The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and
Their Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy
Presented at the XXth International Congress of History of Science, Liège,
Belgium, July 19-26, 1997
by Michael A. Cremo
Research Associate in History and Philosophy of Science,
Bhaktivedanta Institute, 9701 Venice Blvd. Suite 5, Los Angeles, CA 90034
Email: mcremo@compuserve.com, (310) 837-5283, Fax (310) 837-1056
ABSTRACT
When Jacques Boucher de Perthes reported stone tools in the Pleistocene
gravels of northern France at Abbeville, he was ignored by the French scientific
establishment. Later, he was vindicated by English scientists, who came to
the Abbeville region and confirmed his discoveries. But some of these same
English scientists later turned on him when he reported the discovery of the
famous Moulin Quignon jaw. Eventually the discovery was proved a hoax. That
is how the standard history goes. But when considered in detail, the hoax
theory does not emerge with total clarity and certainty. Boucher de Perthes
felt the English scientists who opposed him were influenced by political and
religious pressures at home. In order to restore his reputation and establish
the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw, Boucher de Perthes conducted several
additional excavations at Moulin Quignon, which yielded hundreds of human
bones and teeth. But by this time, important minds had been made up, and
no attention was paid to the later discoveries, which tended to authenticate
the Moulin Quignon jaw. This lack of attention persists in many histories
of archeology. This paper details the later discoveries of Boucher de Perthes
at Moulin Quignon, addresses possible reasons for their scanty presence in
(or complete omission from) many histories of the Moulin Quignon affair, and
offers some suggestions about the role the historian of archeology might play
in relation to the active work of that science.
* * * * * * *
My book Forbidden Archeology, coauthored with Richard L. Thompson, examines
the history of archeology and documents numerous discoveries suggesting that
anatomically modern humans existed in times earlier than now thought likely.
According to most current accounts, anatomically modern humans emerged within
the past one or two hundred thousand years from more primitive ancestors.
Much of the evidence for greater human antiquity, extending far back into
the Tertiary, was discovered by scientists in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Current workers are often unaware of this remarkable body of evidence.
In their review article about Forbidden Archeology, historians of science
Wodak and Oldroyd (1996, p. 197) suggest that "perhaps historians bear some
responsibility" for this lack of attention.
Certainly, some pre-FA histories of palaeoanthropology, such as Peter Bowler's,
say little about the kind of evidence adduced by C&T, and the same may
be said of some texts published since 1993, such as Ian Tattersall's recent
book. So perhaps the rejection of Tertiary [and early Pleistocene] Homo
sapiens, like other scientific determinations, is a social construction in
which historians of science have participated. C&T claim that there has
been a 'knowledge filtration operating within the scientific community', in
which historians have presumably played their part.
I am also guilty of this knowledge filtering. In this paper, I give an example
of my own failure to free myself from unwarranted prejudice.
The collective failure of scientists and historians to properly comprehend
and record the history of investigations into human antiquity has substantial
consequences on the present development of human antiquity studies. Current
workers should have ready access to the complete data set, not just the portion
marshaled in support of the current picture of the past and the history of
this picture's elaboration. The value of historians' work in maintaining the
complete archive of archeological data in accessible form can thus be significant
for ongoing human antiquity studies. This approach does not, as some have
suggested, entail uncritical acceptance of all past reporting. But it does
entail suspension of naive faith in the progressive improvement in scientific
reporting.
In February of 1997, I lectured on Forbidden Archeology to students and
faculty of archeology and earth sciences at the University of Louvain, Belgium.
Afterwards, one of the students, commenting on some of the nineteenth century
reports I presented, asked how we could accept them, given that these reports
had already been rejected long ago and that scientific understanding and
methods had greatly improved since the nineteenth century. I answered, "If
we suppose that in earlier times scientists accepted bad evidence because
of their imperfect understanding and methods then we might also suppose they
rejected good evidence because of their imperfect understanding and methods.
There is no alternative to actually looking critically at specific cases."
This is not necessarily the task of the working archeologist. But the historian
of archeology may here play a useful role.
The specific case I wish to consider is that of the discoveries of Jacques
Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon. This site is located at Abbeville, in
the valley of the Somme in northeastern France. In Forbidden Archeology, I
confined myself to the aspects of the case that are already well known to
historians (Cremo and Thompson 1993, pp. 402-404). To summarize, 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. 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. Boucher de
Perthes thus became a hero of science. His discoveries pushed the antiquity
of man deep into the Pleistocene, coeval with extinct mammals. 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. To do justice to the entire proceedings
(Falconer et al. 1863, Delesse 1863) would take a book, so I shall in this
paper touch on only a few points of contention.
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. Sir John Prestwich remained in the end skeptical but nevertheless
noted (1863, p. 505) that "the precautions we took seemed to render imposition
on the part of the workmen impossible."
