Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

1030 cc (XII), 1025 cc (II)

420,000

9

1075 cc = average

of 4 skulls

1225 cc (X), 1015 cc (XI),

1030 cc (XII), 1025 cc (II)

460,000

10

915 cc (III)

915 cc (III) child

700,000

11–13

In Scientific American (June 1983), Wu Rukang and Lin Shenglong used the data in column A to suggest that Sinanthropus individuals evolved a larger cranial capacity during the 230,000 years they occupied the Zhoukoudian cave. But in their table Wu and Lin did not mention that the oldest skull (III) was that of a child, making it useless for comparison with the other skulls, which were those of adults. Furthermore, Wu and Lin gave an average for 4 skulls from layers 8 and 9 (II, X, XI, and XII), without mentioning that one of these skulls (X) had a cranial capacity of 1225 cc, larger than the most recent skull from layer 3. The complete data, shown in column B, reveals no evolutionary increase in cranial capacity. All of the data in the table was originally reported by Weidenreich (1935, 1943), except for the cranial capacity of the skull found at layer 3. In 1934, Weidenreich reported the discovery of some pieces of this skull, which he later designated skull V (Weidenreich 1943, p. 5). Then in 1966, Chinese paleontologists found other pieces of this same skull (Jia 1980, p. 26). The reconstruction of this skull and the cranial capacity measurement were carried out in 1966.

Wu and Lin also neglected to mention that one of the skulls discovered in layers 8 and 9 (skull X) had a cranial capacity of 1,225 cc, which is 85 cc larger than the most recent skull (V), found in layer 3. When all the data is presented, (Table 9.1, column B) it is clear that there is no steady increase in cranial capacity from 460,000 to 230,000 years ago.

Except the skull pieces from layer 3 found in 1966, Weidenreich examined all the skulls in Table 9.1. He saw no evolutionarily significant change in their general shape or cranial capacity from the bottom to the top of the excavation: “The morphological character of the Sinanthropus population of Locality 1, therefore, remained unchanged during the long periods of time necessary for the filling-up of the cave. Viewed from the morphological standpoint the population represents a uniform type” (Weidenreich 1935, p. 450).

Another attempt has been made, using cranial data, to establish that evolution took place during the Zhoukoudian occupation. According to W. W. Howells (1977, p. 70), Chinese paleoanthropologist Ku Yu-min believed that the skull from layer 3 should be “viewed as more progressive than the other known individuals, from the cranial capacity and various other features.” Howells (1977, p. 70) described these features: “The bone of the frontal is thinner. The occipital torus is less developed than in most (skull XI excepted). . . . The frontal sinuses are larger than in all others, except skull III. The vault as reconstructed is higher. From this assessment of status . . . , the Chinese believe that the morphology of later Peking man is thus established, as showing evolutionary development within the Peking man phylum.”

The above reasoning is not totally convincing. Concerning cranial capacity, the smallest adult skull (skull XI, 1015 cc) and the largest (skull X, 1225 cc) are both from layers 8 and 9. The skull from layer 3 (skull V, 1140 cc) falls within this range. This hardly demonstrates evolutionary development.

As far as other features of the skulls are concerned, one cannot make a statistically meaningful statement about them. Because of individual variations in a population, many skulls at each time horizon are needed to show that the population has undergone significant change. But at Zhoukoudian only one skull is substantially more recent than the others, and this single skull is by no means sufficient to establish a trend in any particular direction. Also, from Ku Yu-min’s description above it appears that some of the supposedly progressive characteristics of the most recent skull (V) are also found in the older skulls—such as the large frontal sinuses in skull III and the less-developed occipital in skull XI.

In addition to discussing an evolutionary increase in cranial capacity, Wu and Lin noted a trend toward smaller tools in the Zhoukoudian cave deposits. They also reported that the materials used to make the tools in the recent levels were superior to those used in the older levels. The recent levels featured more high-quality quartz, more flint, and less sandstone than the earlier levels (Wu and Lin 1983, p. 92).

But a change in the technological skill of a population does not imply that this population has evolved physiologically. For example, consider residents of Germany in a.d. 1400 and residents of Germany in a.d. 1990. The technological differences are awesome—jet planes and cars instead of horses; television and telephone instead of unaided vision and voice; tanks and missiles instead of swords and bows. Yet one would be in error if one concluded that the Germans of 1990 were physiologically more evolved than the Germans of 1400. Hence, contrary to the claim of Wu and Lin, the distribution of various kinds of stone tools does not imply that Sinanthropus evolved.

The report of Wu and Lin, especially their claim of increased cranial capacity in Sinanthropus during the Zhoukoudian cave occupation, shows that one should not uncritically accept all one reads about human evolution in scientific journals. It appears the scientific community is so committed to its evolutionary doctrine that any article purporting to demonstrate it can pass without much scrutiny.

9.2 OTHER DISCOVERIES IN CHINA

Although Zhoukoudian is the most famous paleoanthropological site in China, there are many others. Discoveries at these sites have included fossils representative of early Homo erectus, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and early Homo sapiens, thus providing an apparent evolutionary sequence. But the way in which this progression has been constructed is open to question.

9.2.1 Dating by Morphology

As we have seen in our discussion of human fossil remains discovered in China and elsewhere, it is in most cases not possible to date them with a very high degree of precision. Finds tend to occur within what we choose to call a “possible date range,” and this range may be quite broad, depending upon the dating methods that are used. Such methods include chemical, radiometric, and geomagnetic dating techniques, as well as analysis of site stratigraphy, faunal remains, tool types, and the morphology of the hominid remains. Furthermore, different scientists using the same methods often come up with different age ranges for particular hominid specimens. Unless one wants to uniformly consider the age judgement given most recently by a scientist as the correct one, one is compelled to take into consideration the entire range of proposed dates.

But here one can find oneself in difficulty. Imagine that a scientist reads several reports about two hominid specimens of different morphology. On the basis of stratigraphy and faunal comparisons, they are from roughly the same period. But this period stretches over several hundred thousand years. Repeated testing by different scientists using different paleomagnetic, chemical, and radiometric methods has given a wide spread of conflicting dates within this period. Some test results indicate one specimen is the older, some that the other is the older. Analyzing all the published dates for the two specimens, our investigator finds that the possible date ranges broadly overlap. In other words, by these methods it proves impossible to determine which of the two came first.

What is to be done? In some cases, as we shall show, scientists will decide, solely on the basis of their commitment to evolution, that the morphologically more apelike specimen should be moved to the early part of its possible date range, in order to remove it from the part of its possible date range that overlaps with that of the morphologically more humanlike specimen. As part of the same procedure, the more humanlike specimen can be moved to the later, or more recent, part of its own possible date range. Thus the two specimens are temporally separated. But keep in mind the following: this sequencing operation is performed primarily on the basis of morphology, in order to preserve an evolutionary progression. It would look bad to have two forms, one generally considered ancestral to the other, existing contemporaneously.

Here is an example. Chang Kwang-chih, an anthropologist from Yale University, stated: “The faunal lists for Ma-pa, Ch’ang-yang, and Liu-chiang [hominid] finds offer no positive evidence for any precise dating. The former two fossils can be anywhere from the Middle to the Upper Pleistocene, as far as their associated fauna is concerned. . . . For a more precise placement of these three human fossils, one can only rely upon, at the present time, their own morphological features in comparison with other better-dated finds elsewhere in China” (Chang 1962, p. 757). This may be called dating by morphology.

Jean S. Aigner (1981, p. 25) stated: “In south China the faunas are apparently stable, making subdivision of the Middle Pleistocene difficult. Ordinarily the presence of an advanced hominid or relict [mammal] form is the basis for determining later and earlier periods.” This is a very clear exposition of the rationale for morphological dating. The presence of an advanced hominid is taken as an unmistakable sign of a later period.

In other words, if we find an apelike hominid in connection with a certain Middle Pleistocene fauna at one site and a more humanlike hominid in connection with the same Middle Pleistocene fauna at another site, then we must, according to this system, conclude that the site with the more humanlike hominid is of a later Middle Pleistocene date than the other. The Middle Pleistocene, it may be recalled, extends from 100,000 to 1 million years ago. It is taken for granted that the two sites in question could not possibly be contemporaneous.

