Forbidden Archeology of the Paleolithic:
How Pithecanthropus Influenced the Treatment of Evidence for Extreme
Human Antiquity
[Scheduled for publication by British Archaeological Reports (in press),
as part of a peer-reviewed volume of papers from the history of archeology
section of the European Association of Archaeologists 1999 Annual Meeting
in Bournemouth, UK, edited by Ana C. N. Martins]
Michael A. Cremo, Bhaktivedanta Institute
Abstract: Over the past two centuries, researchers in Europe and elsewhere
have found anatomically modern human skeletal remains and artifacts in geological
contexts extending to the Pliocene and earlier. In the late nineteenth century,
these discoveries attained wide circulation among archeologists and researchers
in allied fields (geology, paleontology, anthropology). At this early point
in the history of archeology, a fixed scheme of human evolution had not yet
emerged, and researchers were able to approach the evidence of extreme human
antiquity with little theoretical bias. With the discovery of Pithecanthropus
(Java man) in the late nineteenth century and the discovery of Australopithecus
in the early twentieth century, archeologists and others were finally able
to construct a credible and widely accepted theoretical picture of human origins,
with the anatomically modern human type arriving rather late on the scene.
This caused the earlier evidence for extreme human antiquity to be dropped
from active discourse, and eventually forgotten. In the late twentieth
century, finds that could be taken as evidence for extreme human antiquity
continue to be made. But archeologists often interpret them to fit
within the now generally accepted scheme of human evolution. It is therefore
possible that commitment to a particular evolutionary scheme has resulted
in a process of knowledge filtration, whereby a large set of archeological
evidence has dropped below the horizon of cognition. This filtering,
although unintentional, has left current researchers with an incomplete data
set for building and rebuilding our ideas about human origins.
Key words: history, Pithecanthropus, anomalous evidence, theoretical bias,
Tertiary man.
INTRODUCTION
Archeologists are becoming increasingly introspective, exerting almost as
much energy in excavating the epistemological, political, ideological, and
social foundations of their discipline as in excavating the physical remains
of the past. There is growing recognition that epistemological, political,
ideological, and social factors have over time greatly influenced the manner
in which the excavated physical remains are archived, displayed, and interpreted.
For example, an epistemological commitment to evolutionary biology, solidified
at an early point in the history of archeology, has influenced the treatment
of evidence for extreme human antiquity by archeologists, past and present.
Over the past two centuries, researchers have found many anatomically modern
human skeletal remains and artifacts in geological contexts extending to the
Pliocene and earlier (Cremo and Thompson 1993).1 This evidence is consistent
with accounts of extreme human antiquity found in the Puranas, the historical
texts of ancient India. In the later decades of the nineteenth century, reports
of such evidence attained wide circulation among archeologists and researchers
in allied fields (geology, paleontology, anthropology), engendering significant,
although not universal, acceptance of “Tertiary man.” At that early point
in the history of archeology, a fixed scheme of human evolution had not yet
emerged, and researchers were able to approach evidence for extreme human
antiquity with somewhat less theoretical bias than they might today.
Up until the very end of the nineteenth century, the only candidate for
an evolutionary ancestor of today’s humans was Neandertal man. But the Neandertal
bones were considered by most researchers, even evolutionists, to be from
primitive or pathologically deformed members of our own human species (Trinkaus
and Shipman, 1992). Only with the discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus, Java
man, in the last years of the nineteenth century were archeologists
and others finally able to construct a credible and widely accepted evolutionary
picture of human origins, based on actual fossil finds, with the anatomically
modern human type arriving rather late on the scene. Java man was generally
placed in the Early Pleistocene. This dating, combined with a gradualistic
conception of evolutionary processes, located the origin of our species, Homo
sapiens, in the latest Pleistocene. Java man was thus influential in causing
the accumulated evidence for a human presence in the Early Pleistocene, the
Pliocene, and earlier to be gradually dropped from active discourse. The
discoveries of Piltdown man, Sinanthropus, and Australopithecus completed
the processes, and the evidence for Tertiary (and Early Pleistocene) man was
eventually consigned to an oblivion so complete that many archeologists today
are unaware of its existence.
Recognition of this process is not new. About the early Tertiary man discoveries
and their suppression subsequent to the Java man discoveries, anthropologist
Frank Spencer (1984: 13-14) wrote: “From accumulating evidence, it appeared
as if the modern human skeleton extended far back in time, an apparent fact
which led many workers to either abandon or modify their views on human evolution.
