As for not using "C.E.", "C.E." can stand for "Common Era" but is frequently designated as "Christian Era." The term "Christian Era" seems to imply a religious supremacy which is objectionable not only from a Muslim perspective but also from an historical perspective. A review of history reveals that Christianity, while a powerful global force, has never predominated throughout the world and, arguably, does not predominate now. To assert that time, as determined by the perceived birth of Christ should govern the history of the world (as well as the fate of mankind) is an assertion which, from the perspective of many non-Christians, is simply erroneous.
With regards to time before the birth of Christ, I have used the abbreviation "B.C.T." "B.C.T." stands for "before Christian time" and corresponds to the phrase referred to as "B.C.E. ("before Common [Christian] Era") or "B.C." ("before Christ") in most Western time schemes.
Additionally, in contrast to most anthropological treatises, the beliefs and folktales of various peoples are referred to in this work as "beliefs" and "folktales." The use of the words "myth" or "myths" has been avoided because of the pejorative connotation associated with such words. As the author of this work, I am well aware that anthropologists are quite correct in pointing out that the primary definition of the word "myth," according to Webster's Dictionary, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomena." However, in my experience, the term myth has become all to identified with its alternative, subordinate definition, namely "an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group." As such, in the interest of developing avenues of dialogue instead of erecting emotionally charged linguistic barriers, this work uses words which, hopefully, will prove to be more conducive to understanding and discourse.
While reading this work, you will notice that occasionally there is a bracketed phrase instructing the reader to see another entry, year or section of this work. These bracketed references are provided to assist the reader in finding another reference in this work which may be more explanatory than the reference currently being read.
With regard to the sources of the information contained with this work, the information has been primarily compiled using secondary sources such as other commentaries and chronologies. Without meaning any disrespect to the sources I have relied upon, I must admit that there have been a number of errors and instances of outdated information which I have encountered in compiling the information contained in this work. To the best of my ability, I have attempted to correct the errors and to update the information. However, despite my best efforts, it is inevitable that errors and outdated information continue to exist within this work.
For any errors or outdated information which may appear in this work, I, as the author, take full responsibility. However, as the author, I do make a special request of you, the reader. If you find errors, I would greatly appreciate your informing me of them by writing a comment. As I envision the life of this work, it will be subject to revisions and corrections. Therefore, your assistance as a critical reader would be most appreciated in correcting any deficiencies that may exist in this current work so that the same deficiencies will not exist in any future work.
Furthermore, in the course of reading this work you will find certain interpretations of scientific, historical and biblical events which I have provided. From the outset, it must be noted that these interpretations are based upon my own particular perspective which may not necessarily comport with the perspective which has historically been placed on the same event. After all, given the complexity of science and history, the uncertainty of numbers, and the contestability of facts, it is quite understandable that differing viewpoints may arise concerning the same scientific, historical, or biblical event. The comments I make herein simply set forth my particular opinion with regards to the significance of the event. You, as an independent reader, are encouraged to read and develop opinions of your own.
Nevertheless, while saying this, there is one area of concern which I do wish to address. While I fully expect disagreement with my interpretations or opinions, the one criticism I am particularly sensitive to is a criticism that my interpretations are unfair or are not based on facts. Having lived in a country where the history of African American people has largely been ignored, where even today, erroneous facts and historical interpretations, are presented as the truth, I am loathe to perpetuate an evil that I am ostensibly endeavoring to cure.
If, during the course of reading this work, you find that a certain unfair or unwarranted bias has interfered with the presentation of the truth, I implore you to convey that criticism to me. As the author of this work, I want it to be as accurate as it can be. Only by hearing from you, the reader, will I be able to correct what may be wrong.
Finally, as a student of history, the most important lesson I have learned is that history is not written in stone. After all, even some of the more basic facts are often contested, numbers are frequently merely estimates, and the historical records almost invariably reflect the interests and biases of the historian.
Given all this, the study of history, and the corollary study of our origins, must be an evolving process which, if done appropriately, is approached from different perspectives as well as from different times. The study of our origins must be a never ending search which examines the ramifications of historical and religious events not only for the conquerors but also for the conquered, not only for the believers but also for those who do not so believe.
As the author of this work, I shall endeavor to present a study of the Creation as I believe it should be done. However, I know all too well, that this work is not finished, that my work is incomplete. After all is said and done, what I have ultimately discovered in compiling and writing this work is that the impassioned quest of this writer for truth must inevitably become synonymous with a never ending search for the meaning of God.
***********************************************************************************
Did the human family tree just get simpler? Skull stirs up debate
Oct. 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM ET
Georgian National Museum
An oddball skull from a site in the former Soviet republic of Georgia has sparked a debate over early human evolution.