With this maneuver completed, the two fossil hominids, now set apart from each other temporally, are then cited in textbooks as evidence of an evolutionary progression in the Middle Pleistocene! This is an intellectually dishonest procedure. The honest thing to do would be to admit that the evidence does not allow one to say with certainty that one hominid preceded the other and that it is possible they were contemporary. This would rule out using these particular hominids to construct a temporal evolutionary sequence. All one could honestly say is that both were found in the Middle Pleistocene. For all we know, the “more advanced” humanlike hominid may have preceded the “less advanced” apelike one. But by assuming that evolution is a fact, one can then “date” the hominids by their morphology and arrange the fossil evidence in a consistent manner.

9.2.2 Tongzi, Guizhou Province

Let us now consider a specific example of the date range problem. In 1985, Qiu Zhonglang reported that in 1971 and 1972 fossil teeth of Homo sapiens were found in the Yanhui cave near Tongzi, in Guizhou province, southern China. The Tongzi site contained a StegodonAiluropoda fauna. Stegodon is a type of extinct elephant, and Ailuropoda is the giant panda. This StegodonAiluropoda fauna is typical of southern China during the Middle Pleistocene.

The complete faunal list for the Tongzi site given by Han Defen and Xu Chunhua (Han and Xu 1985, pp. 285–286) contains 24 kinds of mammals, all of which are also found in Middle (and Early) Pleistocene lists given by the same authors (Han and Xu 1985, pp. 277–283). But a great many of the genera and species listed are also known to have survived to the Late Pleistocene and the present.

The author of the report on the Tongzi discoveries stated: “the Yanhui Cave was the first site containing fossils of Homo sapiens discovered anywhere in the province. . . . The fauna suggests a Middle-Upper Pleistocene range, but the archaeological [human] evidence is consistent with an Upper Pleistocene age” (Qiu 1985, pp. 205–206).

In other words, the presence of Homo sapiens fossils was the determining factor in assigning a Late Pleistocene age to the site. This is a clear example of dating by morphology. But according to the faunal evidence reported by Qiu (1985), all that can really be said is that the age of the Homo sapiens fossils could be anywhere from Middle Pleistocene to Late Pleistocene.

But there is stratigraphic evidence suggesting a strictly Middle Pleistocene range. Qiu (1985, p. 206) gave the following information: “The deposits in the cave contain seven layers. The human fossils, stone artifacts, burned bones, and mammalian fossils were all unearthed in the fourth layer, a stratum of greyishyellow sand and gravel.” This concentration in a single layer suggests that the human remains and the animal fossils, all of mammals found at Middle Pleistocene sites, are roughly contemporaneous. And yellow cave deposits in South China are generally thought to be Middle Pleistocene (Han and Xu 1985, p. 273; Simons and Ettel 1970, p. 84).

Our own analysis of the faunal list also suggests it is reasonable to narrow the age range to the Middle Pleistocene. Stegodon, present at Tongzi, is generally said to have existed from the Pliocene to the Middle Pleistocene (Belyaeva et al.1962, p. 365). In a list of animals considered important for dating sites in South China, Aigner (1978) indicated that Stegodon orientalis survived only to the late Middle Pleistocene, although she did place a question mark after this entry.

A strictly Middle Pleistocene age for the Tongzi cave fauna is supported by the presence of a species whose extinction by the end of the Middle Pleistocene is thought to be more definite. In her list of mammals considered important for dating sites in South China, Aigner included, in addition to Stegodon orientalis, other species found at Tongzi. Among them is Megatapirus (giant tapir), which Aigner (1981, p. 289) said is confined to the Middle Pleistocene. The species found at Tongzi is listed as Megatapirus augustus Matthew et Granger (Han and Xu 1985, p. 25). Aigner (1981, p. 325) characterized Megatapirus augustus as a “large fossil form of the mid-Middle Pleistocene south China collections.” We suggest that Megatapirus augustus limits the most recent age of the Tongzi faunal collection to the end of the Middle Pleistocene ( Figure 9.3).

Another marker fossil listed by Aigner (1981, p. 289) is Crocuta crocuta (the living hyena), which first appeared in China during the middle Middle Pleistocene. Since Crocuta crocuta is present at Tongzi, this limits the oldest age of the Tongzi fauna to the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene (Figure 9.3).

In summary, using Megatapirus augustus and Crocuta crocuta as marker fossils, we can conclude that the probable date range for the Homo sapiens fossils found at Tongzi extends from the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene to the end of the late Middle Pleistocene (Figure 9.3).

So Qiu (1985), in effect, extended the date ranges of some mammalian species in the StegodonAiluropoda fauna (such as Megatapirus augustus) from the Middle Pleistocene into the early Late Pleistocene in order to preserve an acceptable date for the Homo sapiens fossils. Qiu’s evolutionary preconceptions apparently demanded this operation. Once it was carried out, the Tongzi Homo sapiens, placed safely in the Late Pleistocene, could then be introduced into a temporal evolutionary sequence and cited as proof of human evolution. If we place Tongzi Homo sapiens in the older part of its true faunal date range, in the middle Middle Pleistocene, he would be contemporary with Zhoukoudian Homo erectus. And that would not look very good in a textbook on fossil man in China.

Figure 9.3. Age of Homo sapiens fossils at Tongzi site, South China. Qiu (1985, p. 206) said the Tongzi mammalian fauna was Middle to Late Pleistocene, but used Homo sapi ens fossils to date the site to the Late Pleistocene. But if we instead use the mammalian fauna to date the Homo sapiens fossils, we arrive at a different age for the site. Stegodon became extinct at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, possibly surviving into the early Late Pleistocene (grey part of bar) in some South China locales (Aigner 1981, p. 289). Mega tapirus augustus (giant tapir) definitely did not survive the Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, p. 289). The presence of Stegodon and especially Megatapirus augustus limit the most recent age for the Tongzi site to the end of the Middle Pleistocene. The presence of Crocuta crocuta (the living hyena), which first appears in the middle Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, p. 289), limits the oldest age for the Tongzi site to the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene. Therefore, the allowed range for the Homo sapiens fossils at Tongzi extends from the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene to the end of the late Middle Pleistocene.

9.2.3 Lantian Man

Let us now consider another element in the confusing picture of the Chinese Middle Pleistocene—Lantian man. In 1963, Zhang Yuping and Huang Wanpo, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), discovered a Homo erectus mandible (lower jaw) at Chenjiawo village in Lantian county, Shaanxi province. In 1964, another team discovered the tooth of a human being at Gongwangling, also in Lantian county. Chunks of fossil-bearing rock from Gongwangling were transported to Beijing. There a hominid skullcap was discovered, along with an upper jaw bone and 3 molars, one unattached. These specimens were classified as Homo erectus just as the Chenjiawo jaw had been (Jia 1980, pp. 13–14).

We will investigate the case of Lantian man, which shows the complexity and ambiguity underlying apparently simple paleoanthropological statements. This complexity and ambiguity allows room for manipulation of data according to preconceptions. If what follows seems complicated, that is because it is. Some authorities placed Lantian man in the same period of time as Beijing man. For example, L. Yung-Chao and his coworkers (Nilsson 1983, p. 335) assigned both Lantian man and Beijing man to China’s Taku-Lushan interglacial period, in the middle Middle Pleistocene (Table 9.2).

TABLE 9.2

Correlation of Chinese and European Glacials and Interglacials

Period

European

Chinese

Holocene

Present Warm Period

Present Warm Period

Late Pleistocene

Würm Glacial

Tali Glacial

Late Pleistocene

Eemian Interglacial

Tali-Lushan Interglacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Eemian Interglacial

Tali-Lushan Interglacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Riss II Glacial

Lushan Glacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Ilford Interglacial

Lushan Glacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Riss I Glacial

Lushan Glacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Holstein Interglacial

Taku-Lushan Interglacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Mindel Glacial

Taku Glacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Cromerian Interglacial

Poyang-Taku Interglacial

Early Middle

Pleistocene

Günz Glacial

Poyang Glacial

Sources for this table are Delson 1977, p. 45 and Aigner 1981, p. 32.

And Yale professor Kwang-chih Chang wrote in the 1977 edition of his book The Archaeology of Ancient China: “Geologically the Lan-t’ien fossils occurred in strata broadly comparable with the Chou-k’ou-tien sedimentation” (Chang 1977, p. 53). He said the Chenjiawo mandible occurred “in association with fossil remains . . . that recall the Chou-k’ou-tien fauna” (Chang 1977, p. 53). The Gongwangling skull, said Chang (1977, p. 54), was found “in association with mixed Chou-k’ou-tien-Wan Hsien fauna.” Wan Hsien is a site in South China, the fauna of which includes a component comparable in age to the fauna discovered at Zhoukoudian (Aigner 1981, p. 288). Chang (1977, pp. 53–54) concluded: “both Ch’en-chia-wo and Kung-wang-ling were probably datable to the Taku-Lushan interglacial, contemporaneous with Peking Man of Chou-k’ou-tien.” The TakuLushan interglacial is said to be equivalent to the Holstein interglacial of the European middle Middle Pleistocene (Chang 1977, p. 46). Pollen studies of the Lantian man sites indicated “prevalence of grassy species and broadleaf trees of an interglacial environment” (Chang 1977, pp. 53–54).

