Reply: AN OLD THEORY IS SUPPORTED BY NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW METHODS

Transcription

1 436 American Anthropologist [56, Reply: AN OLD THEORY IS SUPPORTED BY NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW METHODS In the very brief note on the Piltdown hoax, I presented no theory of evolution but stated that, The removal of Piltdown greatly strengthens the general theory of human evolution outlined by Weidenreich (1946) in which Homo sapiens appears late. Therefore, it is surprising to find Ehrich and Henderson making no mention of Weidenreich s theories. Vallois (1949) criticized Weidenreich for not accepting Piltdown as an early Pleistocene ancestor of modern man, and Keith (1949: 229) remarks, A leading authority on such problems, Dr. Franz Weidenreich, has recently proposed that the right solution is to deny the authenticity of the Piltdown fossil remains. Here are his exact words: Eoanthropus should be erased from the list of human fossils. It is the artificial combination of fragments of a modern-human braincase with orang-utang-like mandible and teeth. That is one way of getting rid of facts which do not fit into a preconceived theory.... In retrospect it is not so easy to say what was fact and what was preconceived theory. The apparent dogmatism in my note on Piltdown arises from the fact that it was exceedingly brief, the general part occupying less than a page, and that Ehrich and Henderson in their comments have left out the qualifying words and phrases of the original. Nothing in my note states that Swanscombe and FontCchevade should be eliminated from all consideration. What I did say is that, (If the history of man is written, using only those specimens where some jaw, face, and brain case are preserved, specimens where faking is impossible and wholesale reconstruction unnecessary, then Homo sapiens appears very late, perhaps within the range of carbon 14 dating. This is a conditional statement, and the theory about the origin of Homo sapiens which results has been advocated by numerous scientists ever since Huxley. Therefore, there is no reason to be disillusioned with the work of our predecessors. Apparently Ehrich and Henderson do not recognize among their predecessors any of the numerous scientists who were right about Galley Hill and Piltdown! The criticism of my note on Piltdown seems to be directed against the implications of what I said, rather than what the note actually says. Therefore, this reply has to be long because the points at issue were not covered in the original note at all, since it was not supposed to be a paper on the origin of Homo sapiens. Even in a long reply many points can not be covered properly, as, for example, the statement that the theory that Homo sapiens originated late commits one to the idea of straight-line evolution. Obviously, it is possible that the relations among the races of anatomically primitive men were complex, and that Homo sapiens underwent a rapid adaptive radiation. However, the main point at issue is the extent to which the removal of Piltdown affects the theory that Homo sapiens is ancient. I feel that it should make a great difference in our thinking and will try to outline why this is so, taking up the major issues raised by Ehrich and Henderson in the process. There have been two major theories concerning the origin of men anatomically like ourselves. Many competent scientists have believed that Homo

