Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [379]
Peking man caught on like wildfire, not only in the world of science, which needed him, but among the general public as well. Therefore scientists went overboard to confirm his status as a genuine human ancestor. And as suggested by Jia, “stone artifacts and traces of the use of fire” were to be an important element in this confirmation.
9.1.7 Evidence for Fire and Stone Tools at Choukoutien
It was in 1931 that reports showing extensive use of fire and the presence of well-developed stone and bone tools at Choukoutien were first published. What is quite unusual about these announcements is that systematic excavations had been conducted at Choukoutien by competent investigators since 1927, with no mention of either fire or stone tools. For example, Black wrote in 1929 (p. 208): “though thousands of cubic meters of material from this deposit have been examined, no artifacts of any nature have yet been encountered nor has any trace of the usage of fire been observed.”
On the question of tools, P. Teilhard de Chardin and C. C. Young (Yang Zhongjian) wrote: “Embedded in the fine grained material of the Lower Cave, Mr. Pei picked up an angular piece of quartz—a type of stone which is not found within one mile at least of the locality 1. Similar quartz fragments have been found from time to time in the course of the excavations, the first ones being noticed by Dr. J. G. Andersson, but none of them has ever shown any recognizable trace of artificial breaking” (1929, p. 182). In addition, Teilhard de Chardin (1965, pp. 62–63) wrote in an article published in 1930: “since the beginning of the excavation no trace has yet been found on the site suggesting the use of fire or any industry of any kind.”
Grafton Eliot Smith, who had personally visited the Choukoutien site, wrote (1931, p. 36): “It is a very significant phenomenon that at Chou Kou Tien, in spite of the most careful search in the caves during the last three years, no trace whatever of implements of any sort has been found. . . . It must not be forgotten, however, that Dr. Andersson in 1921 found pieces of quartz in association with the fossil bones, and that in the later stages of the excavation Mr. Pei found further examples of this alien material. Those who have been searching in vain for evidence of human craftsmanship on this site are being forced to the conclusion that Peking Man was in such an early phase of development as not yet to have begun to shape implements of stone for the ordinary needs of his daily life.”
Then Teilhard de Chardin, while visiting Paris in 1930, showed a piece of stag horn from Choukoutien to Henri Breuil, without telling Breuil its source. Breuil studied the specimen and noted that it showed signs of having been deliberately burned by fire. He also concluded it had been modified by hammering for use as a tool, and noted cut marks that appeared to have been made by a stone implement (Breuil 1932, pp. 1–2). At that point, Teilhard de Chardin revealed the source of the bone and suggested Breuil visit Choukoutien. There are mysterious undercurrents here. At this point in time, Teilhard de Chardin was on record as saying there were no signs of human industry at Choukoutien. But then why was he carrying around a rather ordinary piece of deer horn? And why did he show it to