Przegląd Antropologiczny – Anthropological Review • Vol. 63 (2000)
Eightieth year of Peking Man: Current status of Peking Man and the Zhoukoudian site
Qian Wang1,2, Li Sun 2 1 Department of Anatomical Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd., Parktown 2193, South Africa, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 643, 100044 Beijing, China ABSTRACT The current status of and recent developments around Peking Man and Zhoukoudian are reviewed. The taxonomic status, phylogenetic posi- tion, cultural attributes and taphonomy of Peking Man are in question, and a new chronological frame for the Zhoukoudian site is emerging. Post-war excavation, current Peking Man specimens, the research unit, personalities, commemoration, and classic books are introduced, with special reference to the search for the long-missing Peking Man fossils. KEY WORDS Peking Man, Zhoukoudian, Homo erectus, “Sinanthropus” Prz. Antropol. – Anthropol. Rev. (2000), vol. 63, pp. 19–30, ISBN 83-86969-60-1, ISSN 0033-2003
Anniversaries are not only times for looking back at the past, Nor for appraising where we stand at the present. They are times for looking forward. Phillip V. Tobias, 1997
The excavation of the Peking Man site It was in the summer of 1921, when at Zhoukoudian disclosed the antiquity of Johan G. Anderson, a Swedish geologist, humankind in China, and revolutionized picked up a quartz fragment from cave people’s perception of his long past. The deposits at a small hill at Zhoukoudian events, such as the legendary start, the epic (formerly Chou-kou-tien), the Peking excavation, amazing discoveries, the mys- Man site of today [ANDERSON 1934]. terious disappearance, the hunt for the mis- That began the Peking Man saga. This sing fossils, together with colorful person- year marks the 80th year of Peking Man. alities associated with prehistoric Peking In fact, also in 1921, Otto Zdansky dug at Man at Zhoukoudian have constituted a Zhoukoudian and found the first Peking classic chapter in paleoanthropology of the Man specimen, an isolated tooth, that he 20th century. It is a story full of hope, seren- did not announce until years later dipity, sensation, mystery and tragedy. [BLACK 1926; ZDANSKY 1927]. Thus, on 20 Qian Wang, Li Sun the occasion of the 80th year of Peking Homo erectus became Peking Man’s Man, it is interesting to reflect on how scientific name. Recently, however, it ideas have changed to and what has de- was argued by some anthropologists that veloped in relation to Peking Man and there is no distinct or valid demarcation Zhoukoudian. between H. erectus and H. sapiens, so they should be lumped into the evolu- The name: from Homo erectus to Homo tionary species – Homo sapiens [WOL- uncertain POFF et al. 1994; WOLPOFF 1996]. But Although Zdansky identified human from a cladistic point of view, H. erectus characters in the first two teeth of the is a valid species of Eastern Asia Peking Man fossils, he preferred to label [ANDREWS 1984]. Although there is still them “?Homo sp.” (with a question no consensus on how Peking Man should mark), meaning an “uncertain” human be named, “Peking Man”, as the common [ZDANSKY 1927]. Then, based on the name, has survived. One can even find third tooth unearthed by Berger Bohlin, “Peking Man” in an English-Chinese Davidson BLACK [1927] observed a dictionary. number of interesting and unique chara- Phylogenetic position: from missing link cters and named a new genus and species to cul-de-sac? for the primitive human that once lived near Peking, Sinanthropus pekinensis, The phylogenetic position of H. meaning “Chinese Man of Peking”. From erectus is the basic point of divergence of then on, it was popularly called Peking two opposing hypotheses of the origin of Man. The emergence of the first com- modern humans, the “Multiregional plete skullcap of Peking Man, discovered model” and the “Out-of-Africa” concept. by W. C. Pei in 1929, quited the harsh At first, Peking Man was perceived as the criticism to Black’s interpretation based missing link between apes and humans. on a single tooth, and the resemblance BLACK [1926: p. 734] initially concluded between S. pekinensis and Pithecanthro- that “the Chou K’ou Tien discovery pus erectus, which Eugene DUBOIS therefore furnishes one more link in the [1894] found in Java in 1891, conclu- already strong chain of evidence sup- sively vindicating the human nature of porting the hypothesis of the central the latter. Ironically, the