One such apostate was Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913). In 1887, Wallace
examined the evidence for early man in the New World, and . . . found not
only considerable evidence of antiquity for the available specimens, but also
a continuity of type through time.” Spencer (1984:14) noted, however, that
the case for extreme human antiquity “lost some of its potency as well as
a few of its supporters when news began circulating of the discovery of a
remarkable hominid fossil in Java.” This was, of course, Pithecanthropus.
I differ from Spencer in that I desire to resurrect Tertiary man, who was
unfairly sacrificed on the altar of evolutionary preconceptions.
EXAMPLES FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
The California Gold Mine Discoveries
As an example of how the Java man discoveries resulted in the suppression
of evidence for extreme human antiquity, we can consider a case mentioned
by Wallace in his survey of North American evidence—the California gold mine
discoveries. Hundreds of stone tools and weapons, including obsidian spear
points and stone mortars and pestles, and numerous anatomically modern human
skeletal remains (quite apart from the notorious Calaveras skull, widely regarded
as a hoax), were discovered by miners in the California gold mining region.
Many of the finds occurred in deeply buried, basalt-capped Eocene river gravels,
ranging from 33 to 55 million years old, according to modern geological studies
(Slemmons 1966). These discoveries from the auriferous gravels were reported
to the scientific world by J. D. Whitney (1880), state geologist of California.
Whitney considered and ruled out the possibility of recent intrusion.
In his discussion of the reports of Whitney and others, Wallace (1887:679)
said: “The proper way to treat evidence as to man’s antiquity is to place
it on record, and admit it provisionally wherever it would be held adequate
in the case of other animals; not, as is too often now the case, to ignore
it as unworthy of acceptance or subject its discoverers to indiscriminate
accusations of being impostors or the victims of impostors.”
In Whitney’s case, the influential anthropologist William H. Holmes, of
the Smithsonian Institution, chose the latter course. Holmes (1899:424) said
of Whitney’s careful report report: “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully
appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would
have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the
imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted.” In other words,
if the facts reported by Whitney violated the emerging picture of human evolution,
those facts, even an imposing array of them, had to be set aside.
Holmes’s opposition to the California gold mine discoveries was to a large
degree conditioned by his acceptance of Java man. Holmes (1899:470) suggested
that Whitney’s evidence should be rejected because “it implies a human race
older by at least one half than Pithecanthropus erectus of Dubois, which may
be regarded as an incipient form of human only.”
European scientists followed Holmes in using the Java man discoveries to
dismiss the California discoveries. According to archeologist Robert Munro,
Fellow of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, researchers who accepted
evidence that human beings of modern anatomy inhabited California during the
Tertiary and manufactured a variety of stone tools and weapons of advanced
type were “upholding opinions which, if true, would be absolutely subversive,
not only of human evolution, but of the principles upon which modern archaeology
has been founded.” (Munro 905:106). He cited as evidence the Pithecanthropus
skull, which he assigned to the Plio-Pleistocene boundary. After introducing
Holmes’s statement that the California evidence belonged to a period older
than that of Pithecanthropus, Munro (1905:106) said, “According to these calculations
the cranium of a Californian ‘auriferous gravel man’ would have been of so
low a type as to be undistinguishable from that of the Simian progenitor
of Homo sapiens [i.e., Pithecanthropus]. But instead of that we have. . .
a skull that could have contained the brains of a philosopher of the present
day.” Munro was referring to the famous Calaveras skull, surrounded by reports
of hoaxing, but Whitney reported several other anatomically modern human
skeletons from different locations. In any case, Munro’s point was that according
to evolutionary expectations an old skull should be anatomically primitive.
Therefore, if a skull were anatomically modern, it could not possibly be
old. In particular, it could not be older than Pithecanthropus, with
its prominent brow ridges and shallow cranium. About the artifacts, which
included projectile points and mortars and pestles, Munro (1905:108) said
that if they were to be accepted “we must, henceforth, delete from archaeological
nomenclature such terms as Palaeolithic and Neolithic as having no longer
any chronological significance.” In other words, neither anatomically modern
human bones or finely worked artifacts could be accepted as genuinely old.
Holmes and Munro of course gave other reasons supporting their dismissals
of the California discoveries.2 But their primary consideration appears to
have been their absolute conviction that evidence violating their evolutionary
convictions had to be wrong.
