Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

After reproducing statements from Reck’s original reports, Hopwood (1932, p. 194) stated: “It is clear that Professor Reck, when he found the skeleton, thought it possible that he might be dealing with an intrusive burial, that he was careful to look for evidence for this, and that he failed to find it.”

Hopwood (1932, p. 195) concluded: “it seems to follow from the original evidence of Professor Reck that the skeleton lay in undisturbed sediment without trace of foreign matter. The ethnological evidence appears to show, that despite physical resemblances, the skeleton is not of the Masai, who inhabit the country today, and that in pre-Masai days the actual part of the bed was in such a position that it was inaccessible to a tribe only with native tools. Hence the conclusion of my colleagues and myself that the skeleton was enclosed in Bed II before that bed was covered by later deposits; and in that sense we regard the skeleton as contemporary with Bed II.”

Around this time, Sir Arthur Keith, who initially thought Reck’s skeleton recent, also adopted the Bed II date. But not everyone agreed with the conclusion that Leakey and Hopwood reached after their 1931 expedition.

11.1.3 Cooper and Watson launch their Attack

In February of 1932, Nature printed a letter by zoologists C. Forster Cooper of Cambridge and D. M. S. Watson of the University of London. They suggested that the completeness of the skeleton found by Reck clearly indicated it was a recent burial (Cooper and Watson 1932a, p. 312).

Cooper and Watson (1932a, p. 312) stated: “Complete mammalian skeletons of any age are, as field palaeontologists know, of great rarity. When they occur, their perfection can usually be explained as the result of sudden death and immediate covering by volcanic dust.” Even here, Cooper and Watson admitted that examples of complete, naturally-deposited skeletons, although rare, do in fact occur. They gave one circumstance for such an occurrence and indicated there might be others.

Cooper and Watson, casting further doubt on the claimed age for Reck’s skeleton, contended that no one had yet found anatomically modern human skeletal remains anywhere near as old. They dismissed the Galley Hill skeleton, claiming it was “never seen in situ by any trained observer” (Cooper and Watson 1932a, p. 312). This is not unreasonable. As far as we can tell, the Galley Hill skeleton could be recent, but there is also evidence suggesting it could be from the middle Middle Pleistocene (Section 6.1.2.1). Cooper and Watson then mentioned the Ipswich skeleton, observing that it had “been withdrawn by its discoverer.” While it is true that J. Reid Moir did change his mind about the age of the Ipswich skeleton, our own study (Section 6.1.3) shows that there is still reason to think it might be from the middle Middle Pleistocene.

Cooper and Watson (1932a, p. 312) then referred obliquely to “other fragments, found long ago . . . entirely without satisfactory evidence as to their mode of occurrence.” They ignored (or were ignorant of) the finds at Castenedolo, Italy (Section 6.2.2). There G. Ragazzoni, a professional geologist, found in situ, in a Pliocene formation, a fairly complete and anatomically modern human skeleton, as well as parts of others.

In May 1932, Leakey replied to Cooper and Watson. In a letter to Nature, he argued that no more than 50 years ago the reddish-yellow upper part of Bed II would have been covered by an intact layer of bright red Bed III. If the skeleton had been buried in recent times (50 or more years ago), there should have been a mixture of bright red and reddish-yellow sediments in the grave filling. Such was not the case. “I was lucky enough personally to examine the skeleton at Munich while it was still intact in its original matrix,” wrote Leakey, “and could detect no trace whatever of such admixture or disturbance.” He added: “The bones of the skeleton . . . are, as far as I know, every bit as mineralized as most of the bones from Bed No. 2 itself” (L. Leakey 1932a, p. 721). This would argue against their being very recent.

Leakey, however, agreed with Cooper and Watson that Reck’s skeleton had arrived in its position in Bed II by burial, but he did not think the burial was recent. “My own personal belief,” wrote Leakey, “is that contemporary man, living on the edge of the then existing Oldoway lake, buried the skeleton into the muddy, clayey edge of the lake whilst Bed No. 2 was in the process of being deposited, for Bed No. 2 is essentially a shallow water deposit at the place where the skeleton was found” (L. Leakey 1932a, p. 721). Reck, on the other hand, believed that the individual had drowned and been covered by sedimentation.