striking resem- Asiatic origin of the Hominidae”. Peking blance between the two Eastern Asian Man then inevitably helped to eclipse the hominid clans had led scholars repeatedly real missing link, Dart’s Australopithe- to lump them together or to let Peking cus, for at least two decades [TOBIAS et Man sink into Pithecanthropus [ZUCKER- al. 2000]. As the first recognized early MAN 1933; BOULE 1937; KOENIGSWALD primitive hominid in Mainland Asia, & WEIDENREICH 1939]. In 1940 Weiden- Peking Man was a logical ancestor of reich proposed Homo erectus as a taxon modern humans in Eastern Asia. to include both Pithecanthropus erectus WEIDENREICH [1943] observed some and Sinanthropus pekinensis. H. erectus common features shared by Peking Man was ultimately universally accepted in and modern Mongoloids, such as the low the 1950s after MAYR [1951] supported and flat face, high frequency of the Inca the “lumping” trend. From then on, bone, shovel-shaped incisors, and he Eightieth year of Peking Man 21 believed that Peking Man was ancestral WANG & TOBIAS 2000a]. The question to modern Chinese. He also hypothesized as to whether Peking Man is a link to that there had been continuity in human modern humans or a link to nowhere, evolution in China since Peking Man. remains, and it seems there is no answer Confirmation of this hypothesis has be- to this puzzle of pre-paradigm in sight come one of the chief objects of Chinese [ŠTRKALJ 2000]. prehistoric research. After the universal recognition of Australopithecus and then Family: from Beijing (Peking) to Nanjing H. habilis, and the shift of the perceived The Peking Man-like human remains, cradle of humankind from Asia to Africa, including a skull found in Hexian, Anhui this situation has changed considerably. Province in 1981 [WU & DONG 1982], As FRANZEN [1994] pointed out, H. cranial fragments from Yiyuan, Shang- erectus “is still considered a fossil human dong Province in 1981 [XU 1986], and being, not one situated somewhere near two skulls from Tangshan (Nanjing), ape-like ancestors of Man, but very close Jiangsu Province in 1993 [LU 1996], already to Homo sapiens, so close that it suggest that the family of Peking Man seems almost to amalgamate with it”. was widespread throughout areas from The proponents of Multiregional origins northern China to the territory across the of modern humans stressed the ancestor- Yangtze River during the Middle Pleisto- descendant relationship between H. cene [WANG & TOBIAS 2000b]. The erectus and H. sapiens [WOLPOFF et al. Tangshan (Nanjing) skull No. I even 1984, 1994; WOLPOFF 1996; WU 1990; provides an almost complete left face WU & POIRIER 1995]. However, when (the first intact face of H. erectus found invoking cladistic analysis, some schol- in China), which enables us to know ars proposed to exclude H. erectus from what Peking Man looked like [WANG & being ancestral to modern H. sapiens, TOBIAS 2000a]. and regarded it as a dead end, or cul-de- sac [ANDREWS 1984; STRINGER 1984]; Date: a suppressed chronological frame thus, Peking Man is neither a missing link nor an ancestor. Besides, genetic The level of the cave deposits at analyses of both modern people around Zhoukoudian containing the fossil teeth the world [CANN et al. 1987], and people was initially estimated to be Late Tertiary of different ethnic groups in China [CHU or Early Quaternary, and thus BLACK et al. 1998] suggest that modern Chinese [1926] called Peking Man a “Tertiary have a very recent beginning thus pro- Man”! A reliable numerical time scale viding the Out-of-Africa theory with did not emerge until the 1960s when strong support. On the other hand, accu- several techniques, including U-series mulating osteological and paleolithic disequilibrium, fission track, paleomag- cultural evidence in China strongly sup- netism, thermoluminescence and amino ports the regional continuity model of acid racemization, were conducted during human evolution and consequently the a multidisciplinary research project. Multiregional origins of modern humans From then on, Peking Man was generally [WU R. 1986; WU X. 1990; WU & accepted to have lived from 460,000 to POIRIER 1995; LING 1996; ZHANG 1999; 230,000 years B.P. [WU et al. 1985]. 