2 Brief Communications 43 7 sapiens appeared late, probably during the time of the last glacial advance. Many other equally able scientists thought that Homo sapiens lived through all, or a large part, of the ice age. Both theories have been widely held for over forty years, and evidence could be produced to support both points of view. In 1946 Weidenreich regarded Homo sapiens as evolving late, while Hooton, in the same year, separated a sapiens line from a Java-Pekin-Neanderthal line in the Pliocene. Hooton says of the sapiens line, This main trunk of human development has at its base Eoanthropus (the Piltdown man), and in direct line of descent in the later Pleistocene Swanscombe, Galley Hill, and the Aurignacian man of Combe Capelle (p. 412). Since 1946 events have moved so rapidly that everyone is readjusting and what one said even a few years ago may be quite different from present belief. But it is necessary to look at the past a little more to understand subsequent events. I have mentioned Weidenreich and Hooton, not in the spirit of praise or blame, but as representatives of different traditions. In general, the Germans never accepted early Homo sapiens or Piltdown. The English accepted early sapiens, and the Americans have followed the English tradition. One might put the matter this way: apparently it was as hard for a German to believe in early Homo sapiens as it was for an Englishman to be a skeptic. HrdliEka followed the German tradition. I am no intellectual historian and make no pretense of having read the vast literature on fossil man, but the influence of the intellectual tradition on the interpretation of human fossils is so great that the record makes little sense without considering it. As a part of these traditions, we all have built-in preconceived notions. Was it dogmatic for Weidenreich to accept the result of Friederich s study, showing that the Piltdown jaw was that of an ape? Or was it dogmatic for Hooton to reject this conclusion? Each acted in accord with previous belief and in accord with the tradition to which he belonged. Both were right. The jaw was that of an ape, but it was impossible that such a jaw should be associated with a sapiens skull by chance. Both were wrong in that neither saw the possibility of a fake as the explanation. It is easy to refer to the other person s guesses as preconceived and dogmatic, but from the point of view of the developing science of human evolution the essential point is that progress comes when Ihe area open fo personal debate is narrowed. The development of chemical dating methods makes it possible to settle some of the problems which up to now have been matters of personal opinion. Frequently human bones have been found under circumstances in which there is real doubt about their associations and the more such problems can be settled by methods which are independent of intellectual traditions the more rapidly our understanding of human evolution will progress. In 1948 three fossils were offered as proof that Homo sapiens had lived before the third interglacial period. These were Piltdown, Galley Hill, and Swanscombe. Now Galley Hill has been shown to be recent (Montagu and Oakley 1949) and Piltdown a fake (Weiner, Oakley, and Clark 1953). Swanscombe consists of an occipital and parietal, and might be either Neanderthal or sapiens; as Morant (1938: 79) stated, The two bones give insufficient evi-

3 438 American Anthropologisf 156, dence to determine the status of the individual at all conclusively. While admitting the limitations of the evidence Morant remarks, As far as can be seen, the Swanscombe and Steinheim skulls were quite similar, and it is not unlikely that they represent the same Acheulian group (p. 97). There seems to be no conclusive evidence of sapiens before the third interglacial period. The FontCchevade fossils (Vallois 1949) of late third interglacial date are the next earliest fossils which may be Homo sapiens. Before commenting on them, it should be stressed how much later they are than Piltdown and Galley Hill were supposed to be. The theory that modern man existed all through the Pleistocene is very different, and much less probable, than the belief that Homo sapiens existed in the third interglacial. To say that the disqualification of the Piltdown skull changes little in the broad evolutionary pattern (Ehrich and Henderson) is only true if one s beliefs are so strong that they can continue, even if supported by no fossils. It may be possible to match the FontCchevade fragments in such Neanderthals as Ehringsdorf, Saccopastore or Teshik-Tash. The point at issue is not likely to be settled by any one study or by the methods usually used in the study of fossil men. Comparisons of both Swanscombe and the two FontCchevade fragments have been primarily with the late European Neanderthals (La Ferrassie, La Chapelle). To demonstrate that the FontCchevade fragments are different from this late peripheral race of Neanderthal men does not prove that they are different from the earlier forms who lived at the time of FontCchevade (Howell 1951). The history of the two great theories on the origin of Homo sapiens over the last forty years is remarkably different. Great antiquity has been claimed for many fossils which are indistinguishable anatomically from Homo sapiens, but these have been discredited one after the other. Vallois (1949; Boule and Vallois 1952) list many of these, even pointing to one fraud in addition to Piltdown (Moulin-Quignon)! In contrast the number of anatomically primitive and geologically ancient fossils has steadily increased. In reviewing the history of the idea that Homo sapiens is very ancient, Keith (1949) says that he had expected fossils would be found which would prove the antiquity of the modern type of man, but he says, The tide of discovery went dead against me (p. 265). There are now more fossils which support the classic theory (as Vallois called it, 1949) than ever before and not one half-complete skull is left to compel the belief that men like us are ancient. In the study of human evolution there will always be room for many differences of opinion and for doubt. Discussion will be more profitable if the criteria for believing in fossils are outlined. Ideally, there should be three or four individuals, both skulls and the rest of the skeleton, together with artifacts in a datable geological layer. Such finds are all too few, but those which exist tell a perfectly consistent story. Primitive types of man are early, and Homo sapiens is late. Less conclusive are instances with several, incomplete specimens, lacking cultural associations. Java man is such a case where the later finds confirmed the first and added to our understanding of the popula-

