Fossils originally attributed to the taxon Pithecanthropus erectus (upright human-like ape), popularly called the Java Man, together with fossils originally attributed to Sinanthropus pekinensis (Chinese Man from Peking), commonly known as the Peking Man, and others found in recent years in Africa, are now all included in a single species called Homo erectus. The story of Homo erectus begins with Eugene Dubois.
Java Man Dubois was a Dutch doctor, who, convinced that humans evolved, became convinced that the appearance of humans from apes occurred somewhere in Asia. Since he had no means to finance an expedition, Dubois joined the Dutch army, requested and received a posting to the Dutch East Indies. In 1887, he, his wife, and child sailed to Sumatra. His superiors in the East Indies gave him significant freedom to search for his “missing link.” After two years of disappointing results in Sumatra, Dubois was transferred to Java. There, in the autumn of 1891, along the banks of the Solo River near the village of Trinil, Dubois found a skullcap. A year later, 15 meters from the site where he had found the cap, he also found a femur (thigh bone). Later, Dubois added three teeth to his collection.
This skullcap had very thick walls, and was long and low without a forehead, and had huge brow ridges. Dubois estimated the cranial capacity to be 900 cm³. The femur was essentially identical to the human femur. Dubois believed that all these specimens belonged to a single individual and constructed the true “missing link” — a creature with a very primitive, ape-like skull, and who, based on the human-like femur, walked upright like a human. He therefore named this creature Pithecanthropus erectus (upright human-like ape). Dubois presented these fossils at the International Congress of Zoology in Leyden in 1895. Authorities received Dubois’ statement with considerable skepticism and divided opinions. British zoologists tended to consider these remains as human, German ones as those of an ape-like human, and the French as those of something between an ape-like human and a human.
Dubois failed to publish how he had discovered, near Wardjak and at the same level, two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls) with a cranial capacity of around 1550-1650 cm³, which is somewhat above today’s human average. Had this fact been revealed, it would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept his Java Man as the “missing link.” Not until 1922, when a similar discovery was to be published, did Dubois disclose the fact that he had possessed the Wadjak skulls for over 30 years. His failure to disclose this discovery to the scientific world at the same time he presented the Pithecanthropus specimens was condemned as it was concealing important evidence. One evolutionary anthropologist justified this by claiming that it would have been too much for most anthropologists to accept that human skulls had been presented alongside his Pithecanthropus erectus.
About fifteen years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced of the human-like status of Pithecanthropus, Dubois himself dealt the worst blow to it — he changed his mind and stated that it was nothing more than a giant gibbon!103,104
In fact, Dubois was not the only one brave enough to confirm this possibility. Marcellin Boule (then director of the French Institute of Human Paleontology and one of the world’s foremost experts on human fossils) and H. V. Vallois (Boule’s successor) argued:
“Following Dubois, several naturalists emphasized the similarity between the Pithecanthropus remains and the corresponding parts of the gibbon skeleton. In that case, why not take Pithecanthropus to represent a large form of a giant ape-like monkey, related to the gibbon group?
Later they continue saying:
“A number of facts can be presented in favor of this hypothesis. In all countries, during the Pliocene and Quaternary, there were giant forms of mammals whose living representatives are now reduced in size. This is the case — to limit ourselves to primates — with Megaladapis, the giant lemur of the Quaternary in Madagascar, and Dryopithecus giganteus, the fossil anthropoid of giant dimensions from the Siwalik Hills. Pithecanthropus, discovered in the same zoological region as modern gibbons, could have been no more than an exceptionally large representative of the genus, more or less closely related to the same group.”
Following the discussion of many features of this skullcap, Boule and Vallois note: “Taken as a whole, these structures are very similar to those of chimpanzees and gibbons.” They report that von Koenigswald, a German paleontologist who also spent time on Java and discovered some additional material, attributed two molars discovered by Dubois to the orangutan, and the premolar to a true human.
The expedition that investigated in 1906 at the same site where Dubois had excavated did not find any similar material, although 76,000 cubic meters of soil were removed. During 1936-1939, G.H.R. von Koenigswald conducted extensive research at Sangiran, about 60 km from Trinil. His efforts were rewarded with the discovery of fragments of jaw bones, including teeth, skull fragments, and skullcaps. Limb bones were not found. Von Koenigswald labeled his findings as “Pithecanthropus II, III, and IV.”
Boule and Vallois report that the skulls found at Sangiran exhibit the same general character as Dubois’ Pithecanthropus. In the case of the Sangiran findings, several teeth were intact in the mandible (lower jaw). Every characteristic of these teeth that Boule and Vallois give is more simian than human.
In the following quote from the book by Boule and Vallois, it will be noted that they emphasize many simian characteristics of the teeth in the mandible found by von Koenigswald at Sangiran, and then claim that these facts confirm what was revealed from the study of the cranium of Pithecanthropus:
“The true molars are exceptionally large and increase in size from the first to the third, which is a simian characteristic not found in humans. The tip of the canine tooth rises above the biting surface of the premolar, which is another simian characteristic found only in humans, and in the fossil jaw from Wadjak. No less important is the presence of a diastema or gap between the upper canine and lateral incisor of 5 millimeters on the right and 6.2 millimeters on the left. In about 50% of cases, the diastema is no larger in anthropoids; this characteristic, which confirms that the lower canine must have been particularly highly developed, is never encountered in the genus Homo.”