22 Qian Wang, Li Sun Together with the morphological features king Man reconstructed by Weidenreich of Peking Man, the date of Zhoukoudian and Swan [WEIDENREICH 1943]. The plays a pivotal role in the assignment and face is low and flat with middle facial dating of other human fossils found in flexion, and the antero-lateral surface of China. However, the apparent co- the frontal process of the zygomatic bone existence of H. erectus and early H. faces forward. These features taken to- sapiens, and the ensuing confusion on gether show a general modern Mongo- how to interpret this phenomenon, led loid-like face. Yet there are some flaws people to cast doubt on the authenticity due to the artificial combination of a of these accepted dates of Peking Man female cranial cap (skull XI or LII) while [CHEN & ZHANG 1991]. Recent attempts a male maxillary bone No. V, even to reanalyze the age of Zhoukoudian though it was mentioned that maxillary deposits have disclosed that the currently bone No. II was chosen in the recon- accepted chronological frame was a struction. So, the zygomatic bone had to result of compression. The new age by be turned to some degree to make contact U-series technique of speleothem in with the maxillary and the frontal bones. Layer 3 at Peking Man site Locality 1, This mismatch results in a narrowing of where the youngest and also the most the mid-face, arching of the supra-orbital advanced specimen of Peking Man, skull torus, reshaping of the orbit, a lowering V, was found, showed that the latest ob- of the horizontal position of the zygo- served Peking Man to be older than matic arch and a protrusion of the lower 400,000 years B.P., while the earliest was face, and so on [WANG 1999]. However, probably over 800,000 years B.P. [SHEN these flaws induced by incompleteness of & JIN 1991; SHEN in press]. If these new the fossils used do not affect its authori- dates are validated, then the duration of tative status: the partial face attached to human occupation at Zhoukoudian, the Tangshan (Nanjing) skull I confirms its evolutionary process of humankind in basic morphologic and topographic pat- China, and other time-related aspects tern [WANG & TOBIAS 2000a]. should be reconsidered. TATTERSALL & SAWYER [1996] made a new reconstruction based on restored Reconstruction: from female to male casts. They gave Peking Man a new face: As the face, as a whole, seems to have male this time. This face is narrow and been too fragile to be totally preserved high and is in harmony with the skull. over half million years owing to tapho- However, it also shows some features nomical reasons, the key problem in the usually detected in Afro-European Mid- reconstruction of Peking Man is to re- dle Pleistocene hominids, e.g., the an- build topographically the facial architec- tero-lateral surface of the frontal process ture and then to combine it with one of of the zygomatic bones faces more later- the current six relatively complete skull- ally, and the degree of facial flatness is caps. Many people have done such work low. These together make this male face over the past sixty years in various mu- topographically different from those of seums or relevant units, but few have H. erectus in East Asia to some extent publicised their results. The most popular [WANG 1999]. The very impressive pre- study is one of the skull of a female Pe- historic Peking Man couple (Weidenreich Eightieth year of Peking Man 23 & Swan’s woman, and Tattersall & Peking Man the fire user Sawyer’s man), appear on the cover of One of Peking Man’s most amazing M.H. Wolpoff’s magnum opus, Human attributes is his use of fire [BLACK 1931]. Evolution (1996-1997 edition) [WOLPOFF Piles of ashes with abundant burnt: soil, 1996]. bones and seeds, as well as scorched Taphonomy: cave home to Peking Man stones found in situ at Zhoukoudian or hyenas? (Locality 1 and 15) provide conclusive evidence of fire use and control by Pe- As abundant human fossils, artifacts, king Man. Apparently, Peking Man used animal fossils, and ash residues are usu- fire to cook, illuminate, warm himself ally considered convincing evidence of and keep wild beasts away. Thick ash occupation of hunter-gatherers, Zhou- piles also reflect that Peking Man could koudian has long been accepted logically sustain fire for quite a long time. Peking as the cave home of Peking Man [CHIA Man might have collected fire from a 1975]. However, BINFORD & HO [1985] natural bush or prairie fire. However, the proposed that all bones, including the issue of fire use at Zhoukoudian was human remains, were brought in by hye- challenged in 1998. The ash residues nas and other carnivores. Thus, Peking were reintepreted as accumulations of Man was only