All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
| Kow Swamp is an area of Northern Victoria (Australia) where some interesting remains were found.
On October 10, 1967 Alan Thorne and Phillip Macumber
discovered the cranium known as "Kow Swamp 1".
|
 |
|
Further excavations resulted in the discovery of 40 more individuals. These remains were found by Gordon Sparks, a local resident.
(pg 398, Michael Day, "Guide to Fossil Man" 4th edition, 1993)
Of these, eleven were "primary burials" |
 |
The use of red ochre was found (this is used to decorate the bodies of the deceased) along with evidence for cremation.
(pg 398, Michael Day, "Guide to Fossil Man" 4th edition, 1993)(also Stringer, "African Exodus" pg 171)
Johanson and Edgar mention one cremation but not the red ochre. ("From Lucy to Language" pg 247)
Lubenow claims that Homo erectus used red ochre, but no erectus specimens show any signs of this. The sites Lubenow says have red ochre are sites of Homo sapiens, not H. erectus.
If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Red Ochre is sprinkled on the bodies of deceased humans to make them look more "life like". While there need not be evidence of red ochre at every H. sapien site, we know you would never apply it to the body of an ape anymore than you would put lipstick on a dead dog.
These remains were classified as Homo erectus by Thorne and Macumber in 1972.
(pg 397, Michael Day, "Guide to Fossil Man" 4th edition, 1993)
But they are actually the remains of humans (Homo sapiens).
Kennedy in 1984 classified the Kow Swamp remains as belonging to Homo sapiens.
(pg 397, Michael Day, "Guide to Fossil Man" 4th edition, 1993)
Johanson and Edgar also classify them as Homo sapiens ("From Lucy to Language" pg 247), as does Stringer (phone, 7/25/01).
Marvin Lubenow says in his book "Bones of Contention" that the Kow Swamp skeletons qualify as Homo erectus (page _). He cites (Kow Swamp and Cohuna, ch 12 ref 152, 153, Mossgiel ref 154, Talgai ref 155, WHL-50 ref 156) ___ as a reference.
Lubenow says that because the Kow Swamp remains are anatomically human remains, then that means that Homo erectus is human as well.
This is faulty logic. I agree that the Kow Swamp remains are indeed human, they should not be assigned to "Homo erectus", as erectus is a complex form of ape, not a human. Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are not variations of the same species.
On pg. 132 of "Bones of Contention", Lubenow says that the only reason that the Kow Swamp, Cohuna, Mossgiel, Talgai and WHL-59 skulls are assigned to Homo sapiens (as opposed to Homo erectus) is because of their "very late date" (Lubenow pg 132). Lubenow implies that evolutionists give more authority to the ages assigned to the skulls, than they do the morphology (shape, features).
On 7/17/01 I spoke with Ken Mowbry of the American Natural History Museum in New York. I asked him about this and he said: "We wouldn't classify it as erectus no matter what the date was." He then stressed again: "Kow swamp is artificially deformed"
Dr. Stringer echoed Mowbry when he said they would accept erectus remains (if found) at 10,000 years old. He pointed out there were some erectus "stragglers" at 30,000 years (Ngandong (sp)-). So the reason Kow Swamp is not attributed to Homo erectus has nothing to do with the date, and everything to do with its anatomy.
Why all the confusion? Doesn't every authority agree that Kow Swamp is NOT Homo erectus?
The confusion started in 1971 when Wolpoff and Thorne wrote an article on Kow swamp stating they believed it to be Homo erectus.
Thorne (from my understanding) later changed his mind. I wrote Dr. Thorne on 7/25/01 and asked how he classifies Kow Swamp (today). If and when he responds I will post it here.
It is true that the Kow Swamp remains have some features in common with Homo erectus. But these skulls (Kow Swamp etc) are easily distinguished from Homo erectus and other apes.
Some of the shared features include:
Kow Swamp 1 (human), Kow Swamp 5 (human), and Sangiran 17 (erectus) share a large but short projecting face and large forehead. (Johanson, Edgar pg 247) along with a thick cranial vault.