But Jia Lanpo (1980, p. 16) pointed out that Lantian man had thicker cranial walls than Beijing man and a much smaller cranial capacity—about 778 cubic centimeters compared with an average of over 1000 cubic centimeters for the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus population (Jia 1980, p. 15). Jia therefore concluded that while the jaw from Chenjiawo might be contemporaneous with Beijing man in the middle Middle Pleistocene, the skullcap from Gongwangling was older.

9.2.3.2 Morphological Dating of Lantian Man

So who was correct, Chang or Jia? J. S. Aigner discussed the Lantian man controversies in her book-length survey of Chinese discoveries. It is generally an author of broad surveys, such as Aigner, who tries to sort out conflicting reports and adjust possible date ranges so that a coherent evolutionary progression of fossil hominids in China, or elsewhere, emerges. And it is on this level that the problems of personal bias and data manipulation are most clearly evident. Adjustments are sometimes made, without adequate supporting evidence, simply to make the fossils fit some preordained scheme.

Here is how Aigner dealt with Chang, who, as we have just seen, did not accept a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the Gongwangling skull. Aigner (1981, p. 82) stated: “Chang (1977) also appears reluctant to accept the [skull’s] early dating although he does accept its earliness morphologically speaking, on which point Wu (1973) and I (Aigner and Laughlin 1973) concur.” This concept of “morphological earliness” assumes what must be demonstrated, providing a good example of how evolutionary prejudices distort paleoanthropological research.

With this in mind, consider Aigner’s concluding statement on the skull of Lantian man (1981, p. 244): “The massive supraorbital ridges, pronounced postorbital constriction, low frontal squama, and cranial height, extraordinary thickness of the cranial wall, and small cranial capacity [778 cc] indicate this form is more primitive than both Sinanthropus and Homo erectus from Trinil. It is morphologically closer to the earlier form from the Djetis beds of Java; in my opinion it must be considered temporally earlier than any of the Sinanthropus remains for these same reasons.” In other words, Lantian man must be dated morphologically so that he can be integrated into the existing evolutionary sequence. Otherwise, the sequence would be disrupted. Wu Rukang and Dong Xingren provided another example of this prejudice in their statement: “Among China’s H. erectus fossils, those from Lantian exhibit more primitive morphological characteristics than do those from Zhoukoudian. . . .We believe these differences are a reflection of both spatial and temporal evolutionary diversification” (Wu, R. and Dong 1985, p. 88).

9.2.3.3 Comparison of Faunal Evidence from Gongwangling and Chenjiawo

After arguing that the primitiveness of the Gongwangling skullcap meant that it was older than the Beijing man fossils from middle Middle Pleistocene Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian, Aigner (1981, pp. 81–82) said about Gongwangling: “The other faunal remains certainly demand an early Middle Pleistocene age for the locality, not contemporaneous with Choukoutien 13 or 1 as has been suggested by some.”

Aigner believed that the Chenjiawo site, where the Lantian man jaw was found, was in fact roughly contemporaneous with Zhoukoudian in the middle Middle Pleistocene. She therefore sought to prove that the Gongwangling site, with the primitive Homo erectus skullcap, was older than Chenjiawo, and hence older than Zhoukoudian (Aigner and Laughlin 1973, p. 102).

But W. W. Howells (1977, p. 69) noted: “According to the Chinese this is not the case, since the faunas of the two sites [Gongwangling and Chenjiawo] coincide except for a few species and contain a species of elephant unique to both; also the formation is the same at both localities and has been mapped across the interval between them.” As we have seen (Section 9.2.3.1), some of the authorities who considered the jaw and skullcap to be of the same age believed they were both contemporaneous with Beijing man.

One reason why Aigner (1981, p. 329) thought the Chenjiawo jaw was younger than the Gongwangling skull concerned fossils of Ochotonoides, an extinct mouse hare that supposedly belongs to the early Middle Pleistocene and earlier. Fossil remains of Ochotonoides were found at the same level as the Gongwangling man skullcap. This would appear to place the skullcap in the early Middle Pleistocene, before the middle Middle Pleistocene Zhoukoudian occupation. But, according to Aigner, Ochotonoides fossils were found only below the Chenjiawo jaw, suggesting the jaw belonged to a period later than the early Middle Pleistocene—i.e., the middle Middle Pleistocene.

Aigner derived her information about the position of the Ochotonoides fossils at Chenjiawo from a 1975 report by the Chinese scientists Zhou Mingzhen and Li Chuankuei. But according to Wu Xinzhi and Wang Linghong, Zhou and Li “reported the discovery of an additional maxilla and mandible of the same animal from the same layer in which the H. erectus mandible was found. In fact, no discontinuity is discernible and this suggests the various levels in question do not represent different interglacial events as Aigner and Laughlin (1973) suggested” (Wu, X. and Wang, L. 1985, p. 37). The interglacial event to which both Gongwangling and Chenjiawo belong remains open to question, but, as we have noted, some authorities assign both Gongwangling and Chenjiawo to the same interglacial period represented at Zhoukoudian (the Holstein, or Taku-Lushan interglacial).

Given this latter view, the presence of Ochotonoides at both Gongwangling and Chenjiawo might be taken to indicate that this genus survived to the time of the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus occupation in the middle Middle Pleistocene. Interestingly enough, the initial excavators of Zhoukoudian Locality 1 listed Ochotonoides among the forms found there, which would appear to confirm the idea that Beijing man is contemporaneous with Lantian man. But Aigner (1981, pp. 301, 329) informs us that “the Choukoutien 1 form is revised [by her] as Ochotona,” a related but more recent genus that survives today in Mongolia, Tibet, and elsewhere. One cannot help but feel a little suspicious about her motives for this reclassification.

Aigner also tried to use pollen studies to support her view that Gongwangling was earlier than Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian. Aigner (1978, p. 26) stated: “The Choukoutien assemblage is interpreted as a Holstein interglacial temperate flora. . . . Both the limited assemblages from Lantian represent temperate flora dating to the Holstein and to an earlier warm interval.” The earlier warm interval would seem to be the Cromerian or Poyang-Taku interglacial (Table 9.2, p. 566). But Chang used the same pollen to studies to place both Lantian man sites in the Holstein (Taku-Lushan) interglacial (1977, pp. 53–54).

In her capacity as synthesizer of the hominid discoveries in China, Aigner very obviously wanted to adjust things so that the Lantian skullcap would appear in the geological column before Beijing man of Zhoukoudian. But her reasons for insisting on this are not immune to criticism. Altogether, there appears ample reason to suppose that Gongwangling and Chenjiawo might be of the same age, and contemporary with Zhoukoudian.

In the fourth edition of his book The Archaeology of Ancient China, Chang (1986, p. 38) stated: “Geologically the Lan-t’ien fossils occurred in strata broadly contemporary with the Chou-k’outien sedimentation.” According to 570 9. Peking Man and Other Finds in China Chang (1986, p. 38), both Zhoukoudian and the Lantian sites (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo) are part of the same reddish Li-shih loess deposits. Chang (1986, p. 38) said the Chenjiawo fauna had “elements that recall the Chouk’ou-tien fauna.” These statements appear to support his original position that Gongwangling and Chenjiawo (and hence Zhoukoudian) were nearly contemporary.

Nevertheless, Aigner’s reports apparently induced Chang to change his mind about the relative ages of Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian. Chang (1986, p. 38) went on to say that the Gongwangling fauna “is apparently more archaic than that of Ch’en-chia-wo, which led some scholars to place the Kung-wangling cranium into a much earlier period than the Ch’en-chia-wo mandible.” Chang here cited the 1973 paper by Aigner and Laughlin, which he had earlier said was mistaken. Chang added that the placement of Gongwangling before Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was “later confirmed by paleomagnetic dating.”

But our own reading of the geological evidence, paleomagnetic dates, and faunal analysis presented by Aigner and Chang leads us to conclude that there is not sufficient reason to rule out the possibility that Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian Locality 1 are nearly contemporary.

9.2.3.4 Paleomagnetic Dates

The paleomagnetic evidence reported by Chang is shown in Table 9.3, along with selected dates derived from other methods. Although it is possible that Gongwangling is older than Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1, it is also possible to conclude from the evidence reported by Chang that all three sites are nearly contemporary.

