Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Protsch (1974, pp. 382–383) said stone tools had been discovered in the Naisiusiu Beds, corresponding to the upper part of the old Bed V ( Table 11.1, p. 629). These were somewhat like those found at Gamble’s Cave (Upper Kenyan Capsian C), some distance away from Olduvai. At Gamble’s Cave, skeletons of Homo sapiens sapiens had been found, like Reck’s skeleton, in a contracted burial position (Protsch 1974, p. 381). Protsch thought these facts lent support to a Naisiusiu Bed origin for Reck’s skeleton. But in 1933, Louis Leakey had said that stone tools of the Upper Kenyan Capsian C type had been found just below and in the basal layers of Bed V (L. Leakey et al. 1933, p. 398). This could be taken as evidence that men like those of Gamble’s Cave (Homo sapiens sapiens) existed at least 400,000 years ago in this part of Africa.

But Protsch (1974, p. 382) said about Reck’s skeleton: “Theoretically, several facts speak against an early age of the hominid, such as its morphology.” This suggests that the skeleton’s modern morphology was one of the main reasons Protsch doubted it was as old as Bed II or even the base of Bed V.

If Reck’s skeleton were classified as Homo erectus, it is hard to imagine that anyone would now be raising any serious objections to its presence in Bed II. In 1960, a Homo erectus cranium (OH 9) was found on the surface at Olduvai Gorge (Poirier 1977, p. 223). It was nevertheless assigned to upper Bed II, giving it an age of over 1 million years. Adhering to the base of the cranium was a matrix matching that of Bed II. Yet a determined debunker could always attribute this to “secondary cementation.”

What about the observations by Leakey (1932a, p. 721) and Mollison (Protsch 1974, p. 380) that the human bones are fossilized to the same degree as the animal bones found nearby in Bed II? Protsch (1974, p. 382) said that “a relative age determined by the state of fossilization of bones is invalid for a positive chronological diagnosis.” Here, we agree with Protsch.

Yet scientists have used such determinations of relative age, as measured by differences in fluorine, uranium, or nitrogen content, to discredit many of the anomalously old Homo sapiens fossils we have discussed (such as Galley Hill). They also have used relative age determinations to date many accepted finds. But in the case of Reck’s skeleton, Protsch said such results have no value.

Curiously enough, Protsch himself used a relative age determination to confirm that the bone fragments he had tested were actually from Reck’s skeleton. Protsch (1974, p. 383) reported: “to check whether the skull and the fragmentary bones belonged together, two separate microanalytical tests were made on the skull and some post cranial primary bone. The [nitrogen] values of 0.45% (British Museum) and 0.43% (UCLA) are remarkably similar and give support to a positive association of the bones.” So to be fair, if the Bed II faunal remains and Reck’s skeleton were fossilized to a similar degree (Leakey 1932a, p. 721), could not this also be taken as supporting (although not proving) a “positive association of the bones?”

All in all, Protsch appears to have done a needed service—the cleaning up of a problem discovery, fitting it nicely into the accepted evolutionary sequence. By 1974, it is clear, no one in the mainstream of human evolutionary thought was prepared to accept a fully modern human being existing at least 400,000 years ago, contemporary with Homo erectus. Protsch himself admitted that his theoretical expectations ruled this out. By giving a plausible carbon 14 date and identifying the skeleton with tools found nearby in upper Bed V and with skeletal remains found at Gamble’s Cave along with similar tools, Protsch put Reck’s skeleton in an appropriate paleoanthropological niche. The case was closed.

But the case made by Protsch in favor of a Late Pleistocene burial was very weak. First of all, it is not at all certain that the bone sample he tested actually belonged to the original Reck’s skeleton, which, except for the skull, disappeared during the Second World War. Furthermore, the carbon 14 method is not infallible, especially when applied to bones that were exposed to contamination for over

60 years. It is also possible that the bones were contaminated with recent carbon while they were buried in the ground at Olduvai Gorge. And, as we have seen, the radiocarbon dating methods employed by Protsch have been superseded by more rigorous procedures.

11.1.6 Probable Date Range of Reck’s skeleton