To these characteristics, one can add the fact that the upper premolars and true molars are arranged in almost a straight line, so that the shape of the palate more closely resembles the U-shaped palate of anthropoids than the horseshoe-shaped human palate. All these facts provide a uniquely unambiguous confirmation of those derived from the study of the cranium.
Indeed, if the facts mentioned here about the teeth “provide uniquely unambiguous confirmation” of the facts derived from the analysis of the cranium, then that cranium must have been distinctly apelike, rather than humanlike. Earlier, in their book, Boule and Vallois assert:
“By its main characteristics, the Trinil skullcap is truly a link between the chimpanzee-like anthropoid and the truly low-status human, such as the Neanderthal man.” Boule gave the Neanderthal man a very low subhuman status.
Boule and Vallois’ assessment of the femur that Dubois found at Trinil (plus several other femur fragments that Dubois later found) was that, essentially, it did not differ from that of a human. They conclude:
“If we had only the skull and teeth, we would say we are dealing with beings, if not identical, then at least closely related anthropoids. If we had only the femurs, we would state that we are dealing with humans.”
Boule and Vallois thus confirm that someone who would look only at the skull would say, “A human-like ape,” while someone who would look only at the femur would say, “A human.” Perhaps this is the correct assessment of these specimens—the femur was that of a true human, and the skull, as Dubois finally himself concluded, and to which Boule and Vallois gave qualified agreement, belonged to an exceptionally large human-like ape. From the start, there was doubt that the femur belonged to the owner of the skull cap, and that doubt remains to this day. Boule and Vallois state: “Whatever the assumptions in favor of the femur belonging to the cranium, some doubt remains…” In favor of linking the femur to the skull cap, Tim White argues:
“Many were reluctant to accept the validity of this connection, and some researchers (M.H. Day and T.I. Molleson, Human Evolution, M.N. Day, Ed. (Taylor and Francis, London, 1973), Vol. 11, p. 127) are still undecided.”
Firmly believing and ardently hoping to find an intermediate form for which his former professor, Ernst Haeckel, stated must exist (Haeckel even named this imaginary link “Pithecanthropus alalus,” or the mute human-like ape), Dubois naturally hurried to conclude that the femur and skull cap belonged to the same individual and that it was a human-like ape that walked upright—the true “missing link.” As noted earlier, the three teeth that Dubois also associated with the skull cap did not belong to the owner of the skull cap, and there is little justification in attributing the femur to the same owner.
Whatever status is given to other specimens found in other parts of the world attributed to Homo erectus, it is very likely that Dubois’ final assessment of Pithecanthropus erectus might have been the correct one—a very large primate of some kind within the generalized group called “human-like apes,” which has no genetic link to humans.
The Peking Man If the evidence that is commonly presented in texts and discussions about Peking Man is uncritically accepted, the evidence for the existence of a near-human or a human with many very primitive characteristics would seem to be established. For example, the cranial model and body reconstructions based on this model reveal a significant similarity to modern humans and could hardly be called anything other than human. However, a close examination of reports associated with Peking Man reveals a tangled web of contradictions, highly subjective treatment of the data, unusual and unnatural conditions of the fossil bones, and essentially the loss of the entire fossil material.
At Choukoutien, about 40 km from Beijing in China, fragments of about thirty skulls, eleven mandibles (lower jaws), and about 147 teeth were found in the 1920s and 1930s. Aside from very few highly fragmented remains of limb bones, nothing else of these creatures was found. One of the initial finds was a single tooth, and without waiting for further evidence, Dr. Davidson Black, Professor of Anatomy at Union Medical College in Beijing, declared that this tooth was proof of the existence of an ancient hominid, or human-like creature in China. He called this creature Sinanthropus pekinensis, which soon became known as Peking Man.
It is said that this tooth and later finds were discovered in a limestone cave. It became known as the “lower cave” after fragments of ten other creatures, all identified as modern human remains, were found higher on that cliff in what was called the “upper cave.” As we will see, there is serious doubt that there was a cave at one level.
Of critical importance for the assessment of this material is the fact that all of this material, except for two teeth, disappeared somewhere between 1941 and 1945, and nothing of it was found. Many stories circulate regarding the disappearance of this material, and the most popular is that it was either lost, or the Japanese came to it during an attempt to transfer it from Beijing to America by a naval detachment that evacuated from China. None of these stories has been verified. No living person apparently knows what happened to this material.
As a result of this, we are completely dependent on the models and descriptions of this material left by a few researchers, all of whom were fully devoted to the idea that humans evolved from animal ancestors. Even if a scientist is entirely honest and objective to the extent that is possible for a human, the model or description they shape based on scarce and incomplete material will reflect, to a critical degree, what they think the evidence should show. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that there was a lack of objectivity in the treatment and evaluation of material discovered at Choukoutien. If the type of evidence we have today about the Peking man were brought to a court trial, it would be excluded as “hearsay” and unacceptable as evidence.
Pig tooth, ape-like monkey jaw, dolphin rib, and donkey skull It should be kept in mind that around this same time period, two other famous “fossil humans” were presented, one of which, as it turned out, was based on a pig tooth, and the other, it was eventually discovered, was based on the jaw of a modern ape-like monkey. In 1922, a tooth discovered in western Nebraska was declared by Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most eminent paleontologists of today, and several other authorities, to combine characteristics of the chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus, and humans.