9.2.3.5 Comparison of Faunal Evidence from Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian

We shall now give a detailed analysis of Aigner’s comparison of the Gongwangling fauna with that of Zhoukoudian. Seeking to demonstrate a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the very primitive Gongwangling Homo erectus skullcap, Aigner (1981, p. 81) said that at Gongwangling “only 37 percent of the species are modern forms, compared to 50 percent at the ‘type’ locality of the Middle Pleistocene, Choukoutien 1.” Clearly, such determinations depend heavily upon the faunal lists one uses for comparison. Aigner used a short list (Aigner and Laughlin 1973, p. 101; Aigner 1981, pp. 300–302). From a variety of reports (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, Aigner and Laughlin 1973, Aigner 1981, Chang 1977, Han and Xu 1985), we have compiled a composite master faunal list for Gongwangling. Using this longer master list (Figure 9.4, pp. 572– 573), we find that at Gong wangling 23 out of 46 taxa, or 50 percent, are modern forms (marked with dots), about the same as at Zhoukoudian according to Aigner.

The data in this table is from a book by Chang (1986, pp. 32 – 33). Level 10 is the oldest level at which hominid fossils have been found at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Chang (1986, p. 34) said that the paleomagnetic studies supported an older date for Gongwangling than for Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1. This is true if one accepts the older of the two paleomagnetic dates for Gongwangling and rejects the younger one. But if one accepts the younger of the conflicting paleomagnetic dates for Gongwangling, the data allows the possible near contemporaneity of all three sites at about 500,000 years to 600,000 years ago, in the middle Middle Pleistocene.

Let us now further analyze the Gongwangling fauna in comparison with the Zhoukoudian fauna, and see whether or not it is possible to conclude in any other way that Gongwangling must be older. In our comparison, we have not limited ourselves to the fauna at Zhoukoudian Locality 1, where Beijing man fossils were found, but have also included the faunal lists from the nearby Zhoukoudian Localities 13 and 15. Locality 13 is about the same age as the basal part of Locality 1 (Aigner 1981, p. 32). Locality 15 is slightly more recent than Locality 1 or perhaps equivalent to its upper phase (Aigner 1981, p. 32; Pei 1939, p. 184). Zhoukoudian Localities 1, 13, and 15 all fall within the middle Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, p. 32). Using their combined faunal lists, we discovered that 26 of the 46 Gongwangling taxa (about 57 percent) are found at Zhoukoudian (Figure 9.4, I).

Of the remaining taxa, 7 represent distinctly southern forms (Figure 9.4, II).

Figure 9.4. Analysis of Gongwangling fauna. In 1964, a Homo erectus-type cranium was found at Gongwangling. Because it was much more primitive than the Homo erectus crania from Zhoukoudian, some researchers thought it demanded an earlier date. These researchers sought support for their conclusion in the Gongwangling fauna (• = living forms), which they claimed was quite distinct from that of Zhoukoudian. But analysis of the Gongwangling fauna shows the following. (I) Twenty-six of the 46 taxa (57 percent) are found at Zhoukoudian Localities 1, 13, and 15. (II) Seven are typical southern forms, which would not be expected at Zhoukoudian, 500 miles to the northeast of Gongwangling. They could represent a geographical rather than a temporal variation. (III) Four of the Gongwangling taxa not found at Zhoukoudian are still living today, so they cannot be used to establish an earlier date for Gongwangling. (IV) Two species are unique to Gongwangling and thus cannot be used for relative dating. (V) Four Gongwangling species not found at Zhoukoudian are found at other Chinese sites with ages similar to Zhoukoudian. Thus far, comparison of the Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian fauna (I–V) do not establish that the Gongwangling site must be older. (VI) The only species that tends to confirm an early date is Leptobos, but this species differs significantly from the European type and was said by the original discoverer to resemble Bison priscus, which survived to the Late Pleistocene. (VII) Three species reported by original excavators at Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian were inexplicably reclassified by later researchers. The changes tend to support a desired older date for Gongwangling, and are thus suspect. It thus appears that the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus and the more primitive Gongwangling Homo erectus were contemporary in the middle Middle Pleistocene.

I. Taxa also discovered at Zhoukoudian

Localities 1,13, or 15:

• Macaca (monkey)

• Neomys (water shrew)

Hyaena brevirostris sinensis (Chinese short-faced hyena)

Megantheron (saber-tooth cat)

• Felix (Panthera) pardus (panther)

• Felix (Panthera) tigris (tiger)

• Mustela (polecat)

Meles leucurus (hog badger)

Canis variabilis (Chinese gray wolf)

• Nyctereuteus sinensis (raccoon dog)

Equus sanmeniensis (horse) Sus lydekkeri (pig) Megaloceros (giant deer) Pseudaxis grayi (sika deer)

• Gazella (gazelle)

• Petaurista (flying squirrel)

• Hystrix subcristata (porcupine)

• Myospalax (mole rat)

• Myospalax fontanieri (mole rat)

Myospalax tingi (mole rat)

• Cricetulus griseus (little hamster) Cricetulus varians (little hamster) Microtus epiraticeps (common vole)

• Apodemus (field mouse)

• Gerbillus (gerbil)

Ochotonoides complicidens (pika)

II. Taxa typical of southern China:

Stegodon orientalis (elephant)

• Tapirus (tapir)

• Tapirus sinensis (Chinese tapir) Megatapirus augustus (giant tapir) Nestoritherium sinensis (clawed, horselike mammal)

• Elaphodus cephalophus (tufted deer)

• Capricornus sumatraensis qinlingensis (goat)

III. Taxa not at Zhoukoudian, but still existing:

• Scaptochirus moschatus (musk mole)

• Ailuropoda melanolueca fovealis (giant panda)

• Cervus rusa (axis deer)

• Ochotona (steppe pika)

IV. Taxa unique to Gongwangling in all of China:

Dicerorhinus lantienensis (Lantian ancient rhino)

Leptobos brevicornus (early bison)

V. Taxa typical of middle Middle and later Pleistocene (i.e., same age as Zhoukoudian Locality 1 or younger):

Dicerorhinus merki (early rhinoceros)

Rhinoceros sinensis (Chinese rhinoceros)

Arvicola terrarubrae (water vole)

Bahomys hypsodonta (a rodent first discovered at Lantian)

VI. Leptobos sp. (early bison)

VII. Taxa which had genus or species changed in some lists:

Acinonyx pleistocaenicus -> Siva panthera pleistocaenicus (cheetah) (Gongwangling form changed to an earlier one)

• Ursus thibetanus (bear) or Ursus thibetanus kokeni (present at Zhoukoudian) -> Ursus etruscus (Early Pleistocene)

Ochotonoides -> Ochotona (Zhoukoudian form changed to a modern one)

One way to interpret this evidence is that the Gongwangling site represents an older and warmer interglacial period than that represented by Zhoukoudian. But there is another possible interpretation—that Gongwangling, about 500 miles southwest of Zhoukoudian, is the same age as Zhoukoudian, but has southern forms because of its warmer weather. This possibility is admitted by Aigner, who said of the southern forms: “Their presence at Kungwangling . . . may be due to the more southerly location of the site” (Aigner and Laughlin

1973, p. 102).

Zhou Mingzhen, the Chinese scientist who did the initial faunal studies at Gongwangling, compared the site with others in northern China, such as Zhoukoudian: “The presence of these forms at Konwanling . . . may be interpreted as due to the more southern geographical location of the Lantian district, or to the difference in geological age of this fauna with the others, or to the insufficiency of our knowledge on the distribution of Pleistocene mammals in China in general. Probably all three of these factors are involved in this particular case” (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, p. 1044). As can be seen, there is wide latitude for manipulation of the Gongwangling faunal evidence in accordance with the leanings of a particular researcher and the requirements of evolutionary doctrine.

Is there any strong justification for attributing the presence of the southern forms at Gongwangling to temporal rather than geographical differences from Zhoukoudian? Specifically, are the Gongwangling southern species characteristic of pre-Zhoukoudian times? This does not appear to be the case. Of the 7 southern taxa, 4 are either recent or living forms. These comprise (1) Capricornis suma trensis, the goat-antelope, or serow; (2) Tapirus sp.; (3) Tapirus sinensis, which some authorities consider a subspecies of the living Tapirus indicus (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, p. 1042); and (4) Elaphodus cephalophus, the tufted deer. Because they are recent or living, they cannot be used to establish an earlier dating for Gongwangling. The giant tapir Megatapirus augustus, according to Aigner (1981, p. 325), occurs in middle Middle Pleistocene assemblages and would thus be contemporary with the Zhoukoudian site. Aigner (1981, p. 289) also states that Stegodon orientalis survives through the late Middle Pleistocene.