That authentic flint implements should be found at Moulin Quignon is not
surprising, because flint implements of unquestioned authenticity had previously
been found there and at many other sites in the same region. There was no
dispute about this at the time, nor is there any dispute about this among
scientists today. The strange insistence on forgery and planting of certain
flint implements at Moulin Quignon seems directly tied to the discovery of
the Moulin Quignon jaw, which was modern in form. If the jaw had not been
found, I doubt there would have been any objections at all to the stone tools
that were found in the gravel pit around the same time.
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, p. 452). The presence of grey sand in the inner cavities
of the jaw, which had been found in a blackish clay deposit, had caused the
English members of the commission to suspect that the jaw had been taken from
somewhere else. But when the commission visited the site, some members noted
the presence of a layer of fine grey sand just above the layer of black deposits
in which the jaw had been found. (Falconer et al. 1863, pp. 448-449). This
offered an explanation for the presence of the grey sand in the Moulin Quignon
jaw and favored its authenticity.
Trinkaus and Shipman (1992, p. 96) insinuate, incorrectly, that the commission's
favorable resolution simply absolved Boucher de Perthes of any fraudulent
introduction of the jaw (hinting that others may have planted it). But that
is clearly not what the commission intended to say, as anyone can see from
reading the report in its entirety.
Here are the exact words of Trinkaus and Shipman:
In any case, the commission found itself deadlocked. There was only one
point of agreement: "The jaw in question was not fraudulently introduced
into the gravel pit of Moulin Quignon [by Boucher de Perthes]; it had existed
previously in the spot where M. Boucher de Perthes found it on the 28th March
1863." This lukewarm assertion of his innocence, rather than his correctness,
was hardly the type of scientific acclaim and vindication that Boucher de
Perthes yearned for. [the interpolation is by Trinkaus and Shipman]
But the commission (Falconer et al. 1863, p. 452) also voted in favor of
the following resolution: "All leads one to think that the deposition of this
jaw was contemporary with that of the pebbles and other materials constituting
the mass of clay and gravel designated as the black bed, which rests immediately
above the chalk." This was exactly the conclusion desired by Boucher de Perthes.
Only two members, Busk and Falconer, abstained. The committee as a whole was
far from deadlocked.
Their scientific objections having been effectively countered, the English
objectors, 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. Taking
advantage of a suggestion by Boucher de Perthes himself, Evans sent his trusted
assistant Henry Keeping, a working man with experience in archeological excavation,
to France. There he supposedly obtained definite proof that the French workmen
were introducing tools into the deposits at Moulin Quignon.
But careful study of Keeping's reports (Evans 1863) reveals little to support
these allegations and suspicions. Seven implements, all supposedly fraudulent,
turned up during Keeping's brief stay at Moulin Quignon. Five were found by
Keeping himself and two were given to him by the two French workers who were
assigned by Boucher de Perthes to assist him. Keeping's main accusation was
that the implements appeared to have "fingerprints" on them. The same accusation
had been leveled by the English members of the commission against the tools
earlier found at Moulin Quignon. In his detailed discussion of Keeping, which
is well worth reading, Boucher de Perthes (1864a, pp. 207-208) remarked that
he and others had never been able to discern these fingerprints. Boucher
de Perthes (1864a, p. 197, 204) also observed that Keeping was daily choosing
his own spots to work and that it would have been quite difficult for the
workers, if they were indeed planting flint implements, to anticipate where
he would dig. I tend to agree with Boucher de Perthes (1864a, pp. 194-195)
that Keeping, loyal to his master Evans, was well aware that he had been
sent to France to find evidence of fraud and that he dared not return to
England without it. Evans's report (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.
Not everyone was negatively influenced by Keeping's report. In Forbidden
Archeology, I cited Sir Arthur Keith (1928, p. 271), who stated, "French anthropologists
continued to believe in the authenticity of the jaw until between 1880 and
1890, when they ceased to include it in the list of discoveries of ancient
man."
I also was inclined to accept the jaw's authenticity, but given the intensity
of the attacks by the English, in Forbidden Archeology I simply noted, "From
the information we now have at our disposal, it is difficult to form a definite
opinion about the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw." I stated this as
a mild antidote to the nearly universal current opinion that the Moulin Quignon
jaw and accompanying tools were definitely fraudulent. But because Evans
and his English accomplices had so thoroughly problematized the evidence,
I could not bring myself to suggest more directly that the Moulin Quignon
jaw was perhaps genuine.
Boucher des Perthes, however, entertained no doubts as to the authenticity
of the jaw, which he had seen in place in the black layer toward the bottom
of the Moulin Quignon pit. He believed it had been rejected because of political
and religious prejudice in England. Stung by accusations of deception, he
proceeded to carry out a new set of excavations, which resulted in the recovery
of more human skeletal remains. These later discoveries are hardly mentioned
in standard histories, which dwell upon the controversy surrounding the famous
Moulin Quignon jaw.