4 Brief Communications 439 tion. Under these circumstances all finds of primitive man are early and those of Homo sapiens very late. Less satisfactory are isolated jaws or brain cases, but still the pattern of evolution seems the same. It is not until fragments are taken as proofs that cases of supposedly Homo sapiens appear earlier than ancient men in the same area. (However, Rhodesian man may have been later than Homo sapiens elsewhere. Clearly there must have been some overlap in areas of replacement. Perhaps the time of overlapping was very short.) To the best of my understanding it is correct to say that if human history is written using only specimens as well preserved and documented as Java man, Steinheim, or Saccopastore, then there is not a single specimen of Homo sapiens earlier than the last glacial advance. If less complete or less certainly dated fossils are admitted as evidence, then other theories are possible. The quality and quantity of data which support the theory that Homo sapiens appeared near the end of the Pleistocene, rather than at the beginning, is impressive. It has increased steadily, while that supporting the opposing theory has decreased. Yet, as the communication from Ehrich and Henderson shows, there is plenty of room for disagreement and doubt. However, in retrospect I think that those who based their theories on well dated and moderately well preserved specimens have been involved in less futile controversy? Relative to the Mt. Carmel fossils, the discoveries at Kafzeh (Boule and Vallois 1952) show that this kind of population was widespread. This greatly strengthens the position taken by McCown and Keith (1939) that the fossils are from a population which is transitional between ancient and modern types of man. Homo sapiens appears later in Palestine, just as he should if the evolutionary theory is correct. I know of no fossils which are certainly sapiens and certainly earlier than the Mt. Carmel and Kafzeh finds, and, therefore, I think that the evolutionary theory is more probable than the hybridization one. The importance of experiment in understanding human evolution can be illustrated by the Piltdown jaw. Keith (1929) criticized Smith Woodward s reconstruction of Piltdown, which had a very apelike muzzle, and reconstructed the front of the jaw much more vertically with smaller incisor teeth. The reconstructions are quite different, and each depended on the opinion of an expert. But now there are methods which will reduce the area open to debate. Seipel (1948), using the split-line technique, has shown that the simian shelf is composed of stressed bone. From a comparative point of view, large simian shelves appear when both incisor and canine teeth are large. Putting this information together and working from a cast and the literature, I had come to the conclusion that the Piltdown face must have been at least as apelike as in the Smith Woodward reconstruction. This seemed so improbable if the Oakley-Hoskins (1950) dating was correct that I expected to find that something was wrong in the interpretation of the Piltdown simian shelf. Could it have been exaggerated by postmortem deformation, pathology, or some mistake in reconstruction? When Oakley showed me the jaw it was obviously a natural split-line preparation. The jaw was cracked all over in a way which revealed the stress pattern of the bone and the cracks ran into the simian

