Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [391]
A chart in the Scientific American article showed the positions and sizes of the skulls found at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. But in their explanation of this chart, Wu and Lin neglected to state that the earliest skull, found at layer 10, belonged to a child, who according to Franz Weidenreich (1935, p. 448) died at age 8 or 9, and according to Davidson Black died between ages 11 and 13. In the text of their article, Wu and Lin (1983, p. 90) did mention that one of the 6 skulls they considered was from a child who died at age 8 or 9; yet they did not specify the level at which this skull was found. Wu and Lin acknowledged that a child’s skull is smaller than an adult’s. But to establish an evolutionary trend in their chart, they still compared the child’s skull from layer 10 with the other skulls, which are from adults.
TABLE 9.1
Evidence for Supposed Evolutionary Increase
In Sinanthropus Cranial Capacity at Zhoukoudian, China
Years b.p.
Layer
A: Data Reported by
Wu and Lin, 1983
B: Complete Data
230,000
1–2
230,000
3
1140 cc (V)
1140 cc (V)
290,000
4
290,000
5
350,000
6
350,000
7
420,000
8
1075 cc = average
of 4 skulls
1225 cc (X), 1015 cc (XI),
1030 cc (XII), 1025 cc (II)
420,000
9
1075 cc = average
of 4 skulls
1225 cc (X), 1015 cc (XI),
1030 cc (XII), 1025 cc (II)
460,000
10
915 cc (III)
915 cc (III) child
700,000
11–13
In Scientific American (June 1983), Wu Rukang and Lin Shenglong used the data in column A to suggest that Sinanthropus individuals evolved a larger cranial capacity during the 230,000 years they occupied the Zhoukoudian cave. But in their table Wu and Lin did not mention that the oldest skull (III) was that of a child, making it useless for comparison with the other skulls, which were those of adults. Furthermore, Wu and Lin gave an average for 4 skulls from layers 8 and 9 (II, X, XI, and XII), without mentioning that one of these skulls (X) had a cranial capacity of 1225 cc, larger than the most recent skull from layer 3. The complete data, shown in column B, reveals no evolutionary increase in cranial capacity. All of the data in the table was originally reported by Weidenreich (1935, 1943), except for the cranial capacity of the skull found at layer 3. In 1934, Weidenreich reported the discovery of some pieces of this skull, which he later designated skull V (Weidenreich 1943, p. 5). Then in 1966, Chinese paleontologists found other pieces of this same skull (Jia 1980, p. 26). The reconstruction of this skull and the cranial capacity measurement were carried out in 1966.
Wu and Lin also neglected to mention that one of the skulls discovered in layers 8 and 9 (skull X) had a cranial capacity of 1,225 cc, which is 85 cc larger than the most recent skull (V), found in layer 3. When all the data is presented, (Table 9.1, column B) it is clear that there is no steady increase in cranial capacity from 460,000 to 230,000 years ago.
Except the skull pieces from layer 3 found in 1966, Weidenreich examined all the skulls in Table 9.1. He saw no evolutionarily significant change in their general shape or cranial capacity from the bottom to the top of the excavation: “The morphological character of the Sinanthropus population of Locality 1, therefore, remained unchanged during the long periods of time necessary for the filling-up of the cave. Viewed from the morphological standpoint the population represents a uniform type” (Weidenreich 1935, p. 450).
Another attempt has been made, using cranial data, to establish that evolution took place during the Zhoukoudian occupation. According to W. W. Howells (1977, p. 70), Chinese paleoanthropologist Ku Yu-min believed that the skull from layer 3 should be “viewed