The Nampa Image
Holmes also raised the specter of Java man to dismiss the Nampa image. This
small human figurine came from just below a layer of clay at the 320-foot
level of a well boring at Nampa, Idaho (Wright 1912). According to the United
States Geological Survey (private communication, February 25, 1985), the clay
layer at that depth is “probably of the Glenns Ferry Formation, upper Idaho
Group, which is generally considered to be of Plio-Pleistocene age.”3 Among
the layers penetrated by the well boring before reaching the clay was an
15-foot thick layer of basalt lava (Wright 1912). Even critics of the find
such as Holmes (1919) did not dispute the human manufacture of the tiny clay
statuette, representing a female figure. Instead, Holmes (1919:70) wrote:
“The formation in which the pump was operating is of late Tertiary or early
Quaternary age; and the apparent improbability of the occurrence of a well-modeled
human figure in deposits of such great antiquity has led to grave doubts about
its authenticity. It is interesting to note that the age of this object, supposing
it to be authentic, corresponds with that of the incipient man whose bones
were, in 1892, recovered by Dubois from the late Tertiary or Early Quaternary
formations of Java.” In other words, Holmes doubted the genuineness of the
Nampa image mostly because it was out of synch with the emerging concept
of human evolution, founded on acceptance of Pithecanthropus erectus as a
culturally and physiologically primitive human ancestor incapable of such
refined art work.4
EXAMPLES FROM THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
The Schöningen Spears and the Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes
In the late twentieth century, finds that could be taken as evidence for
extreme human antiquity continue to be made. But archeologists often
interpret them to fit within the now generally accepted scheme of human evolution.
For example, Thieme (1997) recently reported the discovery at Schöningen
in northern Germany of wooden hunting spears in soft coal deposits over 400,000
years old. Traditionally, archeologists have identified hunting spears exclusively
with humans of our type. But according to the current paradigm, anatomically
modern humans were not present in Europe, or anywhere else, 400,000 years
ago. Thieme therefore chose to attribute the spears to a culturally upgraded
Middle Pleistocene hominid (presumably Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis).
But perhaps there is another choice.
As an alternative explanation for the Schöningen spears , we could
resurrect the nineteenth century discoveries of anatomically modern human
remains by Boucher de Perthes at Abbeville, in deposits also roughly 400,000
years old.5 These latter discoveries are not well known among working archeologists
today.
In the 1840s Boucher de Perthes discovered stone tools in the Middle Pleistocene
high level gravels of the Somme, at Moulin Quignon and other sites in and
around Abbeville. At first, the scientific community, particularly in France,
was not inclined to accept his discoveries as genuine. Some believed that
the tools were manufactured by forgers. Others believed them to be purely
natural forms that happened to resemble stone tools. Later, leading British
archeologists visited the sites of Boucher de Perthes's discoveries and pronounced
them genuine. But the exact nature of the maker of these tools remained unknown.
Then in 1863, Boucher de Perthes discovered at Moulin Quignon additional stone
tools and an anatomically modern human jaw. The jaw inspired much controversy,
and was the subject of a joint English-French commission (Falconer et al.
1863, Delesse 1863). The English members of the commission thought the recently
discovered stone tools were forgeries that had been artificially introduced
into the Moulin Quignon strata. They thought the same of the jaw. To settle
the matter, the commission paid a surprise visit to the site. Five flint implements
were found in the presence of the scientists. The commission approved by
majority vote a resolution in favor of the authenticity of the recently discovered
stone tools. In addition to confirming the authenticity of the stone tools
from Moulin Quignon, the commission also concluded that there was no evidence
that the jaw had been fraudulently introduced into the Moulin Quignon gravel
deposits (Falconer et al. 1863: 452). The English skeptics, including John
Evans, who was not able to join the commission in France, were left with
finding further proof of fraudulent behavior among the workmen at Moulin
Quignon as their best weapon against the jaw. Evans sent his trusted assistant
Henry Keeping to France, where he claimed to have obtained proof that the
French workmen were introducing tools into the deposits at Moulin Quignon.
But careful study of Keeping's reports reveals little to support these allegations.
Nevertheless, a report by Evans (1863), based on Keeping's account, was published
in an English periodical and swayed many scientists to the opinion that Boucher
des Perthes was, despite the favorable conclusions of the scientific commission,
the victim of an archeological fraud in regard to the Moulin Quignon jaw.
Boucher des Perthes (1864), stung by accusations of deception, carried out
a new set of excavations, which resulted in the recovery of more anatomically
modern human skeletal remains, amounting to over one hundred bones and teeth.
