• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

In summary, using Megatapirus augustus and Crocuta crocuta as marker fossils, we can conclude that the probable date range for the Homo sapiens fossils found at Tongzi extends from the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene to the end of the late Middle Pleistocene (Figure 9.3).

So Qiu (1985), in effect, extended the date ranges of some mammalian species in the StegodonAiluropoda fauna (such as Megatapirus augustus) from the Middle Pleistocene into the early Late Pleistocene in order to preserve an acceptable date for the Homo sapiens fossils. Qiu’s evolutionary preconceptions apparently demanded this operation. Once it was carried out, the Tongzi Homo sapiens, placed safely in the Late Pleistocene, could then be introduced into a temporal evolutionary sequence and cited as proof of human evolution. If we place Tongzi Homo sapiens in the older part of its true faunal date range, in the middle Middle Pleistocene, he would be contemporary with Zhoukoudian Homo erectus. And that would not look very good in a textbook on fossil man in China.

Figure 9.3. Age of Homo sapiens fossils at Tongzi site, South China. Qiu (1985, p. 206) said the Tongzi mammalian fauna was Middle to Late Pleistocene, but used Homo sapi ens fossils to date the site to the Late Pleistocene. But if we instead use the mammalian fauna to date the Homo sapiens fossils, we arrive at a different age for the site. Stegodon became extinct at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, possibly surviving into the early Late Pleistocene (grey part of bar) in some South China locales (Aigner 1981, p. 289). Mega tapirus augustus (giant tapir) definitely did not survive the Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, p. 289). The presence of Stegodon and especially Megatapirus augustus limit the most recent age for the Tongzi site to the end of the Middle Pleistocene. The presence of Crocuta crocuta (the living hyena), which first appears in the middle Middle Pleistocene (Aigner 1981, p. 289), limits the oldest age for the Tongzi site to the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene. Therefore, the allowed range for the Homo sapiens fossils at Tongzi extends from the beginning of the middle Middle Pleistocene to the end of the late Middle Pleistocene.

9.2.3 Lantian Man

Let us now consider another element in the confusing picture of the Chinese Middle Pleistocene—Lantian man. In 1963, Zhang Yuping and Huang Wanpo, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), discovered a Homo erectus mandible (lower jaw) at Chenjiawo village in Lantian county, Shaanxi province. In 1964, another team discovered the tooth of a human being at Gongwangling, also in Lantian county. Chunks of fossil-bearing rock from Gongwangling were transported to Beijing. There a hominid skullcap was discovered, along with an upper jaw bone and 3 molars, one unattached. These specimens were classified as Homo erectus just as the Chenjiawo jaw had been (Jia 1980, pp. 13–14).

We will investigate the case of Lantian man, which shows the complexity and ambiguity underlying apparently simple paleoanthropological statements. This complexity and ambiguity allows room for manipulation of data according to preconceptions. If what follows seems complicated, that is because it is. Some authorities placed Lantian man in the same period of time as Beijing man. For example, L. Yung-Chao and his coworkers (Nilsson 1983, p. 335) assigned both Lantian man and Beijing man to China’s Taku-Lushan interglacial period, in the middle Middle Pleistocene (Table 9.2).

TABLE 9.2

Correlation of Chinese and European Glacials and Interglacials

Period

European

Chinese

Holocene

Present Warm Period

Present Warm Period

Late Pleistocene

Würm Glacial

Tali Glacial

Late Pleistocene

Eemian Interglacial

Tali-Lushan Interglacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Eemian Interglacial

Tali-Lushan Interglacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Riss II Glacial

Lushan Glacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene

Ilford Interglacial

Lushan Glacial

Late Middle

Pleistocene