5 440 A merican A nlhropologist [56, shelf showing that it was a perfectly normal structure. Small cracks following the stress lines often appear, but the cracks in the Piltdown jaw are very large, looking like those of bone which has been slightly decalcified and dried. Because long continued boiling of bone, especially in a slightly acid solution to remove fat, might create a very similar effect, we were engaged in trying to produce a Piltdown jaw when the revealing paper by Weiner, Oakley and Clark (1953) arrived. But the essential point is not Piltdown or theories of human evolution. The combination of the comparative and the experimental method gives anthropologists very powerful tools which they are only beginning to use. That the simian shelf of the Piltdown jaw is a normal structure which was stressed in life is not a matter of personal opinion but can be proved. This fact strongly favors the ape-face kind of reconstruction, and the possibilities and limitations of reconstruction can be experimentally verified in a way quite independent of personal opinion. Tappen s (1953) analysis of the face is a step in this direction. Any interpretation or reconstruction should depend on a dynamic conception of the nature of bone based on controlled experiment. The bones will talk to us as they never have before, but the language they speak is learned in the laboratory. The Piltdown jaw was studied more than any other fossil primate, and yet obvious features in its anatomy were never noticed. No matter how many fossils are found, what we see in them will depend on our theories and on our experience. The purpose of experiment is to enrich that experience so that we may see more clearly. S. L. WASHBURN, University of Chicago NOTES The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research sent me to Europe last summer to attend the conference on Early Man in Africa, organized by Dr. K. P. Oakley. Through the kindness of Dr. Oakley it was possible to examine the original specimens of Swanscombe and Piltdown. Professor Vallois generously allowed me to see the Fontkhevade and Kafzeh fossils. Seeing the originals, even for a very short time, has been of the greatest value in helping to understand the literature. I found that I had been quite misled by casts in the case of both the Piltdown and La Chapelle jaws. a HrdliEka (1930:66) remarked on Piltdown, It is another case where a desire to reach conclusions from insufficient and problematic material has led to a cloud of speculation and opinion, where substantial definite deductions are impossible. REFERENCES CITED BOULE, MARCELLIN and HENRI V. VALLOIS 1952 Les hommes fossiles: ClCments de paleontologic humaine. Paris, Masson. HOOTON, EARNEST ALBERT 1946 Up from the ape. New York, Macmillan. HOWELL, F. CLARK 1951 The place of Neanderthal man in human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, n.s. 9, No. 4: HRDLI~~KA, ALES 1930 The skeletal remains of early man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 83. Washington, D. C.

6 Brief Communications 441 KEITH, SIR ARTHUR 1929 The antiquity of man. Philadelphia, Lippincott A new theory of human evolution. New York, Philosophical Library. MCCOWN, THEODORE D. and SIR ARTHUR KEITH 1939 The stone age of Mount Carmel: the fossil human remains from the Levalloiso- Mousterian, Vol. 11. Oxford, Clarendon Press. MONTAGU, M. F. ASHLEY and KENNETH P. OAKLEY 1949 The antiquity of Galley Hill man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, n.s. 7, No. 3: MORANT, G. M The form of the Swanscombe skull. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 68: London. OAKLEY, KENNETH P. and C. RANDALL HOSKINS 1950 New evidence on the antiquity of Piltdown man. Nature 165: SEPEL, CARL MICHAEL 1948 Trajectories of the jaws. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 8, No. 2: TAPPEN, N. C A functional analysis of the facial skeleton with split-line technique. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, n.s. 11, No. 4: VALLOIS, HENRI V The FontBhevade fossil men. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, n.s. 7, NO. 3 : WEIDENREICH, FRANZ 1946 Apes, giants and man. University of Chicago Press. WEINER, J. S., K. P. OAKLEY and W. E. LE GROS CLARK 1953 The solution of the Piltdown problem. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 2. No. 3: FURTHER DOCUMENTATION OF STONE PILING DURING THE PLATEAU VISION QUEST A large variety of aboriginally constructed stone monuments has been noted in the Columbia River valley as a consequence of recent intensive archeological activity in that area. One of the most interesting groups occurs upon a long basaltic talus slope, some five hundred feet above the north bank of the Columbia River opposite the town of Mosier, Oregon (seventy miles east of Portland). Several varieties of structures are present: (1) low, rectangular, cairn-like piles of stone with axes perpendicular to the general flow of the slope, and formed by quarrying from the talus, thus leaving a shallow pit on the up-slope side; (2) high, stone walls, one and one-half to three feet wide and two to five feet high, that cross the flow of the slope and frequently intersect in a geometric zig-zag motif; and (3) deep, circular pits, quarried to a maximum depth of eight feet into the slope, and surrounded by a high lip formed of the material so removed. This group of structures covers with varying intensity an area of approximately ten acres. A similar group of stone works occurs in the Mosier area and others have been noted by air survey as far east as the John Day Canyon (forty-five miles) and south into the Wasco Mountains (thirty miles), Smith (1910: 13-14, 141) has reported a seeming parallel from the Yakima Valley, Washington, and another from Mason County, Oregon.