• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1181 0

to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, delivered in August, 1879, O. C. Marsh, president of the Association and one of America’s foremost paleontologists, said about Tertiary man: “The proof offered on this point by Professor J. D. Whitney in his recent work (Aurif. Gravels of Sierra Nevada) is so strong, and his careful, conscientious method of investigation so well known, that his conclusions seem irresistible. . . . At present, the known facts indicate that the American beds containing human remains and works of man, are as old as the Pliocene of Europe. The existence of man in the Tertiary period seems now fairly established” (Southall 1882, p. 196).

6.2.7 More European discoveries (Miocene and eocene)

More evidence for human beings in the early and middle Tertiary comes from Europe. According to de Mortillet, M. Quiquerez reported the discovery of a skeleton at Delémont in Switzerland in ferruginous clays said to be Late Eocene. About this find, de Mortillet (1883, p. 72) simply said one should be suspicious of human skeletons found with the bones in natural connection. De Mortillet (1883, p. 72) further stated that one should be cautious about a similarly complete skeleton found by Garrigou in Miocene strata at Midi de France.

It is possible, however, that these skeletons were from individuals buried during the Eocene or Miocene periods. A burial does not necessarily have to be recent. The truly frustrating thing about finds such as these is that we are not able to get more information about them. We find only a brief mention by an author bent on discrediting them. Because such finds seemed doubtful to scientists like de Mortillet, they went undocumented and uninvestigated, and were quickly forgotten. How many such finds have been made? We may never know. In contrast, finds which conform to accepted theories are thoroughly investigated, safely enshrined in museums, and widely taught to millions around the world.

We are now nearing the end of our survey of evidence for Tertiary man uncovered by scientists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Much of this evidence is comparable to (or better than) the evidence used by paleoanthropologists in support of the standard scenario of human evolution. For example, in the case of Castenedolo, human skeletal remains were taken from undisturbed Pliocene formations by a professional geologist. By way of contrast, most of the Java man discoveries reported by von Koenigswald and others (Sections 7.3, 7.4) were made at poorly specified locations by paid native collectors, with no scientist present. Yet the Castenedolo find is rarely mentioned in standard textbooks, while the Java Homo erectus finds are routinely reported.

Over time, the scientific community eliminated Castenedolo and other discoveries discussed in this chapter from the realm of serious consideration. In 1924, in one of the final published discussions of this material, Hugo Obermaier offered a decidely negative opinion about human beings in the Tertiary. “A fact of such transcendent importance would be demonstrated beyond question by the discovery of human skeletons of Tertiary age, but up to the present time none of the supposed discoveries of this nature is sufficiently well proved to withstand any serious scientific investigation. Neither the ‘Eocene’ skeleton of Delemont in Switzerland, nor the ‘Pliocene’ remains of Colle del Vento near Savona, Liguria, nor those of Matera, all in Italy, have supplied any data for the solving of this interesting problem—being therefore relegated to oblivion, even as the Indian skull of Calaveras, California. Neither has it been possible to prove that the discoveries of F. Ameghino in South America during the last fifteen years . . . are of Tertiary age as claimed” (Obermaier 1924, p. 2).

It is questionable whether the evidence mentioned by Obermaier, and additional evidence presented in this chapter (such as the Castenedolo finds), should have been “relegated to oblivion.” Is it really the case that there were no valid scientific grounds