a victim of carnivores, and organic material laid down under water. Zhoukoudian was a cave home to carni- Therefore Peking Man’s capacity to con- vores rather than to Peking Man. This trol and use fire was denied, and it was was echoed by WEINER et al. [1998], questioned anew whether Zhoukoudian when they dealt with the issue of fire use was a home site of Peking Man or not (see below). In fact, there are 5 layers [WEINER et al. 1998]. However, this (No. 13, 10, 8-9, and 6) containing hyena sensational claim failed to convince the coprolites, indicating that hyenas repeat- majority in the prehistoric field. The en- edly used the cave as a den. Perhaps the suing rebuttal and heated discussion at Zhoukoudian cave at different times the meeting in October 1999 on the occa- served as home to Peking Man and to sion of the commemoration of the dis- hyenas. The finding that all skullcaps of covery of the first skull of Peking Man Peking Man were baseless, and that rela- led to Peking Man’s use of fire use being tively few post-cranial skeletons were favored again [WU 1999; WEINER et al. found in the cave, led WEIDENREICH 1999]. [1943] to propose that the individuals represented by the fossils were victims of Searching for missing Peking Man Peking Man living at the Zhoukoudian specimens cave. They were consumed like other game. On this view Peking Man was a Peking Man was accepted, although cannibal. The loss of almost all Peking only temporarily, as the “Missing Link”. Man skulls makes it impossible to scan Unfortunately, the missing link went them with state-of-the-art technology in missing again. The Peking Man fossils order to clarify whether the human re- found at Zhoukoudian in the period be- mains were accumulated by either carni- tween 1927 and 1937 mysteriously dis- vores or cannibals. appeared during the Japanese invasion of 24 Qian Wang, Li Sun China in 1941. The 80th year of Peking currently continuing. No one seems to Man also marks the 60th year of the dis- know where the fossils are. As time appearance of pre-war Peking Man passes, the search for the missing Peking specimens. Five skulls, 16 cranial frag- Man fossils is probably becoming a mis- ments, 16 facial fragments, 14 mandibles, sion impossible. However, it continues. 147 teeth (64 isolated, including the type Searching for the missing Peking Man specimen of Sinanthropus pekinensis, specimens will be more a rite than a real- and others attached to jaws), 7 femora, ity. It is salutary to remember how mod- 2 humeri, 1 clavicle and 1 lunate consti- ern humans sinned against their ancestors tute an inventory of the “missing bones”. through such an attempt. Only high quality casts of these missing specimens survived. Weidenreich had Post-war excavations and current Peking systematically described the entire set of Man specimens Peking Man remains found at Zhou- Fieldwork at Zhoukoudian resumed in koudian before the War. His comprehen- 1949, and took place again in 1951, sive work on Peking Man [WEIDENREICH 1958-1960, 1966 and 1978-1981. A 1936a,b, 1937, 1941, 1943], together handful of human fossils were found with BLACK’S [1927, 1929, 1930a,b] during these excavations. Below is an contribution, became particularly valu- inventory of current Peking Man speci- able after the loss of the original Peking mens housed at the University of Uppsala Man fossils. (pre-war specimens), and the Institute of Soon after the surrender of Japan, the Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoan- Chinese Government requested the thropology (post-war specimens). Allied Army to aid the search for the missing Peking Man specimens in To- Uppsala University of Sweden – 3 iso- kyo. But the search was in vain (although lated teeth held at Uppsala since 1923 some non-hominid ZKD fossils were [BLACK 1926; ZDANSKY 1927, 1952]: found in Japan), as was true of sub- Left lower P3 (1921) sequent attempts. From then on, much Right upper M3 (1923) information and many clues streamed Right lower P4 (1950, recognized in lab from into the IVPP (today’s Zhoukoudian Zdansky’s 1920s ZKD collection). team, see below), openly or secretly, IVPP – 6 isolated teeth, 1 mandible with obtrusively or unobtrusively, but without a tooth, 2 cranial fragments, 2 fragmen- any substantial consequence. Parts of the tary long bones, found or identified since searching activities were recorded in 1949 [WOO & CHIA 1954, WOO & CHAO several books, such as: Peking Man 1959, CHIU et al. 1973]: [SHAPIRO 