The only southern form suggesting a pre-Zhoukoudian date for Gongwangling is Nestoritherium sinensis, an extinct three-clawed mammal that appears in Pliocene faunal assemblages. Aigner (1981, p. 289) suggested that Nestoritherium survived only to the Early Pleistocene in China, although she admitted this dating was open to question. Elwyn L. Simons and Peter C. Ettel (1970, p. 84) reported Nestoritherium at Gigantopithecus sites in South China, which they placed in the Middle Pleistocene. Nestoritherium also turned up in the Yenchingkuo fissures in Szechuan province, where, according to Aigner (1981, p. 288) “Kahlke distinguishes an early Cromerian-equivalent and a later Holstein-and-later component.” The Cromerian interglacial is in the early Middle Pleistocene, the Holstein in the middle Middle Pleistocene, during the Zhoukoudian occupation (Table 9.2, p. 566).

All of this suggests that Nestoritherium could very well have appeared as a late survival in the Middle Pleistocene at Gongwangling.

At Gongwangling, Nestoritherium, which Zhou Mingzhen considered “unexpected . . . in the Konwanling fauna,” is represented by a single “shattered and decayed” jaw fragment (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, p.1041). Furthermore, Wu Rukang stated that in general the fossils found at Gongwangling “consist of odd, scattered bits and pieces which seem to have been thrown together after being washed down from the wooded areas of the southern slope of Kungwangling Hill” (Wu, R. 1966, p. 85). This opens up the possibility that fossils of different ages may have been incorporated into the deposits at the site.

We conclude, therefore, that the presence of certain southern Chinese animals at Gongwangling, absent at Zhoukoudian, may be a reflection of the more southerly location of Gongwangling rather than a difference in the sites’ ages.

Moving on to the remaining Gongwangling taxa, we find that some represent species not present at Zhoukoudian but still living in China (Figure 9.4, III). That they are still living means they cannot justify an early date for Gongwangling.

Two other newly designated species (Figure 9.4, IV), Leptobos brevicornis Hu et Qi and Dicerorhinus lantianensis, are unique to Gongwangling and thus cannot be used for dating comparisons with other sites, such as Zhoukoudian.

Still other Gongwangling species (Figure 9.4, V), although not present at Zhoukoudian, are found at other middle Middle Pleistocene sites in China. Thus they establish contemporaneity with Zhoukoudian.

Some authors have tried to use the Leptobos sp. fossils from Gongwangling (Figure 9.4, VI) to establish a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the site. Such proposals are, however, are open to question. Leptobos is an extinct ox that dates back to the Pliocene and Early Pleistocene, but according to Zhou Mingzhen et al. (1965, p. 1043) the fossil skulls with horns discovered at Gongwangling differ substantially from those normally attributed to Leptobos. Zhou Mingzhen et al. (1965, p. 1043) and Aigner (1981, p. 81) stated that the Gongwangling variety is comparable to a related species, Bison priscus = Bison palaeosinensis, which existed throughout the Middle and Late Pleistocene (Nilsson 1983, p. 483). Thus the so-called Leptobos fossils cannot securely be used to establish a preZhoukoudian date for Gongwangling.

Studying various Gongwangling faunal lists, we found that some researchers have changed some of the original species designations reported at Gongwangling ( Zhou M. et al. 1965), apparently to reflect a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the site (Figure 9.4, VII). We have already discussed the implications of Aigner’s reclassification of Ochotonoides to Ochotona at Zhoukoudian (Section 9.2.3.3).

Ursus thibetanus kokeni, reported by Zhou at Gongwangling (Zhou M. et al. 1965, p. 1040), was reclassified Ursus cf. etruscus in a later faunal list (Han and Xu 1985, p. 281). Ursus thibetanus kokeni is found at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 (Han and Xu 1985, p. 282), in the middle Middle Pleistocene, while Ursus etruscus is an Early Pleistocene form. Zhou was quite definite that the teeth from the Gongwangling specimen were “indistinguishable from the specimens from the Kwangsi caves, which are identical with U. thibetanus kokeni described by Matthew and Granger from the Yenchingkou fissure deposits” (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, p. 1040). Aigner and Laughlin (1973, p. 101) list the Gongwangling species as Ursus thibetanus, the living Asiatic black bear.

Similarly, Acinonyx pleistocaenicus (cheetah) reported by Zhou at Gongwangling is reclassified by some as Sivapanthera pleistocaenicus, an Early Pleistocene form (Han and Xu 1985, p. 271). But Zhou stated that the Gongwangling Acinonyx fossil was “indistinguishable” from the type species, which came from a Late Pleistocene loess formation in China (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, p. 1041). Acinonyx is reported at Zhoukoudian (Zhou, M. et. al. 1965, p. 1045).

Having concluded our review of the Gongwangling faunal list in relation to that of Zhoukoudian, we find that the differences between the two faunas do not point in any clear fashion to a difference in their ages.

9.2.3.6 Analysis of Conflicting Opinions

We do not, however, insist that the Gongwangling Homo erectus skull is contemporaneous with Homo erectus of Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Following our standard procedure, we simply extend the probable date range of the primitive Homo erectus skullcap found at the Gongwangling site to include the time period represented by the Zhoukoudian occupation.

Other scientists have published reports on Lantian Homo erectus. For example, Wu Rukang (1965) said, on faunal and morphological grounds, that the Gongwangling skull and Chenjiawo jaw are contemporaneous but are both earlier than Zhoukoudian. As we have seen, others say Gongwangling and Chenjiawo are contemporaneous not only with each other but with Zhoukoudian. Still others say that Gongwangling predates Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian. Opinions about the relative ages of the Lantian man skull and jaw, and their temporal relation to Beijing man of Zhoukoudian, are as diverse as they are numerous.

We have analyzed 25 reports, published between 1964 and 1986, and have graphically displayed their age estimates for the Lantian man skull and jaw ( Figure 9.5). If paleoanthropology were an exact science, we should expect to find only one point for the jaw and skull marked on the chart, with a small area around it representing errors in measurement. But as one can see, this is not the case. Age estimates for the jaw and skullcap are widely distributed, with several strong convergences of opinion placing both before the time of Beijing man. Nevertheless, another fairly strong convergence of opinion places (represented by points within rectangle BCEF in Figure 9.5) both the Lantianjaw and skull during the Homo erectus occupation of Zhoukoudian.

Figure 9.5. Proposed date ranges for jaw and skull of Lantian man, from 25 reports. Darker regions represent higher degrees of agreement, lighter regions lesser degrees of agreement. Dotted lines indicate the time of the Homo erectus occupation of Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian (.23–.46 millions years b.p.). Any point on the shaded region represents an allowed date for the skull and jaw within the range of expressed opinion. For example the point marked X represents an age for the skull of 0.65 million years and for the jaw of 0.25 million years. Points along the solid diagonal line show the same age for the jaw as for the skull. Aigner (1981) and others said the Lantian Homo erectus jaw contemporary with Zhoukoudian Locality 1, whereas the Lantian Homo erectus skull, more primitive than the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus skulls, was older ( points in rectangle ABDE represent this opinion). Others said both the Lantian jaw and skull were earlier than Zhoukoudian Locality 1 ( points in DEGH). But, as can be seen, there is a concentrated area of positive opinion placing both the skull and jaw from Lantian within the Zhoukoudian occupation period ( points in BCEF). This means that two different grades of Homo erectus may have existed contemporaneously during the period of the Zhoukoudian occupation.

This creates a problem for evolutionary theory. One is confronted with the strong possibility that very primitive Homo erectus coexisted with representatives of Homo erectus considered more advanced in the significant area of brain capacity and in other features of the skull. For evolutionists, it would thus be good to date Lantian man much earlier than Zhoukoudian Homo erectus. But as we have seen, the site stratigraphy, faunal evidence, and dates arrived at by paleomagnetic studies and other methods also allow Lantian man and Peking man to be contemporaries in the middle Middle Pleistocene.