Osborn and his colleagues could not quite determine whether the original owner of this tooth should be called a human-like ape or an ape-like human. It was named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii and became known as the Nebraska Man. An illustration of how this creature and its contemporaries supposedly looked was published in the Illustrated London News. In this illustration, Hesperopithecus appears significantly similar to modern humans, although more primitive in appearance. In 1927, after further gathering and study, it was concluded that Hesperopithecus was neither a human-like ape nor an ape-like human, but rather an extinct pig, or a boar!
In 1912, Arthur Smith Woodward, director of the Natural History Museum in London, and Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist, announced the discovery of a mandible and part of a skull. Dawson discovered these specimens in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. This jawbone looked very similar to that of an ape, except for the teeth, which appeared to show a degree of wear expected more in humans than in ape-like monkeys. The skull appeared very human-like.
These two specimens were combined and named Eanthropus dawsoni, “Dawn Man.” It became popularly known as the “Piltdown Man.” It was estimated to be 500,000 years old. Although several experts, such as Boule and Henry Fairfield Osborn, objected to linking this jaw, very similar to that of an ape, with the human-like skull, the world’s greatest authorities agreed that Piltdown Man was indeed an authentic link in human evolution.
In 1950, a method for determining the relative age of fossil bones became available. This method depends on the amount of fluoride that the bones have absorbed from the soil. When the Piltdown bones were subjected to this test, it was discovered that the jawbone practically contained no fluoride and that it was practically not a fossil at all. It was estimated to be no older than one year when it was found. The skull showed a significant amount of fluoride but was estimated to be a few thousand years old, rather than 500,000 years old.
When this information became available, the bones underwent thorough and critical examination. It was discovered that the bones had been exposed to iron salts to make them appear older, and traces of scratching were noted on the teeth, indicating they had been filed down. In other words, Piltdown Man was a complete hoax! The modern ape jaw and human skull had been altered to resemble an ape-like human, and this forgery succeeded in deceiving the world’s greatest experts.
In his article about the Piltdown hoax, Stephen Jay Gould candidly reveals this tendency among experts to find what they are looking for, even if it is not there, and to fail to find what is there if they are not looking for it. Gould says:
Commenting on this tendency to allow preconceived ideas to govern scientific conclusions, anthropologist Jaquetta Hawkes notes:
“And when we accept this as something inevitable and not necessarily harmful, it still comes as a shock to discover how often preconceived ideas have influenced the research on human origins.”
This, of course, is nothing like the acknowledged weakness among experts. For example, a look at the bold claims and subtle anatomical distinctions made by our greatest authorities regarding the recent human skull and the modern ape jaw that together constituted the ‘Piltdown Man’ evokes either joy or pain, depending on one’s feelings towards the scientist.
Have things changed much today? Two recent examples suggest that the tendencies of authorities have not really changed much at all. An article in Science News talks about Tim White’s claims that Noel Boaz replaced a dolphin rib with the clavicle (shoulder bone) of a hominid. Boaz claimed that the specimen resembled the clavicle of a pygmy chimpanzee and suggested that the curvature of the bone might even indicate permanent bipedal movement. White argues that Boaz misinterpreted the age. Alan Walker is quoted in the same article as claiming that there is a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the past, Walker says, leading anthropologists misidentified the femur of an alligator and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles!
UPI Press article published on May 14, 1984, revealed that the skull fragment, which experts had hailed a year earlier as the oldest human fossil ever found in Europe, could actually have come from a donkey! This fossil was found in the Andalusian region of Spain, and a three-day symposium was scheduled for experts to discuss this fossil, which was named “Orca Man” after the southern Spanish town near where it was discovered. When French experts uncovered the fact that “Orca Man” was most likely a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey, the Spanish authorities, embarrassed, sent out 500 letters canceling symposium invitations.
The jaw of an ape-like human in 1912, a pig’s tooth in 1922, a dolphin rib, and a donkey skull in the 1980s—are all part of the same piece, only the actors and set change. Perhaps Lord Zuckerman was right when he stated that it is questionable whether there is any science in this entire search for human ancestor fossils.
With these lessons in mind, let us now return to our observation of Peking Man. We will first examine the fossil evidence provided by evolutionists, and then we will consider the one given by creationists. For the evolutionary standpoint, we will use the publication Fossil Men, the English translation of Les Hommes Fossiles by Marcellin Boule and H.M. Vallois, which was mentioned earlier. Boule and Vallois dedicate a wide section (pages 130-146 of the English translation) to Sinanthropus, or Peking Man.
The first evidence related to Sinanthropus was discovered in 1921, when two molars were found in a “pocket” of skeletal remains near the village of Choukoutien. A third molar was discovered in 1927 and given to Dr. Davidson Black. As mentioned earlier, this tooth led to the establishment of Sinanthropus pekinensis. In 1928, Chinese anthropologist Dr. W.C. Pei, who was responsible for the excavations, uncovered fragments of a skull, two pieces of a lower jaw, and numerous teeth, which were immediately described in Black’s publication. In 1929, Pei excavated a well-preserved skullcap that resembled that of Pithecanthropus. Since then, the site has been systematically researched under the supervision of the Geological Survey of China. Eventually, a collection was discovered as described at the beginning of this section.
