Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Figure 9.6. Age of Homo sapiens cf. neanderthalensis at Maba, South China. Most of the mammalian fossils from Maba were identifiable only in terms of their genus, and these genera are present throughout the Pleistocene, from Early to Late. The fauna includes Hyaena, Felis tigris, Mustelidae, Ailuropoda, Ursus, Rhinoceros, Tapirus, Sus, Cervus, Bos, Hystrix, and Lepus. The extinct elephants Stegodon and Palaeoloxodon namadicus provide boundaries for the age range. Both Stegodon and Palaeoloxodon namadicus are known from Early Pleistocene sites in China (Han and Xu 1985, p. 279). But according to Aigner (1981, p. 289), Stegodon probably became extinct in the late Middle Pleistocene, possibly surviving into the Late Pleistocene (gray part of bar). Palaeoloxodon namadicus apparently became extinct during the last interglacial, in the late Middle Pleistocene or early Late Pleistocene (Nilsson 1983, p. 487). The probable age range for the Homo sa piens skull from Maba, which is said to have Neanderthaloid features, thus extends from the early Late Pleistocene to the early Early Pleistocene.

This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but a middle Middle Pleistocene date (equivalent to Zhoukoudian Locality 1) or even an Early Pleistocene date of 2 million years are also within the realm of possibility.

What conclusion may here be drawn? It would appear that at Maba we have Homo sapiens, with some Neanderthaloid features, existing within a possible date range that completely overlaps the Homo erectus presence at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Updating our list, we now find overlapping date ranges in the middle Middle Pleistocene for: (1) primitive Homo erectus ( Lantian); (2) Homo erectus (Zhoukoudian); (3) Homo sapiens (Tongzi); and (4) Homo sapiens with Neanderthaloid features (Maba).

The possibility that Homo erectus and more advanced hominids may have coexisted in China adds new fuel to the controversy about who was really responsible for the broken brain cases of Beijing man and the presence of advanced stone tools at Zhoukoudian Locality 1. Did several hominids, of various grades of advancement, really coexist in the middle Middle Pleistocene? We do not assert this categorically, but it is definitely within the range of possibilities suggested by the available data. In our study of the scientific literature, we have come upon no clear reason for ruling out coexistence other than the fact that the individuals are morphologically dissimilar.

Some will certainly claim that the fact of human evolution has been so conclusively established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is perfectly justifiable to engage in dating hominids by their morphology. But we believe this claim does not hold up under close scrutiny. As we have demonstrated in Chapters 2– 6, abundant evidence contradicting current ideas about human evolution has been suppressed or forgotten. Furthermore, scientists have systematically overlooked shortcomings in the evidence that supposedly supports current evolutionary hypotheses.

If peasants digging for fertilizer in a Chinese cave had uncovered a fully human skull along with a distinctly Pliocene fauna, scientists would certainly have protested that no competent observers were present to conduct adequate stratigraphic studies. But since the Maba skull could be fitted into the standard evolutionary sequence, no one objected to its similar mode of discovery.

9.2.5 Changyang County