For example, the later discoveries of Boucher des Perthes rate only a line
or two in Grayson (1983, p. 217):
Evans's demonstration of fraud and the strongly negative reaction of the
British scientists ensured that the Moulin Quignon mandible would never be
accepted as an undoubted human fossil. The same applied to additional human
bones reported from Moulin Quignon in 1864.
Trinkaus and Shipman (1992, p. 96) are similarly dismissive:
Desperately, Boucher de Perthes continued to excavate a Moulin Quignon.
He took to calling in impromptu commissions (the mayor, stray geology professors,
local doctors, lawyers, librarians, priests, and the like) to witness the
event when he found something, or thought he was about to find something,
significant. . . . Soon, the English and French scientists stopped coming
to look at his material or paying any real attention to his claims.
Although aware of these later discoveries, I did not discuss them in Forbidden
Archeology. I thus implicated myself in the process of inadvertent suppression
of anomalous evidence posited in Forbidden Archeology (Cremo and Thompson
1993, p. 28):
This evidence now tends to be extremely obscure, and it also tends to be
surrounded by a neutralizing nimbus of negative reports, themselves obscure
and dating from the time when the evidence was being actively rejected. Since
these reports are generally quite derogatory, they may discourage those who
read them from examining the rejected evidence further.
The cloud of negative reporting surrounding the Moulin Quignon jaw influenced
not only my judgment of this controversial find but also discouraged me from
looking into the later discoveries of Boucher des Perthes. So let us now look
into these discoveries and see if they are really deserving of being totally
ignored or summarily dismissed.
Boucher de Perthes (1864b), stung by the accusations he had been deceived,
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 (1864b, p. 219). Also, Boucher de Perthes made his investigations
unannounced and started digging at random places. He would usually hire one
or two workers, whom he closely supervised. Furthermore, he himself would
enter into the excavation and break up the larger chunks of sediment with
his own hands. In a few cases, he let selected workers, who were paid
only for their labor, work under the supervision of a trusted assistant. 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.
Here follow excerpts from accounts by Boucher de Perthes and others of these
later discoveries. They are taken from the proceedings of the local Société
d'Émulation. Most French towns had such societies, composed of educated
gentlemen, government officials, and businessmen.
On April 19, 1864 Boucher de Perthes took a worker to the gravel pit, and
on the exposed face of the excavation pointed out some places for a worker
to dig. Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 219) "designated every spot where he
should strike with his pick." In this manner, he discovered a hand axe, two
other smaller worked flints, and several flint flakes. Then the worker's pick
"struck an agglomeration of sand and gravel, which broke apart, as did the
bone it contained." Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 219) stated "I took from
the bank the part that remained, and recognized the end of a human femur."
This find occurred at a depth 2.3 meters, in the hard, compacted bed of yellowish
brown sand and gravel lying directly above the chalk. In this, as in all cases,
Boucher de Perthes had checked very carefully to see that the deposit was
undisturbed and that there were no cracks or fissures through which a bone
could have slipped down from higher levels (p. 219). Digging further at the
same spot, he encountered small fragments of bone, including an iliac bone,
40 centimeters from the femur and in the same plane (p. 219).
On April 22, Boucher de Perthes found a piece of human skull 4 centimeters
long in the yellow brown bed. This yellow-brown bed contains in its lower
levels some seams of yellow-grey sand. In one of these seams. Boucher de Perthes
found more skull fragments and a human tooth (1864b, p. 220).
On April 24, Boucher de Perthes was joined by Dr. J. Dubois, a physician
at the Abbeville municipal hospital and a member of the Anatomical Society
of Paris. They directed the digging of a worker in the yellow-brown bed. They
uncovered some fragments too small to identify. But according to Dubois they
displayed signs of incontestable antiquity. Boucher de Perthes and Dubois
continued digging for some time, without finding anything more. "Finally,"
stated Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 221), "we saw in place, and Mr. Dubois
detached himself from the bank, a bone that could be identified. It was 8
centimeters long. Having removed a portion of its matrix, Mr. Dubois recognized
it as part of a human sacrum. Taking a measurement, we found it was lying
2.6 meters from the surface." About 40 centimeters away, they found more bones,
including a phalange. They then moved to a spot close to where the jaw was
discovered in 1863. They found parts of a cranium and a human tooth, the
latter firmly embedded in a pebbly mass of clayey sand (p. 222). The tooth
was found at a depth of 3.15 meters from the surface (p. 223).
On April 28, Boucher de Perthes began a deliberate search for the other
half of the sacrum he had found on April 24. He was successful, locating
the missing half of the sacrum bone about 1 meter from where the first half
had been found. He also found a human tooth fragment in a seam of grey sand.
Studying the edge of the break, Boucher de Perthes noted it was quite worn,
indicating a degree of antiquity (1864b, p. 223).