It is claimed that there was a large cave at the front of a limestone cliff because the “cave filling” occurs on the surface along a distance of 140 meters and is about 50 meters thick. They say the roof of this cave collapsed, burying the ancient cave filling.
Sinanthropus fragments were found at many different levels of the fill. The fossil fauna (bones from about 100 different animals were found) does not vary from top to bottom of the deposit, and the Sinanthropus remains found at different levels had the same characteristics everywhere. If these remains were indeed found in the cave filling as stated, then this would mean that during the time it took for 50 meters of fill to settle, there was no change in Sinanthropus or the animals of that area.
All skulls were damaged, and their lower jaws were missing. After the discovery of the skulls mentioned earlier, it was reported that three other skulls were discovered in 1936, while Dr. Franz Weidenreich, a German-born American paleontologist, was on duty.
Skull III, actually the first one discovered, was described in detail by Boule and Vallois (Boule visited Beijing and Choukoutien and examined the originals). Black attributed it to an adolescent, and Weidenreich to an individual about eight or nine years old. Boule and Vallois say that when viewed from above and the side, it bears a striking resemblance to Pithecanthropus, and that Skull II, in its general contours, even more closely resembles that of Pithecanthropus. They conclude that: “Overall, the structure of the Sinanthropus skull still resembles that of an ape-like human” (p. 136). A little later, they report that the three skulls from Locus L (discovered in 1936) displayed the same characteristics as the skulls just mentioned, but in a more pronounced form.
The cranial capacity of the skulls, though very close, was estimated to be about 900 cm³ for the skulls discovered earlier, and about 1200 cm³ for the skulls found in 1936. Boule and Vallois emphasize that these values are roughly halfway between the higher ape-like humans and humans.
The characteristics of the lower jaws described by Boule and Vallois were all similar to those of ape-like humans, except for the shape of the dental arcade (curved jaws), which was parabolic like that of humans, rather than U-shaped as in ape-like humans. Also, all the dental characteristics provided by these authorities were similar to those of ape-like humans, except that there was no diastema separating the canines from the adjacent incisors, as in some ape-like humans (but not all). Furthermore, although the upper canines were “particularly large,” rising significantly above the level of the other teeth like those of ape-like humans and described as “small tusks,” the lower canines appeared more like large incisors. So, with very few exceptions, the structural characteristics of the jaw and teeth were similar to those of ape-like humans, but the presence of a small number of exceptions led Boule and Vallois to claim that the mandibles and teeth of Sinanthropus represent a large primate more closely related to humans than to any known large ape-like human.
After comparing the measurement tables of Sinanthropus with those of Pithecanthropus, Boule and Vallois say that the differences are smaller than those within a single species (namely, Neanderthal man). They therefore insist that, at the very least, these two creatures should be included within the same genus, though they are willing to allow for species differentiation. Since Pithecanthropus takes priority, they would give the name Pithecanthropus pekinensis to the Choukoutien specimen. Since, as we noted earlier in their discussion of Pithecanthropus, these authorities have stated that, based only on the skull and teeth, we are dealing with beings that are, if not identical, at least closely related to anthropoids, we wonder whether, by linking Pithecanthropus with Sinanthropus, Boule and Vallois intend to degrade Sinanthropus to a creature, if not identical, then at least closely related to anthropoids, or whether they wish to elevate Pithecanthropus. Today, most evolutionists have elevated Pithecanthropus and placed it with Sinanthropus in a single species—Homo erectus.
In their discussion of the relationship between Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus (p. 141), Boule and Vallois accuse Black of a lack of objectivity and distorting the facts. Specifically, they say:
“Black, who felt justified in using the term Sinanthropus to refer to a single tooth, was naturally interested in making this official when describing the skullcap. While acknowledging the great similarity of this specimen to its Javan counterpart, he emphasized the differences and demonstrated them with numerical data. Now, when studying his measurement tables, it is quite evident that the differences observed between Pithecanthropus on one side and various fragments of Sinanthropus on the other, far from possessing general values, are smaller than the variations recorded within the same natural specific group, Homo neanderthalensis.”
In other words, since Black “broke his neck” based on a single tooth (let us recall the “Nebraska Man”!), and raised the Sinanthropus category based on that tooth, he felt compelled to color the facts to fit his scheme. How, then, can we trust any description or model of Sinanthropus from Dr. Black?
A section called “New Discussion of the Facts” appears at the end of the chapter dedicated to Boule and Vallois’s discussion of Sinanthropus. It is based on the model of Sinanthropus constructed by Weidenreich (previous image), allegedly based on materials found in 1936. This model is so strikingly different from the earlier descriptions of Sinanthropus and the model of Pithecanthropus that Boule shaped elsewhere, that it is likely this section was written by Vallois after Boule’s death (the 1952 edition of the book Les Hommes Fossiles was published after Boule’s death in 1942 and was Vallois’s revision of an earlier section of the book, which was authored solely by Boule). In fact, there can be no doubt that this section was written only by Vallois after Boule’s death, as it presents and discusses the model of the Sinanthropus skull made by Weidenreich. Weidenreich did not publish his description of the Sinanthropus skull until 1943, a year after Boule’s death.