9.2.3.7 Summary

So now we have overlapping possible date ranges in the middle Middle Pleistocene for the following hominids: (1) Lantian man, a primitive Homo erectus; (2) Peking man, a more advanced Homo erectus; and (3) Tongzi man, described as Homo sapiens. We are not insisting that these beings actually coexisted. Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. What we are insisting on is this—scientists should not propose that the hominids definitely did not coexist simply on the basis of their morphological diversity. Yet this is exactly what has happened. Scientists have arranged Chinese fossil hominids in a temporal evolutionary sequence primarily by their physical type. This methodology insures that no fossil evidence shall ever fall outside the realm of evolutionary expectations. By using morphological differences in the fossils of hominids to resolve contradictory faunal, stratigraphic, chemical, radiometric, and geomagnetic datings in harmony with a favored evolutionary sequence, paleoanthropologists have allowed their preconceptions to obscure other possibilities.

9.2.4 Maba

In 1956, peasants digging for fertilizer in a cave near Maba, in Guangdong province, southern China, found a skull that was apparently from a primitive human being. Wu Rukang thought this hominid skull displayed Neanderthaloid features: “The supra-orbital tori of this skull are heavy and project markedly both forward and sidewise” (Jia 1980, p. 41). According to Chang (1962, p. 754), the data “seem to place the Ma’pa skull within the Neanderthaloid range.”

Aigner (1981, pp. 65–66) stated: “On the basis of their measurements and observations, Wu and Peng conclude the remains belong to a grade of organization similar to that of the European Neanderthals. . . . Coon (1969) agrees with the relative position of the hominid remains but emphasizes that it is not a Neanderthal in the classic sense of the word. He believes Mapa is on the threshold of modern Homo sapiens and is ‘mostly if not entirely Mongoloid.’”

There seems to be general agreement that the Maba skull is Homo sapiens (Han and Xu 1985, p. 285) with some Neanderthaloid features. Coon, it may be noted, believed that Homo erectus evolved directly into separate races of Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. Thus, according to Coon, the classic Neanderthals would have been restricted to Europe.

It is easy to see that scientists, in accordance with their evolutionary expectations, would want to place the Maba specimen in the very latest Middle Pleistocene or early Late Pleistocene, after Homo erectus. And in fact Wu Rukang stated: “Judging from the mammalian fauna associated with the Maba skull, its geological age is probably of late Middle Pleistocene or early Late Pleistocene” (Jia 1980, p. 41). This would give it a chronometric age of about 100,000 years.

Jia Lanpo placed the Maba skull at no earlier than the Riss-Würm interglacial, in the late Middle Pleistocene (Jia 1980, p. 41). Aigner (1981, p. 65) also agreed: “The primitive hominid and fauna including Stegodon suggest a late Middle Pleistocene dating though Kahlke (1961) suggests a Würm-equivalent age.” The Würm glaciation occurred in the early part of the Late Pleistocene.

Now let us take a close look at the associated fauna (Figure 11.6, p. 580), which Chang (1962, p. 754) said was “apparently a typical South China Middle Pleistocene assemblage.” The assemblage included mostly fossils that could only be classified according to their genus (Han and Xu 1985, p. 285). All of these genera existed throughout the Pleistocene, from Early to Late.

A probable minimum age for the Maba site is provided by one of the identifiable species, Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) namadicus Falconer et Cautley. This elephant apparently became extinct in the Late Pleistocene (Belyaeva et al. 1962, p. 370). Nilsson (1983, p. 487) stated that Palaeoloxodon namadicus was typical of the Pleistocene interglacials, the last of which (the European Eem or Chinese Tali-Lushan) occurred about 90,000–110,000 years ago (Aigner 1981, p. 33). This a minimum age for Maba in the early Late Pleistocene.

Palaeoloxodon namadicus also occurs at Hoshantung cave near Kunming in Yunnan province (Aigner 1981, p. 293). This cave is thought to belong to the Holstein interglacial, which would make it the equivalent of Zhoukoudian Locality 1 (Aigner 1981, p. 286).

According to V. J. Maglio, an authority on elephants, Palaeoloxodon na madicus appears at the onset of the Middle Pleistocene, about 1 million years ago ( Nilsson 1983, p. 488). In some lists, Palaeoloxodon namadicus also occurs in Early Pleistocene contexts (Han and Xu 1985, p. 279). The Early Pleistocene could thus be taken as a maximum age for the Maba site.

Stegodon, another extinct elephant discovered at the Maba site in China, provides an age range similar to that of Palaeoloxodon namadicus (Aigner 1981, p. 289). So although Maba might be as recent as the early Late Pleistocene, the faunal evidence is also consistent with an age anywhere in the Middle Pleistocene, or even the Early Pleistocene. The principal justification for fixing the date of the Maba cave in the very latest part of the late Middle Pleistocene or in the early Late Pleistocene seems to be the morphology of the hominid remains.

W. W. Howells (1977, p. 72) stated: “The phylogenetic position of Ma-pa suggested by Woo [Neanderthal] would accord best with the date presently assigned, i.e. early late Pleistocene at latest. Viewed as a really Neanderthal-like fossil (far removed in space from any other known), an early date would seem anomalous.” Maba provides another instance of morphological dating in order to preserve an evolutionary sequence. An early Late Pleistocene date was favored.

Figure 9.6. Age of Homo sapiens cf. neanderthalensis at Maba, South China. Most of the mammalian fossils from Maba were identifiable only in terms of their genus, and these genera are present throughout the Pleistocene, from Early to Late. The fauna includes Hyaena, Felis tigris, Mustelidae, Ailuropoda, Ursus, Rhinoceros, Tapirus, Sus, Cervus, Bos, Hystrix, and Lepus. The extinct elephants Stegodon and Palaeoloxodon namadicus provide boundaries for the age range. Both Stegodon and Palaeoloxodon namadicus are known from Early Pleistocene sites in China (Han and Xu 1985, p. 279). But according to Aigner (1981, p. 289), Stegodon probably became extinct in the late Middle Pleistocene, possibly surviving into the Late Pleistocene (gray part of bar). Palaeoloxodon namadicus apparently became extinct during the last interglacial, in the late Middle Pleistocene or early Late Pleistocene (Nilsson 1983, p. 487). The probable age range for the Homo sa piens skull from Maba, which is said to have Neanderthaloid features, thus extends from the early Late Pleistocene to the early Early Pleistocene.

This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but a middle Middle Pleistocene date (equivalent to Zhoukoudian Locality 1) or even an Early Pleistocene date of 2 million years are also within the realm of possibility.

What conclusion may here be drawn? It would appear that at Maba we have Homo sapiens, with some Neanderthaloid features, existing within a possible date range that completely overlaps the Homo erectus presence at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Updating our list, we now find overlapping date ranges in the middle Middle Pleistocene for: (1) primitive Homo erectus ( Lantian); (2) Homo erectus (Zhoukoudian); (3) Homo sapiens (Tongzi); and (4) Homo sapiens with Neanderthaloid features (Maba).

The possibility that Homo erectus and more advanced hominids may have coexisted in China adds new fuel to the controversy about who was really responsible for the broken brain cases of Beijing man and the presence of advanced stone tools at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Did several hominids, of various grades of advancement, really coexist in the middle Middle Pleistocene? We do not assert this categorically, but it is definitely within the range of possibilities suggested by the available data. In our study of the scientific literature, we have come upon no clear reason for ruling out coexistence other than the fact that the individuals are morphologically dissimilar.

Some will certainly claim that the fact of human evolution has been so conclusively established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is perfectly justifiable to engage in dating hominids by their morphology. But we believe this claim does not hold up under close scrutiny. As we have demonstrated in Chapters 2– 6, abundant evidence contradicting current ideas about human evolution has been suppressed or forgotten. Furthermore, scientists have systematically overlooked shortcomings in the evidence that supposedly supports current evolutionary hypotheses.

If peasants digging for fertilizer in a Chinese cave had uncovered a fully human skull along with a distinctly Pliocene fauna, scientists would certainly have protested that no competent observers were present to conduct adequate stratigraphic studies. But since the Maba skull could be fitted into the standard evolutionary sequence, no one objected to its similar mode of discovery.

9.2.5 Changyang County

Even after one learns to recognize the highly questionable practice of morphological dating, one may be astonished to note how frequently it is used. In the field of human evolution research in China, it appears to be not the exception but the rule. The Homo sapiens upper jaw (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286) found by workers in 1956 at Longdong (Dragon Cave) in Changyang county, Hubei Province, South China, has provided many authorities with a welcome opportunity for unabashed morphological dating.