These later discoveries are hardly mentioned in standard histories, which
dwell upon the controversy surrounding the famous Moulin Quignon jaw. Boucher
de Perthes carried out his new investigations so as to effectively rule out
the possibility of deception by workmen. First of all, they were carried out
during a period when the quarry at Moulin Quignon was shut down and the usual
workmen were not there (1864:219). Boucher de Perthes himself supervised the
excavations, and in almost all cases witnesses with scientific or medical
training were present. In some cases, these witnesses organized their own
careful excavations to independently confirm the discoveries of Boucher de
Perthes. Armand de Quatrefages (1864), a prominent French anthropologist,
reported favorably on Boucher de Perthes's later discoveries at Moulin Quignon
to the French Academy of Sciences. These later discoveries tend to validate
the original Moulin Quignon jaw and, combined with the recent discoveries
of the Schoningen spears, offer good evidence of an anatomically modern human
population in northern Europe during the Middle Pleistocene, about 400,000
years ago.
The Laetoli Footprints and the Castenedolo Skeletons
Another case in which rigid commitment to an evolutionary consensus has
prevented recognition of possible evidence for extreme human antiquity may
be found in the Laetoli footprints, discovered by Mary Leakey in Tanzania
in 1979. The prints occurred in layers of solidified volcanic ash 3.7 million
years old . Leakey herself (1979:453) said the prints were exactly like anatomically
modern human footprints, a judgement shared by other physical anthropologists
(Tuttle 1981:91, 1987:517). Tim White said, “Make no mistake about it. They
are like modern human footprints” (Johanson and Edey 1981:250).
Attempts to account for the humanlike nature of the prints has varied. Some
have suggested that late Pliocene hominids such as Australopithecus afarensis
could have made the prints. But such proposals are not supported by skeletal
evidence in the form of a complete Australopithecus foot. White and Suwa (1987)
attempted to put together such a foot (using bones from three different hominids
of different genera), but such an exercise was, of course, quite speculative.6
In 1995, Clarke and Tobias reported the discovery of a partial Australopithecus
foot from Sterkfontein (Bower 1995), and in 1998 announced the discovery of
a fairly complete australopithecine skeleton, to which the foot bones had
originally been attached. The four foot bones reported in 1995 made up a
left instep. The big toe was long and divergent, like that of a chimpanzee,
with features indicating it was capable of grasping. Like White and Suwa,
Tobias and Clarke used bones from East African hominids to reconstruct a complete
foot, which Tobias said matched the Laetoli prints (Bower 1995). Physical
anthropologist Michael Day at the British Museum asserted that the Sterkfontein
foot could not have made the Laetoli footprints and questioned the accuracy
of a reconstruction that made use of bones of hominids from different parts
of Africa (Bower 1995).
In January 1999, at the World Archeological Congress in Cape Town, South
Africa, I saw Clarke attempt to justify how the chimpanzeelike Sterkfontein
foot could have made the humanlike Laetoli prints. He explained that chimpanzees
sometimes walk with their normally divergent big toes pressed inward so as
to align with the other toes. These other toes, although longer than human
toes, would have been curled under. But it is highly unlikely that the three
individuals who made the trails of prints at Laetoli would have all been walking
like that. A similar proposal had earlier been made by Stern and Susman (1983).
But others (Tuttle 1985:132, White and Suwa 1987:495) pointed out that the
prints showed no knuckle marks, and that surely, in the case of so many prints,
representing three individuals, some of the prints would have shown the extended
toes. Clarke also appealed to a recent study by Deloison (1997), who claimed,
in opposition to almost all previous reporting, that the Laetoli prints displayed
distinctly primate (chimpanzoid) features. Others (Tuttle et al. 1998) answered,
demonstrating that Deloison’s observations were “false interpretations based
on artifactual taphonomic features, reliance on a partial sample of the .
. . first generation casts of the Laetoli prints, and her not accounting
for the orientation of the prints on the trackway.”
So it would appear reasonable to propose that anatomically modern humans
made the Laetoli prints in the late Pliocene. This proposal becomes even more
reasonable in the context of other discoveries of evidence for anatomically
modern humans in the Pliocene. Fairly complete anatomically modern human skeletons
were discovered in Middle Pliocene clays at Castenedolo by the geologist
Ragazzoni (1880), who testified that the overlying layers were undisturbed.
European archeologists later rejected the discoveries on theoretical grounds.
For example, Macalister (1921:183) said, “There must be something wrong somewhere.”
Considering the anatomically modern character of the skeletons, he proposed
(1921:184), “Now, if they really belonged to the stratum in which they were
found, this would imply an extraordinarily long standstill for evolution.
