Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [382]
Teilhard de Chardin also thought it wise to explain why he had not reported the presence of stone or bone implements at the time of his discussions with Breuil in Paris. In 1934, he stated in the journal Revue des Questions Scientifiques (vol. 25): “In writing my first article here on Choukoutien three years ago, I was still able to say that ‘up to now’, despite certain indications, no trace of industry had yet been certainly recognised in association with the bone remains of Sinanthropus. Two months later, returning to the site with Mr. W. C. Pei [ Pei Wenzhong], the young scholar in charge of the excavation, I gathered with him in situ incontestable fragments of flaked stone and burnt bones. These traces had hitherto escaped attention because the works have been carried on for some years in a part of the site where they would have been extremely hard to recognise. . . . But once we recognised the first flakes of quartz, all became clear. . . . From that moment, archaeological discoveries multiplied—the most important being the discovery (Summer 1931) of a red, yellow, and black clay bed about two metres [about six and a half feet ] thick, extremely rich in stone and bone debris” (Teilhard de Chardin 1965, pp. 70 –71). Again, it does seem quite unusual that such experienced researchers as Teilhard de Chardin and Pei could have completely overlooked the presence of literally thousands of implements at Choukoutien.
In reference to the question of fire, Teilhard de Chardin and C. C. Young (Yang Zhongjian) wrote in 1929 about Layer 4 in the Choukoutien cave deposits: “Very conspicuous fine grained, sedimentary zone, formed by red loam and sandy clay of various colors (yellow, reddish, brown, gray, etc.) thinly bedded and interbedded. At several levels some black layers occur which are full of Rodent remains and other micro fauna. . . . Thickness 6.7 meters [22 feet ]” (Teilhard de Chardin and Yang 1929, p. 181). A few years later, in 1932, this same layer would be described by Teilhard de Chardin and Pei in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of China (vol. 11) as “an ashy deposit” almost 7 meters deep (Bowden 1977, p. 92). The main ash piles were 300 feet long by 100 feet wide (Fix 1984, p. 118). It is quite remarkable that Teilhard and Young (Yang) could have examined this same formation in 1929 and reported on it with no suggestion at all of fire.
Concerning the failure of Teilhard de Chardin, Black, Pei, and others to report abundant tools and signs of fire at Choukoutien, there are two possible explanations. The first is the one they themselves gave—they simply overlooked the evidence or had so many doubts about it that they did not feel justified in reporting it. The second possibility is that they were very much aware of the signs of fire and stone tools, before Breuil reported them, but deliberately withheld this information.
But why? At the time the discoveries were made at Choukoutien, fire and stone tools at a site were generally taken as the work of Homo sapiens or Neanderthals. According to Dubois and von Koenigswald, no stone tools or signs of usage of fire were found in connection with Pithecanthropus erectus in Java. The Selenka expedition did report remnants of hearths at Trinil, but this information did not attain wide circulation.
So perhaps the original investigators of Choukoutien purposefully held back from reporting stone tools and fire because they were aware such things might have confused the status of Sinanthropus. Doubters might have very