
upper part of the Lower Pleistocene, most of the Australopithecines
have been recovered from caves, fissures, or other places where
there is no stratification. They are all much too old to be placed in
time by some of our more precise dating techniques, such as the
radiocarbon method. Non-primate bones found with them are typical
of animals that in Europe ranged all the way from the Mid-
Pliocene to the Mid-Pleistocene. South Africa is a cul-de-sac,
relatively untouched by the Ice Age. The abundance and variety of
animals surviving today in most of Africa south of the Sahara are
reminiscent of the Pleistocene elsewhere. The index fossils of other
lands are not much use when it comes to dating Australopithecus.
Once suspected of being Middle Pleistocene at the earliest, the
Australopithecines’ apparent lack of culture, their crude
development, and relatively small brain capacity indicated to some
authorities that they were too little and too late to have been
ancestral to man. But given a greater time span-back, say, to the

88
Late Pliocene—they could be regarded seriously as mans ancestors.
Somewhat cautiously, Sir Wilfrid E. Le Gros Clark seems to agree
with Dart that, as a whole, the Australopithecines may well include
the stock from which our own genus was derived.
[17]
Back of the Australopithecines are yet other fossils of great interest,
forms intermediate between man and apes in various ways. These
all are utterly lacking in culture, in our sense of the word. One of the
more interesting fossils is Oreopithecus bambolii, quantities of which
have been recovered from a lignite mine at Baccinello, Italy.
[18]
These fossils seem to date from about the Early Pliocene. More than
ape or monkey, their teeth are definitely manlike—hominid rather
than merely hominoid—and the size of their brains is about that of
the larger chimpanzees or the smaller Australopithecines. Future
studies surely will indicate if, and perhaps how, Oreopithecus is
related to the South African man-apes, and to man.
The Progressive Neanderthal
Let us get back to Europe and the next culture in Mortillet’s scale.
This is the Mousterian; we know it better by the name of the place
in Germany—Neanderthal—where, in 1856, the first skeleton
of the Mousterian Age was found. It took thirty years for this
skeleton to win scientific recognition, but now we have about a
hundred admitted specimens.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Fieldbus Technology Industrial Network Standards For Realtime Distributed Control 1st Edition R Murugeshan Auth

More Related Content

Similar to Fieldbus Technology Industrial Network Standards For Realtime Distributed Control 1st Edition R Murugeshan Auth (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Fieldbus Technology Industrial Network Standards For Realtime Distributed Control 1st Edition R Murugeshan Auth