It is much more likely that there is something amiss with the observations.”7
CONCLUSION
So what does this all add up to? It appears that commitment to an evolutionary
picture of human origins, put into place with the discovery of Pithecanthropus,
has resulted in a process of knowledge filtration, whereby a large set of
archeological evidence has dropped below the horizon of cognition.8
This filtering has left current researchers with an incomplete data set for
building and rebuilding our ideas about human origins.
NOTES
1. Incised and carved mammal bones are reported from the Pliocene (Desnoyers
1863, Laussedat 1868, Capellini 1877) and Miocene (Garrigou and Filhol 1868,
von Dücker 1873). Additional reports of incised bones from the Pliocene
and Miocene may be found an extensive review by the overly skeptical de Mortillet
(1883). Scientists have also reported pierced shark teeth from the Pliocene
(Charlesworth 1873), artistically carved bone from the Miocene (Calvert 1874)
and artistically carved shell from the Pliocene (Stopes 1881). Carved
mammal bones reported by Moir (1917) could be as old as the Eocene. Very crude
stone tools occur in the Middle Pliocene (Prestwich 1892) and from perhaps
as far back as the Eocene (Moir 1927, Breuil 1910:402). One will note that
most of these discoveries are from the nineteenth century. But such artifacts
are still being found. Crude stone tools have recently be reported from the
Pliocene of Pakistan (Bunney 1987), Siberia (Daniloff and Kopf 1986), and
India (Sankhyan 1981), what to speak of a pebble tool from the Miocene of
India (Prasad 1982). More advanced stone tools occur in the Oligocene of
Europe (Rutot 1907), the Miocene of Europe (Ribeiro 1873, Bourgeois 1873,
Verworn 1905), the Miocene of Asia (Noetling 1894), and the Pliocene of South
America (F. Ameghino 1908, C. Ameghino 1915). In North America, advanced
stone tools occur in California deposits ranging from Pliocene to Miocene
in age (Whitney 1880), and Wright (1912:262-269) reported a Pliocene clay
statuette. An interesting slingstone, at least Pliocene and perhaps Eocene
in age, comes from England (Moir 1929: 63). Humanlike footprints have been
found in the Pliocene of Africa (M. Leakey 1979). Human skeletal remains described
as anatomically modern occur in the Middle Pleistocene of Europe (Newton
1895, Bertrand 1868, de Mortillet 1883). These cases are favorably reviewed
by Keith (1928). Other anatomically modern human skeletal remains occur in
the Early and Middle Pleistocene of Africa (Reck 1914, L. Leakey 1960, Zuckerman
1954:310; Patterson and Howells 1967, Senut 1981, R. Leakey 1973), the Early
Middle Pleistocene of Java (Day and Molleson 1973), the Early Pleistocene
of South America (Hrdlicka 1912:319-44), the Pliocene of South America
(Hrdlicka 1912:346; Boman 1921:341-42)), the Pliocene of England (Osborn
1921:567-69), the Pliocene of Italy (Ragazzoni 1880, Issel 1868). the Miocene
of France and the Eocene of Switzerland (de Mortillet 1883:72), and even
the Carboniferous of North America (The Geologist 1862). Several discoveries
from California gold mines range from Pliocene to Eocene (Whitney 1880).
Some of the above mentioned human skeletal remains have been subjected to
chemical and radiometric tests that have yielded ages younger than suggested
by their stratigraphic position. But when the unreliabilities of the testing
procedures are measured against the very compelling stratigraphic observations
of the discoverers, it is not at all clear that the original age attributions
should be discarded.
2. They pointed out the resemblance of the bones and artifacts to those
of recent history and hinted at various ways they could have been introduced
into the Tertiary auriferous gravels.
3. My research assistant Stephen Bernath sent to the United States Geological
Survey a copy of the drilling record from the well boring, and a geologist
replied with the estimated age of the clay layer that yielded the Nampa image.
4. Influenced by this conviction, Holmes (1919:70) was reduced to suggesting
that the image “could have descended from the surface through some crevice
or water course penetrating the lava beds and have been carried through deposits
of creeping quicksand aided by underground waters to the spot tapped by the
drill.”
5. In a recent synoptic table of European Pleistocene sites, Carbonell and
Rodriguez (1994:306) put Abbeville at around 430,000 years, and I think we
can take that as a current consensus.
6. White and Suwa used the partial OH 8 foot from Olduvai Gorge, usually
attributed to Homo habilis, along with Australopithecus afarensis toe bones
from Lucy and the more robust AL 333-115. The OH 8 and AL 333-115 bones were
rescaled to fit those of Lucy.