On May 1, accompanied for most of the day by Dr. Dubois, Boucher de Perthes
found three fragments of human skulls, a partial human tooth, and a complete
human tooth (1864b, p. 223). On May 9, Boucher de Perthes (pp. 223-224) found
two human skull fragments, one fairly large (9 centimeters by 8 centimeters).
On May 12, Boucher de Perthes carried out explorations in the company of
Mr. Hersent-Duval, the owner of the Moulin Quignon gravel pit. They first
recovered from the yellow bed, at a depth of about 2 meters, a large piece
of a human cranium, 8 centimeters long and 7 centimeters wide. "An instant
later," stated Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 224), "the pick having detached
another piece of the bank, Mr. Hersent-Duval opened it and found a second
fragment of human cranium, but much smaller. It was stuck so tightly in the
mass of clay and stones that it took much trouble to separate it."
On May 15, Boucher de Perthes extracted from one of the seams of grey sand
in the yellow-brown bed, at a depth of 3.2 meters, a human tooth firmly embedded
in a chunk of sand and flint. The tooth was white. Boucher de Perthes (1864b,
p. 225) noted: "It is a very valuable specimen, that replies very well to
the . . . objection that the whiteness of a tooth is incompatible with its
being a fossil." He then found in the bed of yellow-brown sand "a human metatarsal,
still attached in its matrix, with a base of flint"(p. 225). In the same bed
he also found many shells, which also retained their white color. Boucher
de Perthes (1864b, p. 226) observed: "Here the color of the bank, even the
deepest, does not communicate itself to the rolled flints, nor to the shells,
nor to the teeth, which all preserve their native whiteness." This answered
an earlier objection to the antiquity of the original Moulin Quignon jaw and
a detached tooth found along with it.
On June 6, Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 230) found in the yellow-brown
bed, at a depth of 4 meters, the lower half of a human humerus, along with
several less recognizable bone fragments. On June 7, he recovered part of
a human iliac bone at the same place (p. 231). On June 8 and 9, he found
many bone fragments mixed with flint tools, including many hand axes. Later
on June 10, he returned with three workers to conduct bigger excavations.
He found two fragments of tibia (one 14 centimeters long)and part of a humerus
(p. 231). These bones had signs of wear and rolling. They came from a depth
of 4 meters in the yellow-brown bed. Please note that I am just recording
the discoveries of human bones. On many days, Boucher de Perthes also found
fragments of bones and horns of large mammals.
Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 232) noted that the human bones were covered
with a matrix of the same substance as the bed in which they were found. When
the bones were split, it was found that traces of the matrix were also present
in their internal cavities (p. 232). Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 232) noted
that these are not the kinds of specimens that could be attributed to "cunning
workers." On this particular day, Boucher de Perthes left the quarry for
some time during the middle of the day, leaving the workers under the supervision
of an overseer. Boucher de Perthes (1864b, pp. 233-235) then reported:
In the afternoon, I returned to the bank. My orders had been punctually
executed. My representative had collected some fragments of bone and worked
flints. But a much more excellent discovery had been made--this was a lower
human jaw, complete except for the extremity of the right branch and the
teeth.
My first concern was the verify its depth. I measured it at 4.4 meters,
or 30 centimeters deeper than the spot where I had that morning discovered
several human remains. The excavation, reaching the chalk at 5.1 meters,
faced the road leading to the quarry. It was 20 meters from the point, near
the mill, where I found the half-jaw on March 28, 1863.
The jaw's matrix was still moist and did not differ at all from that of
all the other bones from that same bed. The matrix was very sticky, mixed
with gravel and sometimes with pieces of bone, shells, and even teeth.
The teeth were missing from the jaw. They were worn or broken a little above
their sockets, such that the matrix that covered them impaired their recognition.
The deterioration was not recent, but dated to the origin of the bank.
Although I did not see that jaw in situ, after having minutely verified
the circumstances of its discovery, I do not have the least doubt as to its
authenticity. Its appearance alone suffices to support that conviction. Its
matrix, as I have said, is absolutely identical to that of all the other
bones and flints from the same bed. Because of its form and hardness, it
would be impossible to imitate.
The worker in the trench, after having detached some of the bank, took it
out with his shovel. But he did not see the jaw, nor could he have seen it,
enveloped as it was in a mass of sand and flint that was not broken until
the moment that the shovel threw it into the screen. It is then . . . that
it was seen by the overseer.
He recognized it as a bone, but not seeing the teeth, he did not suspect
it was a jaw. Mr. Hersent-Duval, who happened to come by at that moment, was
undeceived. He signaled the workers and told them to leave it as it was, in
its matrix, until my arrival, which came shortly thereafter.
After a short examination, I confirmed what Mr. Hersent had said. It was
not until then that the workers believed. Until that moment, the absence of
teeth and the unusual form of the piece, half-covered with clay, had caused
even my overseer himself to doubt.
