Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [285]
In other words, scientists who believed the Neanderthals were the immediate ancestors of Homo sapiens could not accommodate the Moulin Quignon jaw because it would have meant that anatomically modern human beings were in existence before the Neanderthals. Today, the idea that the Neanderthals were the direct ancestors of the modern human type is out of vogue, but this in itself does not clear the way for acceptance of the Abbeville jaw, which if genuine, would be over 300,000 years old.
From the information we now have at our disposal, it is difficult to form a definite opinion about the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw. Even if we accept that the jaw and the many flint implements found along with it were fakes, what does this tell us about the nature of paleoanthropological evidence? As we shall see, the Moulin Quignon jaw and tools, if they were forgeries, are not alone. Piltdown man (Chapter 8) was accepted for 40 years before being dismissed as an elaborate hoax.
6.1.2.3 The Clichy Skeleton
In 1868, Eugene Bertrand reported to the Anthropological Society of Paris that on April 18 of that year he found parts of a human skull, along with a femur, tibia, and some foot bones, in a quarry on the Avenue de Clichy. According to Keith (1928, pp. 276–277), the bones were found 5.25 meters (17.3 feet) beneath the surface, in a grey loam. Bertrand (1868, pp. 329–330) reported a similar depth but said that the bones were found in a reddish clayey sand layer within the grey loam. MacCurdy (1924a, p. 413) said that the bones were found in “a band of reddish sand at the base of the gray diluvium.” A workman at the site reported that this reddish band was 10 or 20 centimeters (about 4 – 8 inches) in thickness (Bertrand 1868, p. 332). Keith believed that the age of the stratum in which the human bones were found was roughly the same age as the layer in which the Galley Hill skeleton was discovered. We recall from Section 6.1.2.1 that this layer is, according to current estimates, approximately 330,000 years old. The depth at which the Clichy human fossils were found (over 17 feet) argues against the recent intrusive burial hypothesis, and furthermore there was no mention of any disturbance in the overlying strata.
But Gabriel de Mortillet (Bertrand 1868, p. 332) said that a workman at the quarry on the Avenue de Clichy told him that he had stashed a skeleton in the pit. Skeptical about the reliability of testimony by workmen, de Mortillet asked him for proof. According to de Mortillet, the workman responded by telling him that he had taken the skeleton from a layer of reddish sediments in the upper part of the quarry. This explained why the bones found by Bertrand were reddish in color. The workman said that the layer of reddish material in the lower levels of the quarry was too thin to contain the bones.
According to de Mortillet, the workman further said that in the upper levels of the quarry, bones from the same animal were sometimes found together, whereas in the lower levels the fossil remains of mammals were always mixed and scattered. Thus the fact that the human bones were found “piled up in a little space” indicated they were not originally part of the layer in which they were found. On the basis of the workman’s statements, de Mortillet concluded that the skeleton said to have been stashed by the workman was the same as the one found by Bertrand.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the workman was speaking the truth—de Mortillet himself frankly admitted the unreliability of testimony from workmen. On the other hand, it is possible that the workman was being honest,