7. Oakley (1980:40) said the Castenedolo bones had a nitrogen content similar
to that of human bones from Late Pleistocene and Holocene Italian sites, and
judged them recent. But nitrogen preservation can vary widely from site to
site, making such comparisons of little value. Oakley (1980:42) reported a
high fluorine content for the bones. Low measures of fluorine in the
groundwater indicated a potentially great age for the bones, but Oakley explained
this away by positing higher levels of fluorine in the past! The Castenedolo
bones also had an unexpectedly high concentration of uranium. A radiocarbon
date of less than one thousand years was obtained in 1969 (Barker et al.
1971), but the methods employed are now regarded as not adequate to prevent
falsely young dates from contamination with recent carbon, a distinct possibility
in the case of bones that have lain exposed in a museum for a century. The
most certain age estimate comes from the original stratigraphic observations
of Ragazzoni.
8. The original Pithecanthropus erectus discovery was based on associating
a femur with a skullcap. Considering the historical impact of Pithecanthropus
on evidence for extreme human antiquity, it is interesting that modern researchers
no longer consider the association valid. A reexamination of the femur by
Day and Molleson (1973) showed it to be indistinguishable from anatomically
modern human femurs and distinct from other erectus femurs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust for their
grants in support of my work and to Lori Erbs for her research assistance.
REFERENCES
AMEGHINO, C., 1915. El femur de Miramar. Anales de Museo nacional de historia
natural de Buenos Aires 26:433–450.
AMEGHINO, F., 1908. Notas preliminares sobre el Tetraprothhomo argentinus,
un precursor de hombre del Mioceno superior de Monte Hermoso. Anales de Museo
nacional de historia natural de Buenos Aires 16:105–242.
BARKER, H., R. BURLEIGH, and N. MEEKS, 1971. British Museum natural radiocarbon
measurements VII. Radiocarbon 13:157-188.
BERTRAND, P. M. E., 1868. Crane et ossements trouves dans un carriere de
l’avenue de Clichy. Bulletin de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris (Series
2) 3:329–335.
BOMAN, E., 1921. Los vestigios de industria humana encontrados en Miramar
(Republica Argentina) y atribuidos a la época terciaria. Revista Chilena
de Historia y Geografia 49 (43):330–352.
BOUCHER DE PERTHES, J., 1864. Nouvelles découvertes d'os humains
dans le diluvium, en 1863 et 1864, par M. Boucher de Perthes. Rapport a la
Société Impériale d'Émulation. In J. Boucher
de Perthes (ed), Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes. Memoire
sur l'Industrie Primitive et les Arts à leur Origin (Vol. 3):
215-250. Paris: Jung-Treutel.
BOURGEOIS, L., 1873. Sur les silex considérés comme portant
les margues d’un travail humain et découverts dans le terrain miocène
de Thenay. Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie
Préhistoriques, Bruxelles 1872, Compte Rendu:81–92.
BOWER, B., 1995. Hominid bones show strides toward walking. Science News
148:71.
BREUIL, H., 1910. Sur la présence d’éolithes a la base de
l’Éocene Parisien. L’Anthropologie 21:385–408.
BUNNEY, S., 1987. First migrants will travel back in time. New Scientist
114 (1565):36.
CALVERT, F., 1874. On the probable existence of man during the Miocene period.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
3:127.
CAPELLINI, G., 1877. Les traces de l’homme pliocène en Toscane. Congrès
International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques,
Budapest 1876, Compte Rendu. Vol. 1:46–62.
CARBONELL, E. and X. P. RODRIGUEZ, 1994 Early Middle Pleistocene deposits
and artefacts in the Gran Dolina site (TD4) of the 'Sierra de Atapuerca' (Burgos,
Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 26:291-311.
CHARLESWORTH, E., 1873. Objects in the Red Crag of Suffolk. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 2:91–94.
CREMO, M. A. and THOMPSON, R. L., 1993. Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden
History of the Human Race. San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute.
DANILOFF, R. and C. KOPF, 1986. Digging up new theories of early man. U.
S. News & World Report September 1:62–63.
DAY, M. H. and T. I. MOLLESON, 1973. The Trinil femora. Symposia of the
Society for the Study of Human Biology 2:127– 154.
DELESSE, A., 1863. La mâchoire humaine de Moulin de Quignon. Mémoires
de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 2:37-68.