It is possible for 2 different species to have these features in common and yet be 2 distinct creatures. In this case one man, one ape.
|
However looking at the skulls from the rear you will see that the Kow Swamp skulls have all the markings of anatomically modern humans. High straight sides vs. the "squat erectus shape" seen in Sangiran 17. (Johanson and Edgar, pg 247)
(15k is pictured) |
I spoke with Dr. Ian Tattersall (New York) on 7/24/01 and he verified that Kow Swamp is human, not Homo erectus.
Ken Mowbry told me "Kow Swamp doesn't even look like Homo erectus." (personal correspondence 7/17/01)
All authorities agree that the Kow Swamp skulls are human skulls deformed by a process called "head binding".
Ironically even Lubenow is aware of this:
"The most common explanation (also a nonevolutionary one) for these Upper Pleistocene Homo erectus-like fossils is the idea of cranial deformation. The artificial deformation of bones is well known in human history. A classic example is the distortion of the feet of Chinese women caused by foot binding in childhood. In the Americas a common cause of skull deformation was the strapping of an infant to a cradle board. In South America Inca infants of noble birth would have their heads bound so as to give the heads a pointed shape. The purpose was to distinguish the nobility from the commoners."
(pg 155 Lubenow)
And while it is true that skulls like the one above are human, and artificially deformed, the skulls labeled "Homo erectus" do not fit into this category.
|
Here is a picture of 2 human skulls. One is a bound skull. Notice the human mastoid process in the bound skull. Compare to ape juxtamastoid process. There are also no boney remains of the large chewing muscles that Homo erectus had in the bound skull. |
Here is a picture (above) of a bound skull next to a Homo erectus skull (KNM-WT 15000)
Johanson and Edgar attribute the Kow Swamp morphology to cranial deformation as part of a cultural ritual. ("From Lucy to Language" pg 247)
Lubenow adds "...it is hard to imagine a method of artificial cranial deformation that would result in an erectus-like skull. No type of cranial deformation could produce the thick cranial walls that are so typical of erectus-like individuals."(pg 156, Lubenow)
Then why does Lubenow hold to this belief? Cranial deformation does not produce the ape-like post cranial bones also found in erectus. It is clear to me that erectus is a primate, and Lubenow is mistaken about the identity of Kow Swamp.
| Here is a picture of the maxilla of the bound skull. There is no gap (canine diastema) like that seen in KNM-WT 15000 (though it is possible that not all erectus had this). There is also no shovel shaped incisors (which some humans have, but mostly H. erectus etc). |  |
The individuals from Kow Swamp all have an anterior nasal spine which no specimen of erectus has.
The thigh bones of Kow Swamp were examined and showed the traditional human form. They also have a thin walled shaft.(Johanson and Edgar, pg 247)
The Kow Swamp femurs do not show the thick cortical bone or the high "waist" (point of minimum breadth on the shaft) features seen in the femurs of Homo erectus.(Johanson and Edgar, pg 247)
Dr. Peter Brown is the Acting Head of School Archaeology & Palaeoanthropology at the University of New England in AUSTRALIA. Dr. Brown is one of the few people in the world who have seen the Kow Swamp remains.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 I contacted Dr. Peter Brown, about Dr. Lubenows comments on Homo erectus and the Kow Swamp remains.
"As for H. erectus it has no connection with Kow Swamp, at least no more than [it does] with any other humans."
Personal letter from Dr. Brown dated 12/18/00
On 12/18/00 I again contacted Dr. Brown, telling him that I was writing a rebuttal to Dr. Lubenows section on the Kow Swamp and Homo erectus fossils. I asked for any information that could help me.
His response was a little sharp, but to the point. Dr. Lubenow has never studied the Kow Swamp remains. Below is Dr. Browns reply:
"I do not care what Lubenow thinks on this particular topic, or any other. Not even the smallest glimmer of intelligence in what he writes."
Personal letter from Dr. Brown dated 12/18/00
It has been reported that 40 skeletons have been recovered from Kow Swamp (reference). Had these been Homo erectus skeletons, they would have generated a whole lot more excitement.
To date only the Turkana boy (H. erectus) skeleton, and the KNM-ER 1808 skeleton exist as complete (or near complete) skeletons of this species.
This page is Under Construction
If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.
| Main Index | Ape-man Index | 