Peking Man

Peking Man. Sinathropus pekinensis, of the genus Homo erectus. Believed by many scientists to be a primitive human being, an ancestor of modern man. But who is Peking Man, really?

Peking Man consists of a number of teeth and skull fragments that were discovered in a cave near Peking, China between 1920 and 1930. According to the textbook Streams of Civilization, Beijing Museum authorities say that Peking Man began with an old tooth purchased from an apothecary shop by Davidson Black, who then traced the tooth to the caves near Chou-k'ou-tien, China. A team was sent out to the site, and soon other bone fragments were found.1

According to chapter five of Evolution of a Creationist, Christopher Janus claims that there were casts of 175 fossil fragments before the Japanese invasion of China. Ibid (pg 32) supposedly states that there were "5 skulls, about 150 jaw fragments and teeth, 9 thigh bones and fragments, 2 upper arm bones, a collar bone, and a wrist bone." Another source disagrees as to the number and type of fragments.2

So, what's the confusion? Why can't the scientists just sit down and count the fragments and agree that 1+1 fragments = 2 fragments? Well, the problem is, the fragments of Peking Man mysteriously disappeared during shipping in the midst of WWII. In fact, source two even goes so far as to say that each fragment was lost and that not a single one remains, while most sources, such as Discovery News in a recent article on Peking Man (source three), maintain that most, not all, of the specimens were lost.3 It is now at least mostly only the casts, which are said to be of high quality, that remain.

Already it is clear that Peking Man is surrounded by a large amount of confusion and mystery. But what about the original bones themselves?

Source one (1) says that the bones were examined by only a few scientists, but that they were thought to be very old. In fact, Discovery News states that new dating (aluminum to beryllium ratio dating) of quartz and other material found in the cave with the fossils suggests that the fossils are 200,000 years older than previously thought, making them about 770,000 years old.3 However, this dating may be quite inaccurate, especially since it assumes consistency of the aluminum-beryllium ratio and decay rate throughout history, which cannot be confirmed. In fact, history and science themselves

show many cases of inconsistency in such things.

But what about the identity of the bones: are they really the bones of primitive humans, the ancestors of modern man? While almost 100 percent of scientists would say yes, there are still those who disagree. There are some scientists who would say that the remains were those of some sort of ape. For instance, source two states that photos of the Peking skulls show holes in the back of the skull where, the source suggests, real Homo sapiens broke in to grab a quick meal of brains. The source states that "As early as 1957, French paleontologist, Dr. Marcellin Boule, proposed that the people who made the tools that killed Peking Man were true Homo sapiens."

However, this idea seems practically impossible when confronted with the counter-argument of my fourth source. Source four says that the broken parts of the skulls "are the most fragile parts which are least likely to be preserved" and suggests that they fell prey to abusive hyenas, the bones and feces of which were frequently discovered during the excavation. It also cites cannibalism as another possible explanation. Then the article boldly refutes any argument that the skulls are those of apes by pointing out that "the largest skullcap, about 1225 cc, is twice" the size of that of a large male gorilla, thus making it too large for any known ape.4

To what creature, then, do the Peking bones truly belong? Source four sheds some insight on this by saying that the skulls are very similar to (but larger than) some Homo erectus skulls, one of which, the source claims, is attached to a body recognized as human (the Turkana Boy). It adds that the bones are almost identical, besides their great thickness, to those of modern humans, while the lower jaw supposedly consists of a mingling of human and ape-like characteristics.4

These words fall in surprisingly well with the words of Streams of Civilization, source one. This source says that modern Chinese men have the same kind of teeth as Peking Man and that rural farmers also use the same kind of tools as those found with Peking Man. At this point, I wish to suggest that perhaps Peking Man was (and is) in fact human, merely a slightly different version of the modern Homo sapiens. If Turkana Boy can be recognized as human, and Neanderthal can be called a human with a stooped posture due to arthritis and lack of vitamin D, then why not Peking Man?1

As a last thought, and as a footnote to perhaps throw you into further confusion, I will mention a startling fact from source two. This source states that The Search for Peking Man mentions Teilhard De Chardin, one of the perpetrators of the Piltdown hoax, as being involved in the discovery of Peking Man.2 If this is true, then the entire credibility of the Peking Man remains and casts is thrown into entire doubt and uncertainty. Without the original fragments to examine, there is no way to be sure that they are not also just a chemical-treated hoax, as the Piltdown remains were. †


 


References

  1. Stanton, Mary and Albert Hyma. Streams of Civilization: Volume One. Christian Liberty Press, 1992: Arlington Heights, Illinois. Pages 17-18.

  2. Evolution of a Creationist: Chapter Five. http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2005.htm

  3. Discovery News. “Peking Man Endured Frigid Climate”. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/11/peking-man-02.html.

  4. Creationist Arguments: “Peking Man”. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html.

 

Prev   Next

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.