1974]; The Search for Peking Left upper I1, left lower M1, left lower M2 Man [JANUS & BRASHER 1975]; and (1949) The Story of Peking Man [JIA & Right upper P3 (1951) HUANG 1990]. In 1999, L. Jia (formerly Lower middle part of a tibia (1951, recog- L.P. Chia), a veteran of Zhoukoudian, nized in lab from pre-war collection) launched a new search for the long Small fragment of middle part of right femo- missing Peking Man fossils, code-named ral shaft (1951, recognized in lab from “Search at end of the century”, which is pre-war collection) Eightieth year of Peking Man 25 Mandible (body), with a left M1 (1959) H. erectus in the world both then and Right lower P3 (1966) now. In 1960, the State Council of China Frontal and occipital fragments of skull V or proclaimed the Peking Man site as a na- H (1966): the two fragments fit well with tional monument. In 1989, UNESCO the parietal and temporal parts of both formally placed it on the World Heritage sides found before the war (only casts List in view of its unique value in illus- left) and together constitute an almost trating prehistoric human society and the complete skullcap. It is the 6th skullcap of process of human evolution in East Asia. Peking Man, coming from Layer 3. Today, the Zhoukoudian site is fre- quented by scholars of prehistory and Potential cave deposits prehistory-minded tourists from all over It was long estimated that at least one the world. third of the total cave deposits at Zhou- koudian was untouched, which allowed Zhoukoudian team: from CRL to IVPP hope for the recovery of more Peking The Cenozoic Research Laboratory Man fossils. That was confirmed in 1996 (CRL) within the Peking Union Medical [WANG & TOBIAS 2000b], when engi- School and the National Geological Sur- neers from Electricité de France (EDF) vey of China, set up in 1929 by Davidson employed an electro-magnetic method to Black and other colleagues, based on the explore the whole hill where Locality 1, Zhoukoudian team, was the initial pre- the major Peking Man site, and other historic research unit in China. Scholars adjacent sites are scattered, and detected from seven countries once worked at the many potential Pleistocene deposits, CRL before the War and set up an ex- which probably connect all the sites cellent example of international co- through an underground cave system. operation. Now the CRL has grown and The investigation was initiated by Prof. become the Institute of Vertebrate Pale- Yves Coppens. UNESCO and EDF sub- ontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) mitted the formal report of results of this within the Chinese Academy of Sciences. new Zhoukoudian investigation to the The IVPP is one of the top seven paleo- Chinese government in November 1998. anthropological research units in the Thus it seems that a new round of exca- world and also one of the most prestig- vation is in sight. ious paleontological research units. Many international paleoanthropologists, paleo- Zhoukoudian, the Peking Man site: from lithic archaeologists and paleontologists mausoleum to monument have visited it one or more times and The cradle of Chinese prehistoric re- some have conducted or are conducting search, Zhoukoudian, the Peking Man joint projects with Chinese scholars. site, is located at the foot of the Western Almost all the prehistoric research work Mountain, 50 kms southwest of Beijing. in China is based at the IVPP. Since The pre- and post-war discoveries of Zhoukoudian was discovered, over one human fossils, together with abundant thousand prehistoric sites have been mammal fossils, artefacts, ash residues recognized in China, among them nearly and other remains, make the Zhou- seventy sites that have yielded human koudian the largest single seedbed of fossils. 26 Qian Wang, Li Sun Commemoration days in 1936, which made sensational news in the scientific world after Pei’s The excavation and research at Zhou- find in 1929. Huang was director of koudian entitles the pioneer scholars, Zhoukoudian field station in the 1960s- including Johan Anderson, Otto Zdansky, 70s. On the 70th anniversary of the dis- Berger Bohlin, Davidson Black, Franz covery of the first skull of Peking Man, Weidenreich, Pierre Teihard de Chardin, another book, The Chronicle of Zhou- Wen Chung Pei, and others, to be en- koudian (1927-1937), edited by JIA shrined in the Pantheon of paleoanthro- [1999], was published. It is in fact an pology. They, together with Lanpo Jia album, containing