Davidson Black died in 1934 and was replaced by Franz Weidenreich. Dr. Pei continued to be responsible for the excavations, and his duty was to submit his findings to Weidenreich for evaluation. It was reported that three skulls were found in 1936. These were the three skulls (which Boule and Vallois refer to as from Locus L) on which, it is presumed, Weidenreich built his model of the Sinanthropus skull that is so vastly different from the earlier description.
In the section “New Discussion on Facts,” no new information is entered, but the reader is asked to examine three photographs taken by Weidenreich that show several views of three skulls or models: the skull of a female gorilla, Weidenreich’s model of a female Sinanthropus, and the skull of a Northern Chinese person. The reader is then invited to verify for themselves that Sinanthropus occupies a position intermediate between anthropoid apes and humans. If Weidenreich’s model of Sinanthropus is uncritically accepted as an accurate portrait of the real Sinanthropus, then it would be difficult to reject the above conclusion. In fact, based on this model, some have been led to believe that Sinanthropus should not be considered close to humans, but rather as a complete human.
It should be emphasized that in these photographs, the skulls of gorillas and humans are compared to Weidenreich’s model of the Sinanthropus skull. When the complete skull is available, the sample is completely reliable, especially if there has been no disturbance from burial and if the reconstruction was accurate. Almost always, the skull remains are fragmentary. In this case, the paleontologist attempts to reconstruct the skull based on fragments, using filler material to fill in missing fragments and model the missing parts. The reconstruction is more or less reliable depending on how fragmentary the remains are and the objectivity of the paleontologist. Models are molds of reconstructions or are shaped according to what the researcher believes the skull should look like.
Today, we have no skulls or parts of Sinanthropus (except for two teeth and several fragments discovered in the past two decades), we have no reconstructions involving actual fossil material. All that is available to us are models made by Weidenreich. How reliable are these models? Are they accurate molds of the original, or do they reflect what he thought they looked like? Why do his models differ so much from earlier descriptions? We consider these models by Weidenreich completely unacceptable as evidence related to the taxonomic affinities of Sinanthropus. If such a case were ever brought to court, there is no doubt that such “hearsay” evidence would be deemed inadmissible.
Finally, Boule and Vallois discuss the extremely strange characteristic of these Sinanthropus remains. As they say (p. 145):
“How should we explain the almost complete absence of long bones and this type of selection of bone parts, all of which belong to the skull, in which the lower jaws dominate? Weidenreich believed that these selected parts did not reach the cave naturally but must have been brought there by hunters who attacked young individuals and extracted, as prey or trophies, heads or parts of heads. For itself, this explanation seems quite possible. But the problem is to identify the hunter.”
All authorities agree that each of these Sinanthropus individuals was killed by hunters and eaten. All skulls were struck near the base so that the brain could be removed and eaten. Practically nothing of these creatures has been found except skull fragments, despite the fact that fragments from almost 40 different individuals have been discovered. The only unanswered question regarding these circumstances is: who were the hunters?
Weidenreich, like almost all other evolutionists, concludes that the hunter must have been Sinanthropus itself! It is both prey and hunter! This hypothesis is necessary to preserve the status of Sinanthropus as an ancestor of humans.
Boule and Vallois express serious doubts about this theory. They say (p. 145):
“In relation to this hypothesis, other writers prefer the following one, which seems more in line with all our knowledge: the hunter was a true human, whose stone tools were found and who hunted Sinanthropus.”
Later they say:
“Therefore, we must ask whether it is too bold to consider Sinanthropus the monarch of Choukoutien when it appears in the deposit only as hunting prey, on par with the animals it was found with.”
Thus, there is very good evidence, “more in line with our knowledge,” that the Sinanthropus creatures were the victims of hunters who were true humans. If that is so, then Sinanthropus cannot be an evolutionary ancestor of humans, but must have been a large creature similar to an ape or an anthropoid ape.
Now we will consider the evaluation of Sinanthropus by the creationist, Patrick O’Connell. Pitting the assessment of a priest against those of eminent evolutionary paleontologists seems similar to pitting David against Goliath. But perhaps in this case, David found a weak spot in Goliath.
O’Connell was in China throughout the excavation at Choukoutien, including during the Japanese occupation and several years after their deportation. Although he did not conduct any research on-site, O’Connell had the advantage of viewing reports published in China, both in Chinese and foreign languages. He was convinced that not all the facts had been given to the public and that the “missing link” had not been found at Choukoutien. He published his conclusions in his book “Contemporary Science and the Problems of Origin.”
O’Connell believed that the disappearance of the Sinanthropus remains was more planned than an unfortunate consequence of war. The Japanese did not interfere with the work at Choukoutien, and Weidenreich and Pei continued the excavations until Weidenreich left in 1940. O’Connell believes that Pei could have destroyed the fossils before the Chinese government returned to Beijing to cover up the fact that the models did not match the fossils.
In an article published in the Beijing magazine China Reconstructs in 1954, Dr. Pei states that the material from Choukoutien was then exposed. It included molds or models of several Sinanthropus skulls (made by Black and Weidenreich), fossil remains of various animals, and a collection of found stone tools. Thus, it appears that of the material related to Sinanthropus, only the fossil remains of Sinanthropus are missing.