The upper jaw, judged Homo sapiens with some primitive features, was found in association with the typical South China Middle Pleistocene fauna including Ailuropoda (panda) and Stegodon (extinct elephant). Jia Lanpo stated: “No human fossil had been found in association with such fauna, however, until the discovery of Changyang Man. . . . The AiluropodaStegodon fauna had been dated as Middle Pleistocene, contemporaneous with Peking Man, but new evidence puts it to be Upper Pleistocene” (Jia 1980, p. 42). Study of the faunal list (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286) shows that the only “new evidence” is the human fossil, as all the other species are representative of the Early and Middle Pleistocene. Jia concluded from the new evidence that the age of the Stegodon Ailuropoda fauna should be extended to the Late Pleistocene, but an equally valid conclusion is that Changyang Homo sapiens was contemporary with Beijing man. Evolutionary preconceptions do not, however, easily allow this.

Chang (1962, p. 749) wrote: “This fauna is generally believed to be of Middle Pleistocene age, and the scientists working on the cave suggest a late Middle Pleistocene dating, for the morphology of the maxilla shows less ‘primitive’ features than does that of Sinanthropus.” He went on to say that the upper jaw “resembles modern man in most of its features” (Chang 1962, p. 749). It is clear that Chang’s primary justification for assigning Changyang Homo sapiens a date later than Beijing Homo erectus was morphological.

Aigner (1981, p. 70) joined in with her statement: “A Middle Pleistocene age is suggested by some of the fauna with the presence of the hominid which is considered near H. sapiens indicating a dating late in that period.”

That so many scientists could confront the straightforward faunal evidence at Changyang without even considering the possibility that Homo sapiens coexisted in China with Homo erectus is amazing. In this regard, Sir Arthur Keith (1931, p. 256) wrote: “It has so often happened in the past that the discovery of human remains in a deposit has influenced expert opinion as to its age; the tendency has been to interpret geological evidence so that it would not clash flagrantly with the theory of [anatomically modern] man’s recent origin.”

Aigner (1981, p. 75) went on to state: “Associated with the Ch’angyang hominid are typical members of the StegodonAiluropoda fauna. Thus, it appears that the materials date to the Holstein-equivalent or to a later interglacial, rather than to a glacial phase of the Pleistocene” (Aigner 1981, p. 75). Zhoukoudian Locality 1 is referred to the Holstein-equivalent interglacial in the Chinese middle Middle Pleistocene. But according to Aigner (1981, p. 75), “The advanced nature of the hominid remains may exclude the early dating.” Is any comment required at this point?

Interestingly, Han Defen and Xu Chunhua reported Hyaena brevirostris sinensis fossils at Changyang (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286). Aigner (1981, pp. 289, 322) said this species is not found more recently than the Holstein interglacial, which is equivalent to the Taku-Lushan interglacial of the Chinese middle Middle Pleistocene (Table 9.2, p. 566). This should have given Aigner reason to refer Changyang Homo sapiens to the Taku-Lushan (Holstein) interglacial.

9.2.6 Liujiang

In 1958, workers found human fossils in the Liujiang cave in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of South China. These included a skull, vertebrae, ribs, pelvic bones, and a right femur. Han and Xu (1985, p. 286) said the Liujiang fossils are from Homo sapiens sapiens. Aigner (1981, p. 63) stated: “Many measurements taken fall within the range for living Mongoloids but several are clearly in the range for ‘Australoids.’. . . Wu concludes that the remains belong to an early form of (modern) H. sapiens and to a primitive Mongoloid.”

But the anatomically modern remains were found along with a typical StegodonAiluropoda fauna, giving a date range for the site of the entire Middle Pleistocene. The assemblage included Hystrix (porcupine), Ursus (bear), and Sus (hog). Since the species were not identifiable, these forms are not useful for precise dating (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286). Ailuropoda melanoleuca fovealis (panda) survives today and Rhinoceros sinensis lived until recently in China. But Stegodon orientalis (elephant) and Megatapirus augustus (giant tapir) probably did not survive past the Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, pp. 289, 325), suggesting that the fossil-bearing cave deposits are at least that old. This completes the main faunal list at Liujiang, although Jia (1980, p. 46) mentions other unnamed species of cattle and deer.

“The [human] skull was found near the cave mouth no more than four meters [about 13 feet] from the find spot of the panda remains,” said Jia (1980, p. 46). “The deposits there consisted of limestone, sand, and earth. The greybrown deposits were very loose and moist in marked contrast to mammalianfossil-bearing deposits found elsewhere in Guangxi, which are hard and yellowish. The types were obviously of different dating.”

It seems Jia (1980, p. 47) assigned a recent date of about 40,000 years to the Liujiang Homo sapiens fossils simply because the stratum where they were found was of a different color and consistency than that found in other caves in the same province. This is a weak argument, considering that the faunal remains are typical of the Middle Pleistocene. One can easily imagine circumstances that might account for different sorts of cave deposits in different locations.

A more frank explanation of the recent dating is suggested by Chang (1962, p. 753): “Woo Ju-kang, who reported the finding of Liu-chiang Man, assumes that the fossil human skull together with that of Ailuropoda is later than Middle Pleistocene. As the human skull is definitely fossilized and of Homosapiens type, it can be assumed that it is of late Pleistocene age.” Wu Xinzhi and Zhang Zhenbiao stated: “although in 1958 most of the representatives of the fauna were thought to have been deposited during the Middle Pleistocene, Wu Rukang believes the hominid remains postdate this epoch” (Wu and Zhang 1985, p. 109). These statements imply that that the remains of the human and panda were deposited in the cave after the other mammalian fossils. One suspects, however, that if the hominid remains had been of the Homo erectus type, scientists would not have felt compelled to interpret the evidence in such a fashion.

Aigner (1981, p. 64) provides an example of some very finely tuned morphological dating: “Based on the descriptions of relative primitiveness of the remains noted by Wu, Coon, and Thoma, a suggested dating of 15,000 or even 25,000 and 40,000 years ago is possible.” Yet the faunal evidence clearly indicates that the possible date range for Liujiang Homo sapiens extends far back into the Middle Pleistocene, contemporary with Lantian man and Beijing man.

9.2.7 Gigantopithecus

Also found in the Pleistocene caves of South China was Gigantopithecus, a very large apelike creature. Weidenreich believed Gigantopithecus was an ancestor of Beijing man, but modern scientists do not accept this. The time range of Gigan topithecus sites in China extends from the Early Pleistocene through the Middle Pleistocene (Han and Xu 1985, pp. 279–284).

9.2.8 Dali

The Dali site in Shaanxi province has yielded a skull classified as Homo sapiens (Han and Xu 1985, p. 284) with primitive features.

The Dali fauna (Han and Xu 1985, p. 284) includes unidentifiable species of Palaeoloxodon (extinct elephant), Equus (horse), Rhinoceros (rhino), Megalo ceros ( large extinct deer), and Bubalus (water buffalo) as well as unidentifiable genera and species of the Castoridae ( beavers). All of the genera found at Dali are represented throughout the Middle Pleistocene and earlier.

Megaloceros pachyosteus (Young), one of the two identifiable species from Dali, occurs at Zhoukoudian Locality 1, and the other species, Pseudaxis grayi (axis deer) occurs at the Lantian man sites, said to be roughly contemporaneous with Zhoukoudian Locality 1 in the middle Middle Pleistocene, if not earlier.

Some Chinese paleoanthropologists suggest a late Middle Pleistocene age for Dali (Wu, X. and Wu, M. 1985, p. 92). While this may account for the human skull, the associated fauna does not dictate such a date. Rather it suggests for Dali Homo sapiens a possible date range extending further back into the Middle Pleistocene, overlapping, once more, Beijing man at Zhoukoudian Locality 1.

9.2.9 Summary of Overlapping Date Ranges

In discussing overlapping possible date ranges, we found that Beijing man Homo erectus at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 may very well have lived at the same time as a variety of hominids—early Homo sapiens (some with Neanderthaloid features), Homo sapiens sapiens, and primitive Homo erectus (Figure 9.7).

Figure 9.7. The probable date ranges of Chinese hominids, as determined by their accompanying mammalian faunas, are shown. Scientists have assigned dates to the hominids, within their probable date ranges, that conform to evolutionary expectations. These dates are represented by the darker portion of each bar. For example, although the faunal date range for the Maba site extends from the Early Pleistocene to the early Late Pleistocene, scientists have used the presence of a Neanderthaloid skull to fix the date for the site in the most recent part of its date range. At Liujiang, the human fossils were given a date completely outside the faunal date range. We call this phenomenon morphological dating. But putting aside evolutionary expectations, the faunal evidence indicates that it is possible that all of the hominids were contemporary with Homo erectus at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 in the middle Middle Pleistocene (shaded vertical bar).

