Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [392]
The above reasoning is not totally convincing. Concerning cranial capacity, the smallest adult skull (skull XI, 1015 cc) and the largest (skull X, 1225 cc) are both from layers 8 and 9. The skull from layer 3 (skull V, 1140 cc) falls within this range. This hardly demonstrates evolutionary development.
As far as other features of the skulls are concerned, one cannot make a statistically meaningful statement about them. Because of individual variations in a population, many skulls at each time horizon are needed to show that the population has undergone significant change. But at Zhoukoudian only one skull is substantially more recent than the others, and this single skull is by no means sufficient to establish a trend in any particular direction. Also, from Ku Yu-min’s description above it appears that some of the supposedly progressive characteristics of the most recent skull (V) are also found in the older skulls—such as the large frontal sinuses in skull III and the less-developed occipital in skull XI.
In addition to discussing an evolutionary increase in cranial capacity, Wu and Lin noted a trend toward smaller tools in the Zhoukoudian cave deposits. They also reported that the materials used to make the tools in the recent levels were superior to those used in the older levels. The recent levels featured more high-quality quartz, more flint, and less sandstone than the earlier levels (Wu and Lin 1983, p. 92).
But a change in the technological skill of a population does not imply that this population has evolved physiologically. For example, consider residents of Germany in a.d. 1400 and residents of Germany in a.d. 1990. The technological differences are awesome—jet planes and cars instead of horses; television and telephone instead of unaided vision and voice; tanks and missiles instead of swords and bows. Yet one would be in error if one concluded that the Germans of 1990 were physiologically more evolved than the Germans of 1400. Hence, contrary to the claim of Wu and Lin, the distribution of various kinds of stone tools does not imply that Sinanthropus evolved.
The report of Wu and Lin, especially their claim of increased cranial capacity in Sinanthropus during the Zhoukoudian cave occupation, shows that one should not uncritically accept all one reads about human evolution in scientific journals. It appears the scientific community is so committed to its evolutionary doctrine that any article purporting to demonstrate it can pass without much scrutiny.
9.2 OTHER DISCOVERIES IN CHINA
Although Zhoukoudian is the most famous paleoanthropological site in China, there are many others. Discoveries at these sites have included fossils representative of early Homo erectus, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and early Homo sapiens, thus providing an apparent evolutionary sequence. But the way in which this progression has been constructed is open to question.
9.2.1 Dating by Morphology
As we have seen in our discussion of human fossil remains discovered in China and elsewhere, it is in most cases not possible to date them with a very high degree of precision. Finds tend to occur within what we choose to call a “possible date range,” and this range may be quite broad, depending upon the dating methods that are used. Such methods include chemical, radiometric, and geomagnetic dating techniques, as well as analysis of site stratigraphy, faunal remains, tool types, and the morphology of the hominid remains. Furthermore, different scientists using the same methods