The almost universally accepted version of the Choukoutien circumstances is that the Sinanthropus fossils were found in the cave fill of a large cave, the roof of which collapsed. Human fossils found at the same location, only at the upper level, are assumed to have been taken from the upper cave. There seems to be little evidence that there was a cave at a single level. As previously noted, the large cave must be postulated for the lower cave since the “cave fill” spread over a surface area of almost 140 m. The “upper cave” must have been just as large or larger, since debris was scattered over an even larger area. Weidenreich never claimed that there was a cave at the upper level, but referred to it as the “so-called upper cave.”
According to O’Connell’s reconstruction of the events at Choukoutien, there was an extensive limestone mining industry. The fact that kilns for burning limestone were constructed and operated there is shown by the fact that in the debris at both levels, thousands of quartz stones brought from a distance were found (quartz was not found at Choukoutien). These stones were covered with soot on one side. Huge piles of ash were found at both levels.
Limestone mining at two levels was carried out along a front of 180 m and to a depth of 45 m in the hill. The limestone hill was undermined and collapsed, burying everything at both levels under thousands of tons of stone. In these piles of buried ash and debris, the skulls of Sinanthropus were found.
The stones brought from a distance and prepared for construction found behind the limestone quarry and the enormous piles of ash can only mean one thing, according to O’Connell: limestone was being burned. Furthermore, limestone production on the scale carried out at Choukoutien must mean that houses were being built on a significant scale.
Whether O’Connell is correct about the limestone burning industry at Choukoutien or not, no other explanation has been given for the large stone industry found there. H. Breuil, an authority on the Stone Age, was called to Choukoutien. His report, published in March 1932 in L’Anthropologie, tells us that in an area of 132 square meters, 12 meters deep, 2,000 rough stones were found at the bottom of a pile of ash and debris that contained Sinanthropus skulls and the bones of about 100 different animals.
The nature of the tools used at this site, according to Breuil, was not primitive. Scrapers, chisels, and other tools, once finely crafted, had features that are not found in France until the Upper Paleolithic. This evidence could therefore hardly be used as an argument for the great age of Sinanthropus.
O’Connell points out that very little attention was paid to the fact that fossil remains of ten human individuals of modern type were found at the upper level of the same site where the Sinanthropus skulls were found. Some books, such as Romer’s Man and the Vertebrate, do not mention this fact. Others do not mention it in the section on Sinanthropus but place this information elsewhere. O’Connell believes that these individuals were killed by earth sliding caused by undermining the limestone rock during the limestone mining operations, and that this earth sliding alone buried the Sinanthropus skulls. The bones found at the upper level made up the usual collection expected for such remains. Examination of a diagram of the location where the Sinanthropus skulls were excavated (p. 132 Fossil Men) seems to support O’Connell. The disposition of the remains, especially those found in the “vertical extension of the main pocket,” seems not to correspond to what would be expected from a cave find.
O’Connell points out that some of the early descriptions of Sinanthropus-a, certain researchers, differ significantly from the latest descriptions and models of Black and Weidenreich. He quotes Teilhard de Chardin as saying (L’Anthropologie, 1931) that: “Sinanthropus closely resembles the great ape-like monkeys.”
It seems there is a progression, through two of Black’s descriptions of Sinanthropus and the third description of Weidenreich, based on skulls found in 1936 (see the model shown in the previous image), during which Sinanthropus became increasingly human-like. Perhaps this is the only evolution involved in this whole affair!
O’Connell concludes that Sinanthropus consisted of the skulls of large macaques (large monkeys) or large baboons killed and eaten by workers from an old lime kiln. There seems to be significant evidence that the lime burning site was buried under rocks and rubble from Choukoutien. Whether the creatures whose skulls were discovered were macaques or baboons (or gibbons as Dubois suggests for Pithecanthropus), they were ape-like. Finally, Boule and others leaned towards the belief that Sinanthropus was killed and eaten by humans.
O’Connell calls the representation of Sinanthropus as close to humans an open fraud. We believe, at the very least, that a combination of prejudice, preconceived ideas, and a desire for fame was responsible for elevating an ape-like creature to the status of an ape-like human. The same combination that produced the Peking Man also produced the Nebraska Man from a pig’s tooth, the Piltdown Man from the jaw of a modern ape-like human, and the Lybian East African Man from an australopithecus.
Homo erectus from Africa As mentioned earlier in the section on australopithecines, Louis Leakey reported that in the Olorgesailie Gorge Basin, he found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and some specimens that he called Homo erectus.70,79,80 Homo erectus fossils include a large portion of the skull cap70 (OH 9) and parts of the femur (shaft) and hip bone119 (OH 28). In 1975, Richard Leakey’s team discovered a relatively complete cranium and parts of the upper jaw and facial skeleton of a creature he called Homo erectus.120,121 The fossil specimen, labeled KMN-ER 3733, was found in the upper portion of the Koobi Fora Formation, and according to Leakey, it is at least 1.5 million years old and very similar to Homo erectus from China.121
Starting with the initial discovery in 1973, most of the skull fragments and postcranial skeleton of the creature described as KNM-ER 1808 were discovered in the upper portion of the Koobi Fora Formation by Leakey’s team.65,122,123 This creature is estimated to be 1.6 to 0.1 million years old, and was once the most complete known Homo erectus fossil. This fossil specimen shows pathological changes consistent with chronic excessive absorption of vitamin A (hypervitaminosis A).