DELOISON, Y. M-L., 1997. The foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia and the Laetoli,
Tanzania footprints. Locomotion of A. afarensis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology supplement no. 24 (AAPA abstracts):101.
DE MORTILLET, G., 1883. Le Préhistorique. Paris: C. Reinwald.
DE QUATREFAGES, A., 1864. Nouveaux ossements humains découverts par
M. Boucher de Perthes à Moulin-Quignon. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires
de l'Académie des Sciences 59:107-111.
DESNOYERS, J.,1863. Response à des objections faites au sujet d’incisions
constatées sur des ossements de Mammiferes fossiles des environs de
Chartres. Compte Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 56:1199–1204.
EVANS, J., 1863. The human remains at Abbeville. The Athenaeum July 4:19-20.
FALCONER, H., G. BUSK, and W. B. CARPENTER, 1863. An account of the proceedings
of the late conference held in France to inquire into the circumstances attending
the asserted discovery of a human jaw in the gravel at Moulin-Quignon, near
Abbeville; including the procès verbaux of the conference, with notes
thereon. The Natural History Review 3 (new series):423-462.
GARRIGOU, F., AND H. FILHOL, (1868) M. Garrigou prie l’Académie de
vouloir bien ouvrir un pli cacheté, déposé au nom de
M. Filhol fils et au sien, le 16 mai 1864. Compte Rendus de l’Académie
des Sciences 66:819–820.
THE GEOLOGIST (LONDON), 1862. Fossil man 5:470.
HOLMES, W. H., 1899. Review of the evidence relating to auriferous gravel
man in California. In Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 1898–1899: 419–472.
Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
HOLMES. W. H., 1919. Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities, Part I.
Smithsonian Institution Bulletin 60. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
HRDLICKA, A., 1912. Early Man in South America. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian
Institution.
ISSEL, A., 1868. Résumé des recherches concernant l’ancienneté
de l’homme en Ligurie. Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie
Préhistoriques, Paris 1867, Compte Rendu: 75– 89.
JOHANSON, D. and M. A. EDEY, 1981. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
KEITH, A., 1928. The Antiquity of Man. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
LAUSSEDAT, A., 1868. Sur une mâchoire de Rhinoceros portant des entailles
profondes trouvée à Billy (Allier), dans les formations calcaires
d’eau douce de la Limagne. Compte Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences
66:752–754.
LEAKEY, L. S. B., 1960. Adam’s Ancestors, 4th edition. New York: Harper
& Row.
LEAKEY, M. D. (1979) Footprints in the ashes of time. National Geographic
155:446–457.
LEAKEY, R. E., 1973. Evidence for an advanced Plio-Pleistocene hominid from
East Rudolf, Kenya. Nature 242:447–450.
MACALISTER, R. A. S., 1921. Textbook of European Archaeology, Vol. I, Palaeolithic
Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MOIR, J. R., 1917. A series of mineralised bone implements of a primitive
type from below the base of the Red and Coralline Crags of Suffolk. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 2:116–131.
MOIR, J. R., 1927. The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
MOIR, J. R., 1929. A remarkable object from beneath the Red Crag. Man 29:62–65.
MUNRO, R., 1905. Archaeology and False Antiquities. London: Methuen.
NEWTON, E. T., 1895 On a human skull and limb-bones found in the Paleolithic
terrace-gravel at Galley Hill, Kent. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
of London 51: 505–526.
NOETLING, F., 1894. On the occurrence of chipped flints in the Upper Miocene
of Burma. Records of the Geological Survey of India 27:101–103.
OAKLEY, K. P., 1980. Relative dating of fossil hominids of Europe. Bulletin
of the British Museum of Natural History (Geology), 34.
OSBORN, H. F., 1921. The Pliocene man of Foxhall in East Anglia. Natural
History 21:565–576.
PATTERSON, B. and W. W. HOWELLS, 1967. Hominid humeral fragment from Early
Pleistocene of northwestern Kenya. Science 156:64–66.
PRASAD, K. N., 1982. Was Ramapithecus a tool-user. Journal of Human Evolution
11:101–104.
PRESTWICH, J. (1892) On the primitive character of the flint implements
of the Chalk Plateau of Kent, with reference to the question of their glacial
or pre-glacial age. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 21 (3):246–262.
RAGAZZONI, G., 1880. La collina di Castenedolo, solto il rapporto antropologico,
geologico ed agronomico. Commentari dell’ Ateneo di Brescia April 4:120–128.
