• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Riss I Glacial

Lushan Glacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Holstein Interglacial

Taku-Lushan Interglacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Mindel Glacial

Taku Glacial

Middle Middle

Pleistocene

Cromerian Interglacial

Poyang-Taku Interglacial

Early Middle

Pleistocene

Günz Glacial

Poyang Glacial

Sources for this table are Delson 1977, p. 45 and Aigner 1981, p. 32.

And Yale professor Kwang-chih Chang wrote in the 1977 edition of his book The Archaeology of Ancient China: “Geologically the Lan-t’ien fossils occurred in strata broadly comparable with the Chou-k’ou-tien sedimentation” (Chang 1977, p. 53). He said the Chenjiawo mandible occurred “in association with fossil remains . . . that recall the Chou-k’ou-tien fauna” (Chang 1977, p. 53). The Gongwangling skull, said Chang (1977, p. 54), was found “in association with mixed Chou-k’ou-tien-Wan Hsien fauna.” Wan Hsien is a site in South China, the fauna of which includes a component comparable in age to the fauna discovered at Zhoukoudian (Aigner 1981, p. 288). Chang (1977, pp. 53–54) concluded: “both Ch’en-chia-wo and Kung-wang-ling were probably datable to the Taku-Lushan interglacial, contemporaneous with Peking Man of Chou-k’ou-tien.” The TakuLushan interglacial is said to be equivalent to the Holstein interglacial of the European middle Middle Pleistocene (Chang 1977, p. 46). Pollen studies of the Lantian man sites indicated “prevalence of grassy species and broadleaf trees of an interglacial environment” (Chang 1977, pp. 53–54).

But Jia Lanpo (1980, p. 16) pointed out that Lantian man had thicker cranial walls than Beijing man and a much smaller cranial capacity—about 778 cubic centimeters compared with an average of over 1000 cubic centimeters for the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus population (Jia 1980, p. 15). Jia therefore concluded that while the jaw from Chenjiawo might be contemporaneous with Beijing man in the middle Middle Pleistocene, the skullcap from Gongwangling was older.

9.2.3.2 Morphological Dating of Lantian Man

So who was correct, Chang or Jia? J. S. Aigner discussed the Lantian man controversies in her book-length survey of Chinese discoveries. It is generally an author of broad surveys, such as Aigner, who tries to sort out conflicting reports and adjust possible date ranges so that a coherent evolutionary progression of fossil hominids in China, or elsewhere, emerges. And it is on this level that the problems of personal bias and data manipulation are most clearly evident. Adjustments are sometimes made, without adequate supporting evidence, simply to make the fossils fit some preordained scheme.

Here is how Aigner dealt with Chang, who, as we have just seen, did not accept a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the Gongwangling skull. Aigner (1981, p. 82) stated: “Chang (1977) also appears reluctant to accept the [skull’s] early dating although he does accept its earliness morphologically speaking, on which point Wu (1973) and I (Aigner and Laughlin 1973) concur.” This concept of “morphological earliness” assumes what must be demonstrated, providing a good example of how evolutionary prejudices distort paleoanthropological research.

With this in mind, consider Aigner’s concluding statement on the skull of Lantian man (1981, p. 244): “The massive supraorbital ridges, pronounced postorbital constriction, low frontal squama, and cranial height, extraordinary thickness of the cranial wall, and small cranial capacity [778 cc] indicate this form is more primitive than both Sinanthropus and Homo erectus from Trinil. It is morphologically closer to the earlier form from the Djetis beds of Java; in my opinion it must be considered temporally earlier than any of the Sinanthropus remains for these same reasons.” In other words, Lantian man must be dated morphologically so that he can be integrated into the existing evolutionary sequence. Otherwise, the sequence would be disrupted. Wu Rukang and Dong Xingren provided another example of this prejudice in their statement: “Among China’s H. erectus fossils, those from Lantian exhibit more primitive morphological