I therefore repeat: here one cannot suspect anyone. Strangers to the quarry
and the town, these diggers had no interest in deception. I paid them for
their work, and not for what they found. . . . Dr. Dubois, to whom I was eager
to show it, found it from the start to have a certain resemblance to the
one found on March 28, 1863.
On June 17, Hersent-Duval had some workers dig a trench. They encountered
some bones. Hersent-Duval ordered them to stop work, leaving the bones in
place. He then sent a message for Boucher de Perthes to come. Boucher de Perthes
arrived, accompanied by several learned gentlemen of Abbeville, including
Mr. Martin, who was a professor of geology and also a parish priest. Boucher
de Perthes (1864b, pp. 235-237) stated:
Many fragments, covered in their matrix, lay at the bottom of the excavation,
at a depth of 4 meters. At 3 meters, one could see two points, resembling
two ends of ribs.
Mr. Martin, who had descended with us into the trench, touched these points,
and not being able to separate them, thought that they might belong to the
same bone. I touched them in turn, as did Abbey Dergny, and we agreed with
his opinion.
Before extracting it, these gentlemen wanted to assure themselves about
the state of the terrain. It was perfectly intact, without any kind of slippage,
fissures, or channels, and it was certainly undisturbed. Having acquired this
certainty, the extraction took place by means of our own hands, without the
intermediary of a worker.
Mr. Martin, having removed part of the envelope of the extracted bone, recognized
it as a human cranium. And the two points at first taken as two ends of ribs,
were the extremities of the brow ridges. This cranium, of which the frontal
and the two parietals were almost complete, astonished us with a singular
depression in its upper part.
This operation accomplished, we occupied ourselves with the bones fallen
to the bottom of the quarry. They were three in number, covered by a mass
of clay so thick that one could not tell the kind of creature to which they
belonged. Much later, they were identified by Dr. Dubois as a human iliac
bone, a right rib, and two pieces of an upper jaw, perhaps from the same head
as the partial cranium, because they came from the same bed.
Having continued our excavation, we found yet another human bone, and we
probably would have encountered others, if we had been able, without the danger
of a landslide, to carry out the excavation still further.
All of this was recorded by Abbey Dergny, in a report signed by him and
professor Martin . . . one of the most knowledgeable and respected men of
our town.
On July 9th, a commission composed of the following individuals made an
excavation at Moulin Quignon: Louis Trancart, mayor of Laviers; Pierre Sauvage,
assistant to the mayor of Abbeville, and member of the Société
d'Émulation of that town; F. Marcotte, conservator of the museum of
Abbeville, and member of the Société d'Émulation and
the Academy of Amiens; A. de Caïeu, attorney, and member of the Société
d'Émulation and the Society of Antiquaries of Picardy; and Jules Dubois,
M.D., doctor at the municipal hospital of Abbeville, member of many scientific
societies (Dubois 1864a, p. 265).
At the quarry they carried out excavations at two sties. Marcotte, who had
proclaimed his skepticism about the discoveries, was chosen to direct the
digging of the workers. "He had the base of the excavation cleared away until
it was possible to see the chalk, upon which directly rested the bed of yellow-brown
sand," said Dubois (1864a, p. 266) in his report on the excavation of the
first site in the quarry. "After we assured ourselves that the wall of the
cut was clearly visible to us and that it was free of any disturbance, the
work commenced under our direct inspection." After 15 minutes of digging,
Marcotte recovered a bone that Dubois (1864a, p. 266) characterized as probably
a piece of a human radius 8 centimeters long. The bone was worn and covered
by a tightly adhering matrix of the same nature as the surrounding terrain.
The excavation proceeded for a long time without anything else being found
until Mr. Trancart found part of a human femur or humerus (p. 267). Some minutes
later Trancart recovered a broken portion of a human tibia.
The commission then moved to the second site, about 11 meters away. It is
movements like these that remove suspicions the bones were being planted.
Dubois (1864a, p. 267) stated: "Here again we had to clear away the base of
the section to reveal the actual wall of the quarry. The same precautions
were taken to assure the homogeneity of the bed and the absence of any disturbance."
At this site, Marcotte found a piece of a human femur, about 13 centimeters
long (p. 268). It came from the bed of yellow brown sand which lies directly
on the chalk. Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p. 237) noted that two hand axes
were also found on the same day.
On July 16, the members of the commission that carried out the July 9 excavation
were joined at Moulin Quignon by Mr. Buteux and Mr. de Mercey, members of
the Geological Society of France; Baron de Varicourt, chamberlain of His Majesty
the King of Bavaria; Mr. de Villepoix, member of the Société
d'Émulation; and Mr. Girot, professor of physics and natural history
at the College of Abbeville. In additional to the members of the formal commission
a dozen other learned gentlemen, including Boucher de Perthes, were present
for the new excavations.
