Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [398]
In her capacity as synthesizer of the hominid discoveries in China, Aigner very obviously wanted to adjust things so that the Lantian skullcap would appear in the geological column before Beijing man of Zhoukoudian. But her reasons for insisting on this are not immune to criticism. Altogether, there appears ample reason to suppose that Gongwangling and Chenjiawo might be of the same age, and contemporary with Zhoukoudian.
In the fourth edition of his book The Archaeology of Ancient China, Chang (1986, p. 38) stated: “Geologically the Lan-t’ien fossils occurred in strata broadly contemporary with the Chou-k’outien sedimentation.” According to 570 9. Peking Man and Other Finds in China Chang (1986, p. 38), both Zhoukoudian and the Lantian sites (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo) are part of the same reddish Li-shih loess deposits. Chang (1986, p. 38) said the Chenjiawo fauna had “elements that recall the Chouk’ou-tien fauna.” These statements appear to support his original position that Gongwangling and Chenjiawo (and hence Zhoukoudian) were nearly contemporary.
Nevertheless, Aigner’s reports apparently induced Chang to change his mind about the relative ages of Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian. Chang (1986, p. 38) went on to say that the Gongwangling fauna “is apparently more archaic than that of Ch’en-chia-wo, which led some scholars to place the Kung-wangling cranium into a much earlier period than the Ch’en-chia-wo mandible.” Chang here cited the 1973 paper by Aigner and Laughlin, which he had earlier said was mistaken. Chang added that the placement of Gongwangling before Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was “later confirmed by paleomagnetic dating.”
But our own reading of the geological evidence, paleomagnetic dates, and faunal analysis presented by Aigner and Chang leads us to conclude that there is not sufficient reason to rule out the possibility that Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian Locality 1 are nearly contemporary.
9.2.3.4 Paleomagnetic Dates
The paleomagnetic evidence reported by Chang is shown in Table 9.3, along with selected dates derived from other methods. Although it is possible that Gongwangling is older than Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1, it is also possible to conclude from the evidence reported by Chang that all three sites are nearly contemporary.
9.2.3.5 Comparison of Faunal Evidence from Gongwangling and Zhoukoudian
We shall now give a detailed analysis of Aigner’s comparison of the Gongwangling fauna with that of Zhoukoudian. Seeking to demonstrate a pre-Zhoukoudian date for the very primitive Gongwangling Homo erectus skullcap, Aigner (1981, p. 81) said that at Gongwangling “only 37 percent of the species are modern forms, compared to 50 percent at the ‘type’ locality of the Middle Pleistocene, Choukoutien 1.” Clearly, such determinations depend heavily upon the faunal lists one uses for comparison. Aigner used a short list (Aigner and Laughlin 1973, p. 101; Aigner 1981, pp. 300–302). From a variety of reports (Zhou, M. et al. 1965, Aigner and Laughlin 1973, Aigner 1981, Chang 1977, Han and Xu 1985), we have compiled a composite master faunal list for Gongwangling. Using this longer master list (Figure 9.4, pp. 572– 573), we find that at Gong wangling 23 out of 46 taxa, or 50 percent, are modern forms (marked with dots), about the same as at Zhoukoudian according to Aigner.
The data in this table is from a book by Chang (1986, pp. 32 – 33). Level 10 is the oldest level at which hominid fossils have been found at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Chang (1986, p. 34) said that the paleomagnetic studies supported an older date for Gongwangling than for Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian Locality 1. This is true if one accepts the older of the two paleomagnetic dates for Gongwangling and rejects the