Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

On March 18 and March 19, 1933, the human biology section of the Royal Anthropological Institute met to consider Leakey’s discoveries at Kanam and Kanjera. Chaired by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, 28 scientists issued reports on four categories of evidence: geological, paleontological, anatomical, and archeological (Woodward et al. 1933, pp. 477– 478). The geology committee concluded that the Kanjera and Kanam human fossils were native to the beds in which they were found. The paleontology committee said the Kanam beds were Early Pleistocene, while the Kanjera beds were no more recent than Middle Pleistocene. The archeology committee noted the presence at both Kanam and Kanjera of stone tools in the same beds where the human fossils had been found.

The anatomical committee said the Kanjera skulls exhibited “no characteristics inconsistent with the reference to the type Homo sapiens ( Woodward et al. 1933, p. 477). The same was true of the Kanjera femur.

About the Kanam jaw, the anatomy experts said: “With the possible exceptions of the thickness of the symphysis, the conformation of the anterior internal surface, and what seems to be a large pulp-cavity of the first right molar tooth, the Committee is not able to point to any detail of the specimen that is incompatible with its inclusion in the type of the Homo sapiens” ( Woodward et al. 1933, p. 478). The symphysis, the joint between the two halves of the lower jaw, runs down the middle of front part of the jaw.

The species designation Homo sapiens, as employed today by most, although not all, paleoanthropologists, includes early Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens (fully modern humans). But in 1933, the Neanderthals were generally considered distinct from Homo sapiens, and the first representatives of early Homo sapiens, as presently conceived by many workers, either had not been discovered or had not been reported to the scientific world. The first report on the Steinheim skull, discovered in 1933, came out in 1935. And the Swanscombe skull fragments were not found until 1935 and 1936. So when the members of the anatomical committee classed the Kanjera skulls and Kanam jaw as Homo sapiens, they presumably meant they were within the range of anatomically modern humans.

Although the committee stated that the remains could be classified as Homo sapiens, Leakey assigned the jaw to a new species, Homo kanamensis, which he considered the immediate ancestor of Homo sapiens. According to Cole (1975, pp. 103–104), Leakey later dropped the name kanamensis in favor of sapiens.

11.2.4 Boswell strikes Again

Shortly after the 1933 conference gave Leakey its vote of confidence, geologist Percy Boswell began to question the age of the Kanam and Kanjera fossils. Leakey, who had experienced Boswell’s attacks on the age of Reck’s skeleton, decided to bring Boswell to Africa, hoping this would resolve his doubts. But all did not go well.

Upon returning to England, Boswell (1935) submitted to Nature a negative report on Kanam and Kanjera: “Unfortunately, it has not proved possible to find the exact site of either discovery, since the earlier expedition (of

1931–32) neither marked the localities on the ground nor recorded the sites on a map. Moreover, the photograph of the site where the mandible was found, exhibited with the jaw fragment at the Royal College of Surgeons, was, through some error, that of a different locality.” Having examined Leakey’s original field notes, Boswell (1935) said “it is regrettable that the records are not more precise.”

Boswell found the geological conditions at the sites confused. He said that “the clayey beds found there had frequently suffered much disturbance by slumping.” From this Boswell (1935) concluded: “The date of entombment of human remains found in such beds would be inherently doubtful.”

But what about the committee that had given Leakey its endorsement? “It seems likely,” said Boswell (1935) “that if the facts now brought forward had been available to the Committee, a different report would have been submitted.” Boswell concluded that the “uncertain conditions of discovery . . . force me to place Kanam and Kanjera man in a ‘suspense account.’”

11.2.5 Leakey Responds