Dubois noted in his report that the quarry wall at the chosen spot was undisturbed
and without fissures. About the workers, Dubois (1864b, p. 270) stated, "Needless
to say, during the entire duration of the work, they were the object of continuous
surveillance by various members of the commission." In examining a large chunk
of sediment detached by a pick, the commission members found a piece of a
human cranium, comprising a large part of the frontal with a small part of
the parietal (p. 270). It was found at a depth of 3.3 meters in the yellow-brown
bed that lies just above the chalk (p. 271).
Dubois's report (1864b, p. 271) stated:
Immediately afterwards, one of the workers was ordered to attack the same
bank at the same height, but 3 meters further to the left. The other worker
continued to dig at the extreme right. Is it necessary to repeat that all
necessary precautions were taken to establish the integrity of the bed there
and that the two workers each continued to be the object of scrupulous surveillance?
We went a long time without finding anything resembling a bone. The excavation
on the far right side yielded no results whatsoever. Finally, after about
three and a half hours, there came to light the end of a bone, of medium size,
situated horizontally in the bed. After its exact position was confirmed,
Mr. Marcotte himself took from the sand a complete bone, about 13 centimeters
long. . . . It was the right clavicle of an adult subject of small size.
. . . Measurements showed it was lying 3 meters from the surface, and
2.3 meters horizontally from our starting point.
Further excavation caused a landslide. The debris was cleared away, however,
and the excavation proceeded, yielding a human metatarsal. Several members
of the commission, including the geologist Buteux, saw it in place. It was
found at a depth of 3.3 meters just above the chalk in the yellow-brown bed.
It was situated about 4 meters horizontally from the line where the excavation
started (Dubois 1864b, p. 272). According to Boucher de Perthes (1864b, p.
238) the bones from this excavation, and apparently others, were deposited
to the Abbeville museum.
I find the account of this excavation extraordinary for several reasons.
First of all, it was conducted by qualified observers, including geologists
capable of judging the undisturbed nature of the beds. Second, a skilled anatomist
was present to identify the bones as human. Third, it is apparent that the
workers were carefully supervised. Fourth, some of the human bone fragments
were found at points 3 to 4 meters horizontally from the starting point of
the excavation and depths over 3 meters from the surface. This appears to
rule out fraudulent introduction. Fifth, the condition of the bones (fragmented,
worn, impregnated with the matrix) is consistent with their being genuine
fossils. I do not see how such discoveries can be easily dismissed.
Summarizing his discoveries, Boucher de Perthes (1864b) stated:
The osseous remains collected in the diverse excavations I made in 1863
and 1864 at Moulin Quignon, over an area of about 40 meters of undisturbed
terrain without any infiltration, fissure, or [p. 239] channel, have today
reached two hundred in number. Among them are some animal bones, which are
being examined (pp. 238-239).
Among the human remains, one most frequently encounters pieces of femur,
tibia, humerus, and especially crania, as well as teeth, some whole and some
broken. The teeth represent all ages--they are from infants of two or three
years, adolescents, adults, and the aged. I have collected, in situ, a dozen,
some whole, some broken, and more in passing through a screen the sand and
gravel take from the trenches (p. 240).
Doubtlessly, a lot has been lost. I got some proof of this last month when
I opened a mass of sand and gravel taken from a bank long ago and kept in
reserve. I found fragments of bone and teeth, which still bear traces of their
matrix and are therefore of an origin beyond doubt (p. 241).
Armand de Quatrefages, a prominent French anthropologist, made a report
on Boucher de Perthes's later discoveries at Moulin Quignon to the French
Academy of Sciences. Here are some extracts from the report (De Quatrefages
1864):
In these new investigations, Boucher de Perthes has employed only a very
few workers. In the majority of cases, he himself has descended into the excavation
and with his own hands has broken apart and crumbled the large pieces of
gravel or sand detached by the picks of the workers. In this manner, he has
procured a great number of specimens, some of them very important. We can
understand that this way of doing things guarantees the authenticity of the
discoveries.
On hearing the first results of this research, I encouraged Boucher de Perthes
to persevere, and to personally take every necessary precaution to prevent
any kind of fraud and remove any doubts about the stratigraphic position of
the discoveries. . . .
As the discoveries continued, Boucher de Perthes sent to me, on June 8,
1864, a box containing several fragments of bones from human skeletons of
different ages. I noted: 16-17 teeth from first and second dentitions; several
cranial fragments, including a portion of an adult occipital and the squamous
portion of a juvenile temporal; pieces of arm and leg bones, some retaining
their articulator ends; pieces of vertebrae and of the sacrum. The specimens
were accompanied by a detailed memoir reporting the circumstances of their
discovery.
I examined these bones with M. Lartet. We ascertained that most of them
presented very nicely the particular characteristics that were so greatly
insisted upon in denying the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw. In accord
with M. Lartet, I felt it advisable to persuade M. Boucher de Perthes to
make further excavations, but this time in the presence of witnesses whose
testimony could not in the least be doubted. . . . Among the more important
specimens found in these latest excavations are an almost complete lower
jaw and a cranium.