The most exciting discovery was made by Kamoya Kimeu on the western side of Lake Turkana in August 1984. Working in a team led by Richard Leakey and Alan Walker, Kimeu made the initial discovery of a small portion of a skull that protruded from the earth right next to the camp. After a month of excavation and examination, almost the entire skeleton of a male, estimated to have died around the age of 12, was found. The skeleton was complete except for the left hand, upper part of the right hand, and most of the foot bones (therefore, the hand and foot bones were still not found).
Unfortunately, at the time of writing, the only information available came from brief articles in popular scientific magazines124-127 and newspaper reports by Boyce Rensberger.128 According to those reports, Leakey and Walker attributed the fossil specimens to Homo erectus and estimated their age to be around 1.5 million years.
Although Walker and Leakey named this fossil Homo erectus, there are some indications that this individual might actually have been a Neanderthal, or at least very closely related to one. The postcranial skeleton looks so human that Walker says he doubts whether an average pathologist could find a difference between this fossil skeleton and that of a modern human.128 Regarding the skull, Walker states: “When I placed the mandible on the skull, Richard and I laughed because it looked so similar to a Neanderthal.”128 Furthermore, the height of this twelve-year-old was about 1.6 m, and it was estimated that if it had matured, it would have been at least 1.8 m tall. Lucy was estimated to have been less than 1.2 m tall, while Homo habilis is estimated to have been somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 m tall. The cranial capacity of this new discovery has not yet been determined, but Walker estimated it to be 700-800 cm³.
Apart from the estimated brain size (which could be revised upwards by one proper measurement), all major aspects of the fossil skeleton fall within the variable limits of Homo sapiens. It may turn out that the main reason for assigning this fossil creature to Homo erectus is the age of 1.5 million years attributed to it. It would truly be a major blow to evolutionary theory if anthropologists were forced to assign a fossil hominid, which they believe to be one and a half million years old, to Homo sapiens. This would make humans older, or just as old, in relation to some of their so-called “ape-like ancestors.”
But with Richard Leakey’s lesson and his Skull 1470 as a recent reminder, our assessment of Walker and Leakey’s discovery may be a mixture of optimism and skepticism. We eagerly await the formal publication of the analysis of this exciting find in a scientific journal and believe that in the near future, the rest of the skeleton will be discovered, so that the analysis can be completed.
The discoveries reported by Thorne and Macumber129 are of a completely different nature from those described by Walker and Leakey. The latter two claim to have discovered the fossil of a young Homo erectus that dates back at least 1.5 million years. However, as we have just said, this fossil, based on its cranial skeleton, is fundamentally similar to modern humans, and the skull is human-like enough to resemble a Neanderthal. Thorne and Macumber report the discovery of remains of over 30 individuals from the Kow Swamp region in northern Victoria, Australia, which similarly exhibit numerous Homo erectus features in their cranial morphology. These specimens, however, are dated to only 10,000 years ago! It is reported that Homo sapiens of a fully modern type appeared in Australia at least 25,000 years ago or 15,000 years earlier, and for Neanderthals or Homo sapiens, it is assumed that they appeared at least 100,000 years earlier or about 90,000 years before the existence of these Kow Swamp individuals.
Thorne and Macumber report that these skulls exhibit many archaic traits typical of early sapiens (by “early sapiens,” we assume they mean the Neanderthal man), including cranial dimensions, skull vault thickness, facial and jaw shape, and to a lesser degree, the occipital region.
They report, however, that the frontal bones are particularly archaic, having almost an unmodified form of the Javanese Pithecanthropus. Since the postcranial skeleton of these creatures is not mentioned in this article, it is assumed that it was fully modern.
Given the necessary caution due to the limited amount of information available regarding the fossil skeletons found by Walker and Leakey, it still appears that the fossil they discovered in Kenya may be very similar, if not identical, to the Kow Swamp individuals, most of whom were found in undisturbed graves. In this case, we would have fossils of individuals that some assume to be 1.5 million years old, while others assume them to be only 10,000 years old or less, and this overlap of Homo sapiens is at least 90,000 years. Therefore, it seems that with a high degree of certainty, we can say that these individuals were no more than racial variants of Homo sapiens.
As we described earlier regarding Australopithecus, Louis Leakey published at the same time Homo erectus, Australopithecus, and a creature he named Homo habilis, all of whose remains were discovered in the Bed II of Olduvai Gorge. Richard Leakey discovered the remains of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus in geological formations near Lake Turkana, all of which he assumed to be 1.5 million years old, so they all lived at the same time. Moreover, as we described earlier, Louis Leakey found the remains of a round stone hut, which is still made by people in Africa, beneath Bed I, thus older than Bed II. We repeat the question we raised earlier: If fossil creatures labeled as Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus once lived together, how can any of them be the ancestor of another? If fossils of modern humans are found in geological formations older than those in which the fossils of these creatures were found, how can any of them be the ancestor of humans?
Now we can ask the following question: If the creatures whose fossil remains were found by Walker and Leakey in Kenya are the same as the creatures whose buried remains were found in the Kow Swamp area in Australia, and if Homo sapiens first appeared at least 90,000 years ago, how can these creatures be the ancestors of humans?
