Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [307]
Deo Gratias (1873, pp. 419–420) stated: “It is unfortunate an experienced naturalist was not there, but on the basis of testimony by Brilla and the workers who excavated the skeleton here is what is known. The body was discovered in an outstretched position, with the arms extending forward, the head slightly bent forward and down, the body very much elevated relative to the legs, like a man in the water. Can we suppose a body was buried in such a position? Is it not, on the contrary, the position of a body abandoned to the mercy of the water? The fact that the skeleton was found on the side of a rock in the bed of clay makes it probable that it was washed against this obstacle.”
Deo Gratias (1873, p. 419) further stated: “Had it been a burial we would expect to find the upper layers mixed with the lower. The upper layers contain white quartzite sands. The result of mixing would have been the definite lightening of a closely circumscribed region of the Pliocene clay sufficient to cause some doubts in the spectators that it was genuinely ancient, as they affirmed. The biggest and smallest cavities of the human bones are filled with compacted Pliocene clay. This could only have happened when the clay was in a muddy consistency, during Pliocene times.” Deo Gratias pointed out that the layers of Pliocene clay, now hard and dry, were situated on a hill, which meant they would be well drained.
De Mortillet, and later Boule and Vallois (1957, p. 106), argued that since the mammal bones in the stratum were scattered, whereas the human bones were found in natural connection, this indicated that the latter must be a recent intrusive burial. But the following points all argue strongly against the intrusive burial hypothesis: (1) the lack of material from the higher stratum mixed in with that of the lower stratum; (2) the depth of 3 meters (10 feet)—rather deep for a burial, at least from the present land surface; (3) the position of the skeleton, face down when discovered.
How then do we explain the scattered mammal bones? The site was once covered by the shallow shoreline waters of a Pliocene sea, as shown by the presence of characteristic shells. Animals could have died on the land, and their isolated bones could have been washed into the sea and incorporated into the formation. The human bones, found in natural connection, could have come to rest in the same marine formation as a result of someone drowning there during the Pliocene. This combination of events accounts for the presence of a relatively complete human skeleton amid scattered animal bones, without recourse to the hypothesis of recent intrusive burial. Keep in mind that the posture of the skeleton, face down and with limbs outstretched, was like that of a drowned corpse rather than one deliberately buried.
The very infrequent references to the Savona skeleton in current textbooks are predictably negative, and just as predictably flawed in their presentation of the facts. For example, Boule and Vallois (1957, p. 106) claimed: “No stratigraphic study of the formation was made.” This statement of theirs is, however, inaccurate, as can be seen from the above-mentioned reports, which established the Pliocene age and undisturbed condition of the layer containing the skeleton.
6.2.4 A Human Vertebra from Monte Hermoso (Early Pliocene)
Having discussed the discovery of flint tools and signs of intentional use of fire at Monte Hermoso in Argentina (Section 5.1.1), we will now consider a human bone found there. Dr. F. Ameghino (1908, pp. 106 –107) reported: “The precursor of man who burned the pampas grass, who made fire in hearths, chipped flint implements, and burned and split the bones of animals he hunted, has also left some of his own fossil bones.” He was speaking of a human atlas (the first, or topmost, vertebra of the spinal column) collected by Santiago Pozzi, an employee of the Museo de La Plata (F. Ameghino 1908, p. 174). According to Ameghino (1908, p.