• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

But the case made by Protsch in favor of a Late Pleistocene burial was very weak. First of all, it is not at all certain that the bone sample he tested actually belonged to the original Reck’s skeleton, which, except for the skull, disappeared during the Second World War. Furthermore, the carbon 14 method is not infallible, especially when applied to bones that were exposed to contamination for over

60 years. It is also possible that the bones were contaminated with recent carbon while they were buried in the ground at Olduvai Gorge. And, as we have seen, the radiocarbon dating methods employed by Protsch have been superseded by more rigorous procedures.

11.1.6 Probable Date Range of Reck’s skeleton

We are now left with several alternative explanations, which we shall now summarize, for the age of Reck’s skeleton. First we have the original determination by Reck that it was deposited naturally during the formation of Bed II. Reck carefully searched for signs of intrusive burial (especially chips of limestone and other materials from the overlying beds) and found none “despite the most attentive inspection” (Hopwood 1932, pp. 193–194). This gives a date of over 1.15 million years for the skeleton, which is fully human. Second, we have Leakey’s view that the skeleton was deliberately buried during the deposition of upper Bed II, which also gives a date of over 1.15 million years. Third, we have the revised position, taken by Reck, Leakey, and others, that the skeleton was buried into Bed II during the time Bed V was being deposited. In adopting their revised position, Reck and Leakey in effect reversed their previous statements that they had observed no mixture of materials from overlying beds in the matrix of the skeleton. It is significant that Leakey recanted his position on Reck’s skeleton just before a commission of scientists, including the critics of his prior views on Reck’s skeleton, was to pass judgement on his own discoveries at Kanam and Kanjera. The new position adopted by Reck, Leakey, and others yields a date range of from 400,000 to perhaps 10,000 years for the skeleton. Primarily on the basis of its modern morphology, the skeleton was assigned a very recent date within this range. During the Second World War, much of the skeleton was lost. Finally, in 1974, in an attempt to confirm an uppermost Bed V date, Protsch published a radiocarbon test result of about 17,000 years for a bone sample that may not have been from the original Reck skeleton. Even if the sample was from Reck’s skeleton, the dating techniques that were used are now considered unreliable.

In our discussion of China, we introduced the concept of a probable date range (Section 9.2.1) as the fairest age indicator for controversial discoveries. The available evidence suggests that Reck’s skeleton (OH 1) should be assigned a probable date range extending from the late Early Pleistocene (1.15 million years) to the late Upper Pleistocene (10,000 years). There is much evidence that argues in favor of the original Bed II date proposed by Reck. Particularly strong is Reck’s observation that the thin layers of Bed II sediment directly around the skeleton were undisturbed. Also arguing against later burial is the rocklike hardness of Bed II. Reports favoring a Bed V date seem to be founded upon purely theoretical objections, dubious testimony, inconclusive test results, and highly speculative geological reasoning. But even these reports yield dates of up to

400,000 years for the skeleton.

A skeleton of Homo sapiens sapiens type with an age of 1.15 million years, or even .4 million years, does not fit the current evolutionary scenario. But Reck’s skeleton does not seem out of place when seen in the context of the evidence documented in this book. This evidence demonstrates the presence of anatomically modern humans throughout the Early Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, and even earlier. Only the radiocarbon date reported by Protsch suggests Reck