All of these finds were made in the course of excavations that were mounted
in an on-and-off fashion, without any definite pattern. That is to say, Boucher
de Perthes would suddenly proceed to the sites, sometimes alone and sometimes
with friends. Doing things like this very clearly renders any kind of fraud
quite difficult. During the course of an entire year and more, the perpetrator
of the fraud would have had to go and conceal each day the fragments of bone
destined to be found by those he was attempting to deceive. It is hardly credible
that anyone would adopt such means to attain such an unworthy goal or that
his activities would have remained for so long undetected.
Examination of the bones does not allow us to retain the least doubt as
to their authenticity. The matrix encrusting the bones is of exactly the
same material as the beds in which they were found, a circumstance that would
pose a serious difficulty for the perpetrators of the daily frauds. . . .
Because of the precautions taken by Boucher de Perthes and the testimony given
by several gentlemen who were long disinclined to admit the reality of these
discoveries, I believe it necessary to conclude that the new bones discovered
at Moulin Quignon are authentic, as is the original jaw, and that all are
contemporary with the beds where Boucher de Perthes and his honorable associates
found them.
I am inclined to agree with De Quatrefages that the later discoveries of
Boucher de Perthes tend to confirm the authenticity of the original Moulin
Quignon jaw.
At this point, I wish to draw attention to a report by Dr. K. P. Oakley
on the Moulin Quignon fossils. It is one of the few scientific reports from
the twentieth century giving any attention at all to the later discoveries
of Boucher de Perthes. Oakley gave the following results from fluorine content
testing (Oakley 1980, p. 33). The original Moulin Quignon jaw had 0.12 percent
fluorine, a second jaw (the one apparently found on June 10) had a fluorine
content of 0.05 percent. By comparison, a tooth of Paleoloxodon (an extinct
elephantlike mammal) from Moulin Quignon had a fluorine content of 1.7
percent, whereas a human skull from a Neolithic site at Champs-de-Mars had
a fluorine content of 0.05 percent. Fluorine, present in ground water, accumulates
in fossil bones over time. Superficially, it would thus appear that the Moulin
Quignon jaw bones, with less fluorine than the Paleoloxodon tooth, are recent.
But such comparisons are problematic. We must take into consideration the
possibility that much of a fossil bone's present fluorine content could have
accumulated during the creature's lifetime. It is entirely to be expected
that the tooth of an animal such as an elephant might acquire a considerable
amount of fluorine from drinking water and constantly chewing vegetable matter--much
more fluorine than the bone in a human jaw, not directly exposed to water
and food. Also, the amount of fluorine in ground water can vary from site
to site, and even at the same site bones can absorb varying amounts of fluorine
according to the permeability of the surrounding matrix and other factors.
Furthermore, fluorine content varies even in a single bone sample. In a typical
case (Aitken 1990, p. 219), a measurement taken from the surface of a bone
yielded a fluorine content of 0.6 percent whereas a measurement taken at 8
millimeters from the surface of the same bone yielded a fluorine content of
just 0.1 percent. As such, Oakley's fluorine content test results cannot be
taken as conclusive proof that the Moulin Quignon jaws were "intrusive in
the deposits" (Oakley 1980, p. 33).
If the Moulin Quignon human fossils of Abbeville are genuine, how old are
they? Abbeville is still considered important for the stone tool industries
discovered by Boucher de Perthes. In a recent synoptic table of European Pleistocene
sites, Carbonell and Rodriguez (1994, p. 306) put Abbeville at around 430,000
years, and I think we can take that as a current consensus.
Fossil evidence for the presence of anatomically modern humans at Abbeville
is relevant to one of the latest archeological finds in Europe. Just this
year Thieme (1997, p. 807) reported finding advanced wooden throwing spears
in German coal deposits at Schöningen Germany. Thieme gave these spears
an age of 400,000 years. The oldest throwing spear previously discovered was
just 125,000 years old (Thieme 1997, p. 810).
The spears discovered by Thieme are therefore quite revolutionary. They
are causing archeologists to upgrade the cultural level of the Middle Pleistocene
inhabitants of Europe, usually characterized as ancestors of anatomically
modern humans, to a level previously associated exclusively with anatomically
modern humans.
Alternatively, we could upgrade the anatomical level of the Middle Pleistocene
inhabitants of northern Europe to the level of modern humans. The skeletal
remains from Moulin Quignon, at least some of which appear to be anatomically
modern, would allow this. They are roughly contemporary with the Schöningen
spears. Unfortunately, not many current workers in archeology are aware of
the Moulin Quignon discoveries, and if they are aware of them, they are likely
to know of them only from very brief (and misleading) negative evaluations.