At this time, while the facts in most cases are still very fragmented, and while some published reports have been heavily influenced by preconceived ideas, it is our opinion that some specimens described as Homo erectus, such as the Javan Man and Peking Man, definitely belong to the family of monkeys with no connection to humans. In other cases (some of which are not described here), specimens described as Homo erectus, which is otherwise described as Neanderthal, if the author made the decision not to believe that the fossil creature was so old that it would be a Neanderthal. In those examples, for instance, the most recent discovery by Walker and Leakey near Lake Turkana could be a creature that is fully human – Homo sapiens.
Neanderthal The Neanderthal was first discovered more than a century ago in a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. He was first classified as Homo neanderthalensis and portrayed as a semi-upright animal subhuman. This misperception of the Neanderthal was most influenced by the prejudices of evolutionary thinking in paleoanthropologists, plus the fact that the individual who was analyzed was crippled by arthritis. Additionally, it is known that these people suffered from severe arthritis due to a lack of vitamin D. These conditions resulted in softening of the bone and followed by deformity. It is now known that the Neanderthal was fully upright and in many details could not be distinguished from modern humans. 130,131 His cranial capacity even surpasses that of modern humans. This would mean that if he were shaved, shaved, bathed, and dressed in modern clothes, and allowed to walk the streets of our city, he would not attract more attention than any other man. Today he is classified as Homo sapiens – true human. It is believed that the Neanderthals suddenly appeared in Europe about 100,000 years ago. There is no approximate idea of where he came from. They suddenly disappeared about 35,000 years ago and were immediately replaced by the Cro-Magnon race, which is essentially no different from the modern European. Again, no one provides any information about his origin.
Other fossil remains that are undoubtedly varieties of Homo sapiens race include the Swanscombe, Steinheim, and Fontechevade fossils.131,132 The Swanscombe Man is dated to nearly 250,000 years.17 The dates mentioned in this chapter are those that have been estimated to be at least approximately accurate by evolutionary geologists. Today, it is accepted that the Pleistocene epoch (to which most fossils thought to be hominids are attributed) began around 1,800,000 years ago. Earlier, it was estimated that the duration of the Pleistocene was only part of that (Arthur Keith’s son believed that its duration was around 200,000 years), but the extension of the Pleistocene has given evolutionists the time they think is necessary for the evolution of humans from their supposed ape-like ancestor.
If a fossil is found in what is called the early Pleistocene, it is attributed an age of about 1.8 million years or less. If it is believed to be from the middle Pleistocene, it would be estimated at about a million years. Of course, it would be attributed a younger age if it were found in formations believed to be from the later Pleistocene periods. Different time spans of the Pleistocene are estimated based on the assumed ages of various glacial or interglacial periods that are believed to have occurred during the Pleistocene. The methods involved in this, as well as some difficulties encountered by this system, have been described by Pilbeam113 and can be found in many standard anthropology textbooks.
- Literature
- R. B. Eckhardt, Sci. Amer., 226(1):94 (1972).
- R. E. F. Leakey, Nature 248:653 (1974).
- L. S. B. Leakey, Nature 189:649 (1961).
- M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1971, p. 272.
- A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lippincott Co., New York 1970, p. 221.
- W. S. Howell, Mankind in the Making, Doubleday, Garden City, New York 1967, pp. 155-156.
- M. Boule and H. V. Vallois, Fossil Men, Dryden Press, New York 1957, p. 126.
- Boule and Vallois, Ref. 104, p. 118.
- Boule and Vallois, Ref. 104, p. 121.
- Boule and Vallois, Ref. 104, p. 123.
- Boule and Vallois, Ref. 104, p. 123.
- Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922.
- W. K. Gregory, Science 66:579 (1927).
- J. S. Gould, Nat. Hist. 88(3):96 (1979).
- J. Hawkes, Nature 204:952 (1964).
- W. Herbert, Science News 123:246 (1983).
- Moline (Illinois) Daily Dispatch, May 14, 1984.
- Zuckerman, Ref. 30, p. 64.
- F. Weidnreich, Paleont. Sinica, New Ser. D. 10:1 (1943).
- P. O’Connell, Science of Today and Problems of Genesis, Book I, Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, CA 1969.
- Boule, Ref. 104, footnote on p. 145.
- M. H. Day, Nature 232:383 (1971).
- R. E. F. Leakey and A. Walker, Nature 261:572 (1976).
- Leakey and Walker, Ref. 120, p. 574.
- M. D. Leakey and R. E. F. Leakey, Koobi Fora Research Project, Vol. 1 Clarendon, Oxford 1978.
- A. Walker, R. M. Zimmerman and R. E. F. Leakey, Nature 296:248 (1982).
- C. Joyce, New Scientist 104:8 (1984).
- S. Gilbert, Science Digest 93:28 (1985).
- B. Bower, Science News 126:260 (1984).
- R. Lewin, Science 226:529 (1984).
- B. Rensberger, The Washington Post, October 19, 1984, p. A1.
- A. G. Thorne and P. G. Macumber, Nature 238:316 (1972).
- F. Ivanhoe, Nature 227:577 (1979).
- E. Trinkaus and W. W. Howell, Sci. Amer. 241(6):118 (1979).
- M. H. Day, Guide to Fossil Man, 3rd ed., The U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977.
- Pilbeam, Ref. 24, pp. 115-125.