Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [349]
t6, t7, t8, and t9 are the femurs found in boxes of fossils in Holland over 30 years after they were originally excavated in Java. Le Gros clark and campbell apparently ignored dubois’s statement that he himself did not excavate them, and that the original location of the femurs was unknown. We may also recall von Koenigswald’s statement that the femurs were from dubois’s general collection, which contained fossils from “various sites and various ages which are very inadequately distinguished because some of the labels got lost.” nevertheless, Le Gros clark and campbell (1978, p. 94) assumed that these femurs came from the trinil beds of the Kabuh formation. But day and Molleson (1973, p. 130) observed: “if the rigorous criteria that are demanded in modern excavations were applied to all of the trinil material subsequent to the calotte and Femur i, it would all be rejected as of doubtful provenance and unknown stratigraphy.”
Fossil M1 and fossils S1a through S6 are those discovered by Javanese native collectors employed by von Koenigswald. Only one of them (M1) was reported to have been discovered buried in the stratum to which it is assigned, and even this report is subject to question. the remaining fossils of the S series are the ones reported by Marks, Sartono, and Jacob, and the majority of these were surface finds by villagers and farmers, who sold the fossils, perhaps by way of middlemen, to the scientists. One familiar with the way these specimens were found can only wonder at the intellectual dishonesty manifest in table 7.2 ( p. 498), which gives the impression that the fossils were all found in strata of definite age.
in our discussion of the Sheguiandah site in canada, where anomalously old stone tools were found by t. e. Lee, we found that an establishment scientist, James B. Griffin, dismissed the discovery because the site did not conform to certain very strict standards (Section 5.4.1.2, pp. 350–352). Griffin and others like him demand to see an intact habitation site, in a clearly defined geological context, complete with stone tools, skeletal remains, signs of deliberate use of fire, remains of animals and plants used as food, and more (1979, p. 44). Otherwise, there is always the chance that an isolated artifact or bone might be intrusive in the layer in which it was found. Griffin felt no hesitation whatsoever in using his criteria to reject as nonsites dozens of places in North American where anomalously old traces of humans had been discovered.
Should not the same strict standards apply in Java? One might argue that Griffin’s requirements were intended for Indian sites in North America and not for Homo erectus sites in other parts of the world. But according to standard opinion, Homo erectus was, like Homo sapiens, a toolmaker and user of fire, as shown by Homo erectus sites in china, Africa, and europe. One might therefore expect to find the same kinds of artifacts and signs of habitation at a Homo erectus site as at a Homo sapiens site. As we have seen, none of the Homo erectus sites in Java (over twenty) conform to Griffin’s criteria and should therefore be classed as nonsites. no cultural remains whatsoever have been found along with the Java Homo erectus fossils, most of which were surface finds.
We regard Griffin’s approach as extreme. However, our main objection is not to the stringency of his requirements but to the fairness of their application. If one decides to employ Griffin’s criteria, one should do so in all similar cases or none at all. Obviously, if one were to universally apply Griffin’s criteria, much of the paleoanthropological evidence currently accepted by scientists, such as the Java Homo erectus evidence, would have to be