Why have historians and scientists alike been so skeptical of the Moulin
Quignon finds? I suspect it has a lot do to with preconceptions about the
kind of hominid that should be existing in the European Middle Pleistocene.
The following passage from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992, p. 97) is revealing:
That any knowledgeable scientist should take the Moulin Quignon jaw seriously
as a human fossil appears difficult to fathom in retrospect. Yet, despite
the support for the Neander Tal fossils as an archaic, prehistoric human,
few knew what to expect.. Clearly, many . . . still expected human fossils
to look just like modern humans; it was only a matter of finding the specimen
in the appropriately prehistoric context.
It is clear that Trinkaus and Shipman would expect to find only ancestors
of the modern human type in the European Middle Pleistocene. And today it
would be hard to find a "knowledgeable scientist" who did not share this expectation.
It is clear to me, however, that this fixed expectation may have obscured
correct apprehension of the human fossil record in Europe and elsewhere.
So perhaps it is good for researchers with different expectations to
look over, from time to time, the history of archeology.
My own expectations are conditioned by my committed study of the Sanskrit
historical writings of Vedic India (the Puranas), which contain accounts of
extreme human antiquity. In his review of Forbidden Archeology, Murray (1995,
p. 379) wrote:
For the practising quaternary archaeologist current accounts of human evolution
are, at root, simply that. The "dominant paradigm" has changed and is
changing, and practitioners openly debate issues which go right to the conceptual
core of the discipline. Whether the Vedas have a role to play in this
is up to the individual scientists concerned.
I am hopeful that some individual scientists will in fact decide that the
Vedas do have a role to play in changing the conceptual core of studies in
human origins and antiquity.
But let us return to the more limited question before us. As far as the
finds of human bones at Moulin Quignon are concerned, I would be satisfied
if a professor of archeology at a European university, perhaps in France
and Belgium, would assign some graduate students to reopen the investigation.
Literature Cited
Aitken, M. J. (1990) Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London, Longman.
Boucher de Perthes, J. (1864a) Fossile de Moulin-Quignon: Vérification
Supplémentaire. In Boucher de Perthes, J., Antiquités Celtiques
et Antédiluviennes.
Memoire sur l'Industrie Primitive et les Arts à
leur Origin (Vol. 3). Paris, Jung-Treutel, pp. 194-214.
Boucher de Perthes, J. (1864b) 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 Boucher
de Perthes, J., Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes. Memoire
sur l'Industrie Primitive et les Arts à leur Origin (Vol. 3).
Paris, Jung-Treutel, pp. 215-250.
Carbonell, E. and Rodriguez, X. P. (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.
Cremo, M. A., and Thompson, R. L. (1993) Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden
History of the Human Race. San Diego, Bhaktivedanta Institute.
Delesse, A. (1863) La mâchoire humaine de Moulin de Quignon. Mémoires
de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 2: 37-68.
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.
Dubois, J. (1864a) Untitled report of excavation at Moulin Quignon, on July
9, 1864. Société Impériale d'Émulation. Extrait
du registre des procès-verbaux. Séance
du 21 Juillet 1864. In Boucher de Perthes, J.,
Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes. Memoire sur l'Industrie
Primitive et les Arts à leur Origin (Vol. 3). Paris,
Jung-Treutel, pp. 265-268.
Dubois, J. (1864b) Untitled report of excavation made at Moulin Quignon
on July 16, 1864. Société Impériale d'Émulation.
Extrait du registre des procès-verbaux.
Suit de la séance du 21 Juillet 1864. In
Boucher de Perthes, J., Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes.
Memoire sur l'Industrie Primitive et les Arts à leur Origin
(Vol. 3). Paris, Jung-Treutel, pp. 269-272.
Evans, John (1863) The human remains at Abbeville. The Athenaeum, July 4,
pp.19-20.
Falconer, H., Busk, George, and Carpenter, W. B. (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.
Grayson, D. K. (1983) The Establishment of Human Antiquity. New York, Academic
Press.
Keith, A. (1928) The Antiquity of Man. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott.
Murray, T. (1995) Review of Forbidden Archeology. British Journal for the
History of Science, 28: 377-379.
Oakley, K. P. (1980) Relative dating of fossil hominids of Europe. Bulletin
of the British Museum of Natural History (Geology), vol. 34.
Prestwich, J. (1863) On the section at Moulin Quignon, Abbeville, and on
the peculiar character of some of the flint implements recently discovered
there. Quarterly
Journal of the Geological Society of London, vol.
19, first part, pp. 497-505.
Thieme, H. (1997) Lower Paleolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature,
February 27, 385: 807-810.
Trinkaus, E. and Shipman, P. (1992) The Neandertals. New York, Vintage.
Wodak, J. and Oldroyd, D. (1996) . "‘Vedic Creationism’: A Further Twist
to the Evolution Debate." Social Studies of Science, vol. 26, pp. 192-213.
Back to Papers