If the conclusion holds up, the skull discovery would require a major rewrite for the story of early human evolution. Such species as Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, long a part of humanity's "bushy" family tree, could be folded into a wide-ranging species known as Homo erectus.
"It is really an extraordinary find in many respects," Christoph Zollikofer of Zurich's Anthropological Institute and Museum, one of the researchers behind the study published in this week's issue of the journal Science, told reporters during a teleconference.
The key to the claim is the assembly of a fossil called Skull 5. The specimen was discovered in separate pieces at a sprawling excavation in Dmanisi, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Tbilisi, Georgia's capital. Over the past eight years, Skull 5's jaw and the cranium were painstakingly matched up and compared with four other hominid skulls unearthed at the site.
The researchers were struck by the fact that Skull 5's braincase was relatively small, while the face was relatively large. What's more, other skeletal fossils associated with Skull 5 suggested that the individual's body proportions were much like a modern human's.
C. Zollikofer and M. S. Ponce de Leon / Univ. of Zurich
This graphic shows the five skulls found at the Dmanisi dig, numbered 1 through 5.
An analysis of the various early Homo skulls from Africa, dating from 2.4 million and 1.2 million years ago, found that the size variations were no wider than the variations found in modern humans. The size differences were also in the range for chimpanzees and bonobos, the modern species that are considered closest to humans on the evolutionary tree.
"Since we see a similar pattern and variation in the African fossil record ... it is sensible to assume that there was a single Homo species at that time in Africa," Zollikofer said. "And since the Dmanisi hominids are so similar to the African ones, we further assume that they both represent the same species."
That claim will have to be debated over the months and years ahead. Science quoted other experts as saying Skull 5 and the other fossils from Dmanisi may represent yet another new species in the genus Homo, or perhaps Homo habilis. One paleontologist, Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, told Science's Ann Gibbons that Skull 5 may well represent Homo erectus. But he balked at the idea that all the early Homo fossils from Africa should be classified as Homo erectus as well.
J.H. Matternes
Researchers say the individual represented by Skull 5 had a relatively small braincase but a long face and body proportions similar to a modern human's, as shown in this artist's conception.
Although the researchers' hypothesis would trim back the earlier branches of the human family tree, it doesn't address what happened during later eras of human evolution. The conventional wisdom is that the descendants of early Homo species differentiated into Neanderthals, Denisovans, so-called "hobbits" and modern Homo sapiens.
"There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know."
Update for 3:25 p.m. ET Oct. 17: Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, who discovered the famous 3.2 million-year-old Lucy fossil skeleton almost four decades ago, said Lordkipanidze and his colleagues have produced "a beautiful little paper" — but he doesn't buy the claim that all of the earliest human species should be lumped together.
"I think it's probably premature to dump everything into Homo erectus," Johanson told NBC News. "This is what you're going to find the most opposition to."
Johanson said the entire collection of specimens of early Homo species from East Africa shows "considerably more variation than you see in this sample [from Dmanisi], which is not surprising, because you're looking at fossils from very different regions."
He said the Dmanisi skulls reminded him of Homo ergaster, an African species that's similar to Homo erectus specimens found farther east. "It strengthens the view that many of us have held, that [Homo] ergaster was the species that got out of Africa to give rise to this Dmanisi population, and that ultimately evolved into Homo erectus in Java," Johanson said.
Skull 5's small braincase also raised interesting questions, because humans living in Africa during the same time period had larger brains. "That may suggest that these populations in Africa and in Georgia were under different selective pressures," Johanson said.
He expected that "there'll be the normal bickering" over how to classify the Dmanisi skulls. Do they represent an existing fossil species, a new species, a subspecies or a sub-subspecies? In any case, Johanson said the newly reported findings will make a significant contribution to the study of early human evolution.
"It's just marvelous to have a real sample from a single locality of the same geological age, and such a comprehensive sample," Johanson told NBC News. "It's unsurpassed for the genus Homo of this antiquity."
More about human evolution:
- How climate shifts sparked human evolution
- Flash interactive: Before and after humans
- NBC News archive on evolution
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the NBC News Science Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding +Alan Boyle to your Google+ circles. To keep up with NBCNews.com's stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
**************************************************************************************
By CARL ZIMMER
Published: December 18, 2013
More 'Matter' Columns
Matter: Learning From the History of Vitamins(December 17, 2013)
Matter: Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins(December 5, 2013)
Matter: Linking Genes to Diseases by Sifting Through Electronic Medical Records(November 28, 2013)
Connect With Us on Social Media
Earl Wilson/The New York Times
Bence Viola