In attempting to sort out this Middle Pleistocene hominid logjam, scientists have repeatedly used the morphology of the hominid fossils to select desirable dates within the total possible faunal date ranges of the sites. In this way, they have been able to preserve an evolutionary progression of hominids. Remarkably, this artificially constructed sequence, designed to fit evolutionary expectations, is then cited as proof of the evolutionary hypothesis.

For example, as we have several times demonstrated, a Homo sapiens specimen with a possible date range extending from the middle Middle Pleistocene (contemporary with Beijing man) to the Late Pleistocene will be pushed toward the more recent end of the date range. One would be equally justified in selecting a middle Middle Pleistocene date within the possible date range, even though this conflicts with evolutionary expectations.

9.2.10 Stone Tools and Hominid Teeth at Yuanmou (Early Early Pleistocene)

We conclude our review of fossil hominid discoveries in China with some cases of sites regarded as Early Pleistocene. At Yuanmou, in Yunnan province, southwest China, geologists found two hominid teeth (incisors). According to Chinese scientists, these were more primitive than those of Beijing man, having a more complicated lingual surface (the lingual surface is that facing the tongue). The teeth are believed to have belonged to a very primitive Homo erectus, a precursor of Beijing man, descended from Australopithecus (Jia 1980, pp. 6–7).

Stone tools—three scrapers, a stone core, a flake, and a point of quartz or quartzite—were later found at Yuanmou. Published drawings (Zhang, S. 1985, p. 141) show the Yuanmou tools to be much like the European eoliths and the Oldowan industry of East Africa. Layers of cinders, containing mammalian fossils, were also found with the tools and hominid incisors. According to Jia (1980, p. 8), “The cinders were in heaps at some spots while sparse and scattered elsewhere.” The strata yielding the incisors gave a probable paleomagnetic date of

1.7 million years within a range of 1.6–1.8 million years (Jia 1980, p. 9).

There are problems with this Early Pleistocene age for Yuanmou Homo erectus. Homo erectus is thought to have evolved from Homo habilis in Africa about 1.5 million years ago, and then migrated elsewhere about 1.0 million years ago. Homo habilis is not thought to have left Africa. Implicit in Jia’s age estimate for the Yuanmou hominid is a separate origin for Homo erectus in China. Jia seems to require the presence in China about 2.0 million years ago of Australopithecus or Homo habilis, something forbidden by current theory.

In this regard, Lewis R. Binford and Nancy M. Stone (1986, p. 15) stated: “It should be noted that many Chinese scholars are still wedded to the idea that man evolved in Asia. This view contributes to the willingness of many to uncritically accept very early dates for Chinese sites and to explore the possibility of stone tools being found in Pliocene deposits.” One could also say that because Western scholars are wedded to the idea that humans evolved in Africa they uncritically reject very early dates for hominid fossils and artifacts around the world.

As previously mentioned, one need not suppose that either Africa or Asia was a center of evolution. There is, as shown in preceding chapters, voluminous evidence, much found by professional scientists, suggesting that humans of the modern type have lived on various continents, including South America, for tens of millions of years. And, during this same period, there is also evidence for various apelike creatures, some resembling humans more than others.

A question encountered in our discussions of anomalous cultural remains (Chapters 2–5) once more arises: What justification does one have for attributing the stone tools and signs of fire at Yuanmou to primitive Homo erectus?

The tools and signs of fire were not found close to the Homo erectus teeth (Jia 1985, p. 140). Two of the three tools lay 1.5 meters (5 feet) below the level of the teeth, and the third 1 meter (3 feet) above. The closest tool was 5 meters (about 16.4 feet) from the teeth. The others were up to 20 meters (65.6 feet) away.

Furthermore, as seen in this chapter, there is much evidence that Homo sapiens may have existed in China far earlier than is presently admitted. And we have already examined evidence from other parts of the world demonstrating the presence of Homo sapiens in the Early Pleistocene and earlier.

Aigner, representing mainline anthropological thought, reacted predictably to Jia Lanpo’s suggested early dating for the Yuanmou hominid. She stated: “The hominid and faunal remains, as well as contemporaneous artifacts [occur] in level 25 at the base of the fourth stratigraphic unit, equivalent to earliest Middle Pleistocene times. A paleomagnetic age of 1.7 million years would place the strata and H. erectus yuanmoensis equivalent in age to the Olduvai Event and some 1 million years earlier than H. erectus lantianensis. Based on current reports, the remains are earliest Middle Pleistocene faunistically and stratigraphically [about 1 million years old]. The paleomagnetic date could be applicable to another stratigraphic unit (the first or second). I am reluctant at this point to accept the date as valid for the hominid teeth” (Aigner 1981, pp. 52–54). This shows how dating procedures are far from exact. Dates are subject to extensive postexperimental revision and interpretation.

In 1983, the original paleomagnetic dating of 1.7 million years for the Yuanmou site, reported by Li Pu and his associates in 1976 and reconfirmed in 1977 by Cheng and his associates, was challenged by Liu Dongsheng and Ding Menglin (Wu, X. and Wang, L. 1985, p. 35). They proposed a different explanation of the magnetostratigraphic sequence at Yuanmou.

According to Wu Xinzhi and Wang Linghong: “Liu and Ding prefer to correlate the normal polarity member at Yuanmou with the Brunhes Epoch rather than with an event of normal polarity within the Matuyama. Furthermore, they have concluded that the layer yielding the fossils of H. erectus is situated at the base of the Brunhes Normal Epoch strata [Figure 9.8] and therefore might not be older than 0.73 million years b.p., and possibly only 0.5–0.6 million years old” (Wu, X. and Wang, L. 1985, pp. 35–36).

Figure 9.8. Cheng et al. (1977) and Li et al. (1976) established a correlation between the polarity sequence at Yuanmou (center) and the standard polarity sequence (left) that gave the hominid-bearing stratum an age of about 1.7 million years. But in 1983, Liu and Ding established a correlation between Yuanmou and the standard sequence (right) that gave the hominid-bearing stratum an age of approximately .73 million years (Wu, R. and Wang, L. 1985, p. 36).

Paleomagnetic dating is based on the assumption that the earth’s magnetic field undergoes shifts in polarity, which are recorded in the magnetic properties of the strata at a site. Upon conducting the required measurements on the strata, one obtains a sequence of normal and reversed polarities, which are grouped into various epochs, such as those named in the above passage (Brunhes Normal, Matuyama Reversed, etc.). The sequence of polarities is typically displayed in a column, with periods of normal polarity shown in black and reversed polarity in white. As can be seen, in Figure 9.8, there may be brief episodes of normal polarity in a reversed epoch and vice versa. One thus obtains a column of many black and white bars, of various thickness, representing the time of each polarity period. One may then compare the polarity sequence from a particular site, which may be quite complex, with the standard polarity sequence and its known chronometric dates. When the site polarity sequence is properly aligned with the standard sequence, one can then assign dates to the various strata at the site by comparison with the standard sequence. The problem is this: matching the polarity sequence obtained at a particular site with the standard sequence is not always easy—there is much room for interpretation, as we can see from the conflicting interpretations of the polarity sequence at Yuanmou.

In 1979, Chinese scientists using amino acid racemization methods dated animal fossils from Yuanmou to 0.80 million years. But Wu and Wang warned: “Fluctuations in average temperature on the enclosing sediments during burial may have had a significant influence on these determinations, and, as such fluctuations are not at present quantifiable, the resulting chronometric dates must be viewed with caution” ( Wu, X. and Wang, L. 1985, pp. 36–37). The inventor of amino acid racemization dating, Bada, admitted that in certain cases the technique did not give reliable dates (Appendix 1.3.5). Wu and Wang stated that the fauna at the hominid site is Early Pleistocene, supporting the paleomagnetic date of 1.7 million years. They thus differed from Aigner, who said the fauna favored an early Middle Pleistocene age for Yuanmou.

Replying to the challenges to his proposed date of 1.7 million years, Jia Lanpo wrote: “Today, although the Lower Pleistocene age of the Yuanmou deposits has been called into question (Liu and Ding 1983), the associated fauna still reflects a Lower Pleistocene antiquity” (Jia 1985, p. 140). Reacting specifically to the more recent paleomagnetic date suggested by Liu and Ding, Jia (1985, p. 141) said: “Because of the apparent contradiction between these data and the extremely archaic mammalian fossil assemblage associated with the Yuanmou incisors, and due to the primitive morphological features of the teeth themselves, I do not share the opinions of Liu and Ding in this matter.” So it appears there may exist at Yuanmou tools and signs of fire dating back to 1.7 million years ago.