• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Sergi (1884, p. 304) then stated: “Taking all this into consideration, it is possible to conclude and affirm without hesitation that man appeared not only in the Quaternary epoch, but that the signs of his existence certainly extend back into the Tertiary epoch.”

After pointing out that some scientists wanted to attribute the Tertiary flint implements and other artifacts to a hypothetical apelike human precursor, Sergi (1884, p. 305) wrote: “Therefore it became important to consider human skeletal remains, but no acceptable ones had been found. This is the reason for the negative opinions of de Mortillet and Hovelacque. But neither was there much fossil evidence to back up the proposed precursor of man.” Java man, the first scientifically accepted ape-man, was not uncovered until 1891, seven years after Sergi presented the report we have been reviewing.

De Mortillet, it may be recalled, believed the fossil record showed that mammals displayed extensive and progressive evolutionary development from primitive forms in the Tertiary up to more advanced forms in the present. Accepting this sequence as a paleontological law, de Mortillet anticipated that any fossils of Tertiary human ancestors would be very primitive and apelike. It could not be otherwise.

But Sergi pointed out that some Tertiary mammals (such as the mastodon) had survived without much change well into the Quaternary (Pleistocene) in Italy and Spain. Also, Sergi (1884, p. 306) reported that in the United States geologists had discovered in Late Miocene formations some fossil wolf jaws that were indistinguishable from those of living wolves.

Sergi (1884, p. 309) therefore stated: “the tendency to reject, by reason of theoretical preconceptions, any discoveries that can demonstrate a human presence in the Tertiary is, I believe, a kind of scientific prejudice. Natural science should be stripped of this prejudice.” This prejudice was, however, not overcome, and it persists today. Sergi (1884, p. 310) wrote: “By means of a despotic scientific prejudice, call it what you will, every discovery of human remains in the Pliocene has been discredited.”

But Sergi was not alone in his acceptance of Ragazzoni’s discoveries at Castenedolo. De Quatrefages, familiar to us from our review of stone implements, also accepted them. Concerning the female skeleton uncovered at Castenedolo, he said in his book Races Humaines: “The deposit was removed in successive horizontal layers, and not the least trace was found of the beds having been mixed or disturbed” (Laing 1894, p. 371). De Quatrefages further stated: “there exists no serious reason for doubting the discovery of M. Ragazzoni, and . . . if made in a Quaternary deposit no one would have thought of contesting its accuracy. Nothing, therefore, can be opposed to it but theoretical a priori objections, similar to those which so long repelled the existence of Quaternary man” (Laing 1893, p. 119).

In 1889, an additional human skeleton was discovered at Castenedolo. This find introduced an element of confusion about the discoveries of 1880.

Ragazzoni invited G. Sergi and A. Issel to examine the new skeleton, which had been found in an ancient oyster bed. Sergi (1912) reported that both he and Issel believed this new 1889 skeleton to be a recent intrusion into the Pliocene layers “because the almost intact skeleton lay on its back in a fissure of the oyster bed and showed signs of having been buried” (Cousins 1971, p. 53).

Issel (1889) therefore reported that this new skeleton was not of Pliocene age, but was much younger. Issel (1889, p. 109) concluded that the 1880 discoveries were also recent burials. Concerning the dispersal of the bones of some of the skeletons found in 1880, he suggested this might have been caused by agricultural work (Issel 1889, p. 109). In a footnote, Issel (1889, p. 109) claimed that Sergi agreed with him that none of the skeletons found at Castenedolo were of Pliocene age. For the scientific community, this apparently resolved the ongoing