Upon Reck’s return to Germany, his African discovery attracted immediate attention, both in the popular press and in scientific circles. A leading American anthropologist, George Grant MacCurdy (1924a, p. 423) of Yale University, considered Reck’s discovery to be genuine: “The human skeleton . . . came from the next to the lowest horizon (No. 2). . . . The skeleton was found some 3 or 4 meters (10 to 13 feet) below the rim of the Oldoway gorge, which here is about 40 meters [131 feet ] deep. The skeleton bore the same relation to the stratified beds as did the other mammalian remains, and was dug out of the hard clay tufa with hammer and chisel just as these were. In other words, the conditions of the find were such as to exclude the possibility of an interment. The human bones are therefore as old as the deposit (No. 2).” He also agreed that the skeleton was of modern type: “Judging from the photograph of the skeleton still
11.1.2 Leakey’s conversion
Louis Leakey (1928, p. 499) examined Reck’s skeleton in Berlin, but he initially judged it more recent than Reck had claimed. Other scientists agreed.
In 1931, Leakey and Reck, attempting to settle the issue, visited the site where the skeleton had been found. Along with them were A. T. Hopwood of the British Museum of Natural History, Donald MacInnes, and geologist E. V. Fuchs. After studying the geology, Leakey and Hopwood were won over to Reck’s point of view. Leakey was also influenced by new discoveries of stone implements in Beds I and II of Olduvai Gorge. As we have seen, Reck originally reported that no cultural remains were found in Bed II, a fact that had caused Leakey to judge the skeleton not very old (Goodman 1983, p. 107).
In a letter published in
In an article published in the
Hopwood later published his own account of the 1931 expedition to Olduvai. Hopwood (1932, p. 193) stated: “Examination of the site in 1931 confirmed the observation that the bed in which the skeleton lay was undoubtedly, Bed II.” Hopwood (1932, p. 194) added: “The slope is covered by rubble from Beds III and V in such a manner that it is difficult to see how a shallow grave could be dug and filled again without including some of this rubble.”
From his study of the stratigraphy and the rate of erosion, Hopwood concluded that as little as 250 years ago “the place where the skeleton lay would certainly have been covered by the lower hard layer [of Bed V calcrete], which is ten to twelve inches thick.” Hopwood pointed out that the calcrete layers at the site were extremely hard. He once saw laborers working with heavy crow bars take two full days to dig a hole just 2 feet square and 3 feet deep through similar material. The nearly impenetrable character of the calcrete appeared to rule out burial (Hopwood 1932, p. 194). Furthermore, the Bed II sediments themselves were quite hard at that point. The skeleton found by Reck in 1913 had to be extracted with hammers and chisels.