Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [402]
Having concluded our review of the Gongwangling faunal list in relation to that of Zhoukoudian, we find that the differences between the two faunas do not point in any clear fashion to a difference in their ages.
9.2.3.6 Analysis of Conflicting Opinions
We do not, however, insist that the Gongwangling Homo erectus skull is contemporaneous with Homo erectus of Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Following our standard procedure, we simply extend the probable date range of the primitive Homo erectus skullcap found at the Gongwangling site to include the time period represented by the Zhoukoudian occupation.
Other scientists have published reports on Lantian Homo erectus. For example, Wu Rukang (1965) said, on faunal and morphological grounds, that the Gongwangling skull and Chenjiawo jaw are contemporaneous but are both earlier than Zhoukoudian. As we have seen, others say Gongwangling and Chenjiawo are contemporaneous not only with each other but with Zhoukoudian. Still others say that Gongwangling predates Chenjiawo and Zhoukoudian. Opinions about the relative ages of the Lantian man skull and jaw, and their temporal relation to Beijing man of Zhoukoudian, are as diverse as they are numerous.
We have analyzed 25 reports, published between 1964 and 1986, and have graphically displayed their age estimates for the Lantian man skull and jaw ( Figure 9.5). If paleoanthropology were an exact science, we should expect to find only one point for the jaw and skull marked on the chart, with a small area around it representing errors in measurement. But as one can see, this is not the case. Age estimates for the jaw and skullcap are widely distributed, with several strong convergences of opinion placing both before the time of Beijing man. Nevertheless, another fairly strong convergence of opinion places (represented by points within rectangle BCEF in Figure 9.5) both the Lantianjaw and skull during the Homo erectus occupation of Zhoukoudian.
Figure 9.5. Proposed date ranges for jaw and skull of Lantian man, from 25 reports. Darker regions represent higher degrees of agreement, lighter regions lesser degrees of agreement. Dotted lines indicate the time of the Homo erectus occupation of Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian (.23–.46 millions years b.p.). Any point on the shaded region represents an allowed date for the skull and jaw within the range of expressed opinion. For example the point marked X represents an age for the skull of 0.65 million years and for the jaw of 0.25 million years. Points along the solid diagonal line show the same age for the jaw as for the skull. Aigner (1981) and others said the Lantian Homo erectus jaw contemporary with Zhoukoudian Locality 1, whereas the Lantian Homo erectus skull, more primitive than the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus skulls, was older ( points in rectangle ABDE represent this opinion). Others said both the Lantian jaw and skull were earlier than Zhoukoudian Locality 1 ( points in DEGH). But, as can be seen, there is a concentrated area of positive opinion placing both the skull and jaw from Lantian within the Zhoukoudian occupation period ( points in BCEF). This means that two different grades of Homo erectus may have existed contemporaneously during the period of the Zhoukoudian occupation.
This creates a problem for evolutionary theory. One is confronted with the strong possibility that very primitive Homo erectus coexisted with representatives of Homo erectus considered more advanced in the significant area of brain capacity and in other features of the skull. For evolutionists, it would thus be good to date Lantian man much earlier than Zhoukoudian Homo erectus. But as we have seen, the site stratigraphy, faunal evidence, and dates arrived at by paleomagnetic studies and other methods also allow Lantian man and Peking man to be contemporaries in the middle Middle Pleistocene.