Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [405]
Some will certainly claim that the fact of human evolution has been so conclusively established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is perfectly justifiable to engage in dating hominids by their morphology. But we believe this claim does not hold up under close scrutiny. As we have demonstrated in Chapters 2– 6, abundant evidence contradicting current ideas about human evolution has been suppressed or forgotten. Furthermore, scientists have systematically overlooked shortcomings in the evidence that supposedly supports current evolutionary hypotheses.
If peasants digging for fertilizer in a Chinese cave had uncovered a fully human skull along with a distinctly Pliocene fauna, scientists would certainly have protested that no competent observers were present to conduct adequate stratigraphic studies. But since the Maba skull could be fitted into the standard evolutionary sequence, no one objected to its similar mode of discovery.
9.2.5 Changyang County
Even after one learns to recognize the highly questionable practice of morphological dating, one may be astonished to note how frequently it is used. In the field of human evolution research in China, it appears to be not the exception but the rule. The Homo sapiens upper jaw (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286) found by workers in 1956 at Longdong (Dragon Cave) in Changyang county, Hubei Province, South China, has provided many authorities with a welcome opportunity for unabashed morphological dating.
The upper jaw, judged Homo sapiens with some primitive features, was found in association with the typical South China Middle Pleistocene fauna including Ailuropoda (panda) and Stegodon (extinct elephant). Jia Lanpo stated: “No human fossil had been found in association with such fauna, however, until the discovery of Changyang Man. . . . The AiluropodaStegodon fauna had been dated as Middle Pleistocene, contemporaneous with Peking Man, but new evidence puts it to be Upper Pleistocene” (Jia 1980, p. 42). Study of the faunal list (Han and Xu 1985, p. 286) shows that the only “new evidence” is the human fossil, as all the other species are representative of the Early and Middle Pleistocene. Jia concluded from the new evidence that the age of the Stegodon Ailuropoda fauna should be extended to the Late Pleistocene, but an equally valid conclusion is that Changyang Homo sapiens was contemporary with Beijing man. Evolutionary preconceptions do not, however, easily allow this.
Chang (1962, p. 749) wrote: “This fauna is generally believed to be of Middle Pleistocene age, and the scientists working on the cave suggest a late Middle Pleistocene dating, for the morphology of the maxilla shows less ‘primitive’ features than does that of Sinanthropus.” He went on to say that the upper jaw “resembles modern man in most of its features” (Chang 1962, p. 749). It is clear that Chang’s primary justification for assigning Changyang Homo sapiens a date later than Beijing Homo erectus was morphological.
Aigner (1981, p. 70) joined in with her statement: “A Middle Pleistocene age is suggested by some of the fauna with the presence of the hominid which is considered near H. sapiens indicating a dating late in that period.”
That so many scientists could confront the straightforward faunal evidence at Changyang without even considering the possibility that Homo sapiens coexisted in China with Homo erectus is amazing. In this regard, Sir Arthur Keith (1931, p. 256) wrote: “It has so often happened in the past that the discovery of human remains in a deposit has influenced expert opinion as to its age; the tendency has been to interpret geological evidence so that it would not clash flagrantly with the theory of [anatomically modern] man’s recent origin.”
Aigner (1981, p. 75) went on to state: “Associated with the Ch’angyang hominid are typical members of the StegodonAiluropoda fauna. Thus, it appears that the materials date to the Holstein-equivalent or to a later interglacial, rather than to a glacial phase of the Pleistocene