There are problems with this Early Pleistocene age for Yuanmou
In this regard, Lewis R. Binford and Nancy M. Stone (1986, p. 15) stated: “It should be noted that many Chinese scholars are still wedded to the idea that man evolved in Asia. This view contributes to the willingness of many to uncritically accept very early dates for Chinese sites and to explore the possibility of stone tools being found in Pliocene deposits.” One could also say that because Western scholars are wedded to the idea that humans evolved in Africa they uncritically reject very early dates for hominid fossils and artifacts around the world.
As previously mentioned, one need not suppose that either Africa or Asia was a center of evolution. There is, as shown in preceding chapters, voluminous evidence, much found by professional scientists, suggesting that humans of the modern type have lived on various continents, including South America, for tens of millions of years. And, during this same period, there is also evidence for various apelike creatures, some resembling humans more than others.
A question encountered in our discussions of anomalous cultural remains (Chapters 2–5) once more arises: What justification does one have for attributing the stone tools and signs of fire at Yuanmou to primitive
The tools and signs of fire were not found close to the
Furthermore, as seen in this chapter, there is much evidence that
Aigner, representing mainline anthropological thought, reacted predictably to Jia Lanpo’s suggested early dating for the Yuanmou hominid. She stated: “The hominid and faunal remains, as well as contemporaneous artifacts [occur] in level 25 at the base of the fourth stratigraphic unit, equivalent to earliest Middle Pleistocene times. A paleomagnetic age of 1.7 million years would place the strata and
In 1983, the original paleomagnetic dating of 1.7 million years for the Yuanmou site, reported by Li Pu and his associates in 1976 and reconfirmed in 1977 by Cheng and his associates, was challenged by Liu Dongsheng and Ding Menglin (Wu, X. and Wang, L. 1985, p. 35). They proposed a different explanation of the magnetostratigraphic sequence at Yuanmou.
According to Wu Xinzhi and Wang Linghong: “Liu and Ding prefer to correlate the normal polarity member at Yuanmou with the Brunhes Epoch rather than with an event of normal polarity within the Matuyama. Furthermore, they have concluded that the layer yielding the fossils of