RECK, H., 1914. Erste vorläufige Mitteilungen über den Fund eines
fossilen Menschenskeletts aus Zentral-afrika. Sitzungsbericht der Gesellschaft
der naturforschender Freunde Berlins 3:81–95.
RIBEIRO, C., 1873. Sur des silex taillés, découverts dans
les terrains miocène du Portugal. Congrès International d’Anthropologie
et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques, Bruxelles 1872, Compte Rendu:
95–100.
RUTOT, A., 1907. Un grave problem: une industrie humaine datant de l’époque
oligocène. Comparison des outils avec ceux des Tasmaniens actuels.
Bulletin de la Société Belge de Géologie de Paléontologie
et d’Hydrologie 21:439–482.
SANKHYAN, A. R., 1981. First evidence of early man from Haritalyangar area,
Himalchal Pradesh. Science and Culture 47:358–359.
SENUT, B., 1981. Humeral outlines in some hominoid primates and in Plio-pleistocene
hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 56:275–283.
SLEMMONS, D. B., 1966. Cenozoic volcanism of the central Sierra Nevada,
California. Bulletin of the California Division of Mines and Geology 190:
199–208.
SPENCER, F., 1984. The Neandertals and their evolutionary significance:
a brief historical survey. In F. H. Smith and F. Spencer (eds), The Origin
of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence: 1-49. New York: Alan
R. Liss.
STERN, JR., J. T. and R. L. SUSMAN, 1983. The locomotor anatomy of
Australopithecus afarensis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-318.
STOPES, H., 1881. Traces of man in the Crag. British Association for the
Advancement of Science, Report of the Fifty-first Meeting: 700.
THIEME, H., 1997. Lower Paleolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature
385:807-810.
TRINKAUS, E. and SHIPMAN, P., 1994. The Neandertals. New York: Vintage.
TUTTLE, R. H., 1981. Evolution of hominid bipedalism and prehensile capabilities.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 292:89-94.
TUTTLE, R. H., 1985. Ape footprints and Laetoli impressions: a response
to the SUNY claims. In P. V. Tobias (ed). Hominid Evolution: Past, Present,
and Future: 129-133. New York: Alan R. Liss.
TUTTLE, R. H., 1987. Kinesiological inferences and evolutionary implications
from Laetoli biped trails G-1, G-2/3, and A. In M. D. Leakey and J. Harris
(eds). Laetoli: A Pliocene Site in Northern Tanzania: 508-517. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
TUTTLE, R. H., C. MUSIBA, D. M. WEBB, and B. HALLGRIMSSON, 1998. False impressions
from the Laetoli Hominid footprints. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
supplement 26 (AAPA abstracts):221.
VERWORN, M., 1905. Die archaeolithische Cultur in den Hipparionschichten
von Aurillac (Cantal). Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, Neue
Folge 4 (4):3–60.
VON DÜCKER, BARON, 1873. Sur la cassure artificelle d’ossements recuellis
dans le terrain miocène de Pikermi. Congrès International d’Anthropologie
et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques. Bruxelles 1872, Compte Rendu:
104–107.
WALLACE, A. R., 1887. The antiquity of man in North America. Nineteenth
Century 22:667-679.
WHITE, T. D. and G. SUWA, 1987. Hominid footprints at Laetoli: facts and
interpretations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72:485-514.
WHITNEY, J. D., 1880, The auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California.
Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir 6 (1).
WRIGHT, G. F., 1912. Origin and Antiquity of Man. Oberlin: Bibliotheca Sacra.
ZUCKERMAN, S., 1954. Correlation of change in the evolution of higher primates.
In J. Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (eds), Evolution as a Process: 300-352.
London: Allen and Unwin.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Michael A. Cremo is a research associate in history and philosophy of science
for the Bhaktivedanta Institute, the science studies branch of the International
Society for Krishna Consciousness. His most recent publication is “Puranic
Time and the Archeological Record,” originally presented as a paper at the
World Archeological Congress 3, New Delhi, 1994, and included in the WAC3
proceedings volume Time and Archaeology, edited by Tim Murray, and published
by Routledge (1999). Another paper, “The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes
at Moulin Quignon and Their Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy,”
has been selected for publication in the proceedings of the XXth International
Congress of History of Science, held in Liège, Belgium, July 19-26,
1997. His most recent book is Forbidden Archeology’s Impact (1998). It documents
the varied responses to his controversial book Forbidden Archeology (1993).
Address: 9701 Venice Blvd. #5, Los Angeles, CA 90034, USA. [email:
mcremo@compuserve.com]
Back to Papers