hundreds of valuable old (still alive and active) are collectively photographs of excavation, discoveries, honored as the founders of prehistoric personalities, historic events, and so on, research in China. There are also a num- with legends in English. It is best to read ber of anniversaries associated with Pe- the two books concurrently. Together king Man and personalities mentioned they weave a vivid legend of human his- above. The most important is the discov- tory in words and pictures. ery of the first skull of Peking Man by W. C. Pei on 2 December 1929. A peri- Peking Man in the Internet odical paleoanthropological symposium to commemorate the historic event has The internet greatly improves the been organized in the IVPP every five transmission of knowledge. Peking Man years since 1954. The last one took place and Zhoukoudian are taking advantage of in 1999 on the occasion of its 70th anni- this too. There is a special web site versary. This international gathering is
STRINGER C.B., 1984, The definition of Homo WEINER S., Q. XU, P. GOLDBERG, J. LIU, O. BAR- erectus and the existence of the species in YOSEF, 1998, Evidence for the use of fire at Africa and Europe, Courier Forschungs- Zhoukoudian, China, Science, 281, 251-253 Institut Senckenberg, 69, 131-143 WEINER S., Q. XU, P. GOLDBERG, J. LIU, O. BAR- ŠTRKALJ G., 2000, The conflict of pre-paradigm YOSEF, 1999, Use of fire by humans: evidence schools in modern human origins research, from Layer 10 Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian, Acta Biotheoretica, 48, 65-71 [in:] Book of abstracts of the International Sym- TATTERSALL I., G.J. SAWYER, 1996, The skull of posium on Palaeoanthropology in Comme- “Sinanthropus” from Zhoukoudian, China: a moration of the 70th Anniversary of the Disco- new reconstruction, J. Hum. Evol., 31, 311-314 very of the First Skull of Peking Man at Zhou- TOBIAS P.V., 1997, A septuagenarian looks at the koudian, 12-16 October 1999, Beijing, 103 septuagenary Wits Medical School, The WOLPOFF M.H.,1996, Human Evolution (1996- Leech, 66, 3-17 1997 edition), McGraw-Hill Inc., New York TOBIAS P.V., Q. WANG, J.L. CORMACK, 2000, WOLPOFF M.H., A.G. THORNE, J. JELINEK, Y. Davidson Black and Raymond A. Dart: Asian- ZHANG, 1994, A case for sinking Homo erectus African parallels in palaeo-anthropology, – 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough! Acta Anthrop. Sinica, 19, (in press) Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, 171, WANG Q.,1999,Comments on restoration of Peking 341-361 Man’s skull, [in:] Book of abstracts of the Inter- WOLPOFF M.H., X. WU, A.G. THORNE, 1984, national Symposium on Palaeoanthropology in Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil Discovery of the First Skull of Peking Man at evidence from East Asia, [in:] Origins of Zhoukoudian, 12-16 October 1999, Beijing, 18 modern humans: a world survey of the fossil WANG Q., P.V. TOBIAS, 2000a, Review of the evidence, Smith F.R. & Spencer F. (eds), Alan phylogenetic position of Chinese Homo erec- R, Liss, New York, 414-484 tus in light of midfacial morphology, Acta WOO J.K., L.P. CHIA, 1954, New discovery of a Anthrop. Sinica, 19, (in press) Sinanthropus pekinensis in Choukoutien, Acta WANG Q., P.V. TOBIAS, 2000b, Recent advances Paleontol. Sinica, 2, 267-288 in Chinese palaeo-anthropology, S. Afr. J. WOO J.K., T.K. CHAO, 1959, New discovery of a Sci., 96, (in press) Sinanthropus mandible in Choukoutien, Pale- WEIDENREICH F., 1936a, The mandibles of Sinan- overtebrata et Paleoanthropologia, 1, 155-158 thropus pekinensis: a comparative study, WU R., 1986,Chinese human fossils and the origin Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D, 7(3), 1-162 of Mongoloid racial group, Anthropos (Brno), WEIDENREICH F., 1936b, Observations on the form 23, 151-155 and proportions of the endocranial casts of WU R., X. DONG, 1982, Preliminary study of Sinanthropus pekinensis, other hominids, and Homo erectus remains from Hexian, Anhui, the great apes: a comparative study of brain Acta Anthropol. Sinica, 1, 2-13 size, Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D, 7(4), 1-50 WU R., M. REN, X. ZHU, et al. (eds), 1985, Multi- WEIDENREICH F., 1937, The dentition of Sinan- disciplinary study of the Peking Man Site at thropus pekinensis: a comparative odontogra- Zhoukoudian, Science Press, Beijing phy of the hominids, Palaeontologia Sinica, WU X., 1990, The evolution of humankind in New Series D, 1, 1-180 China, Acta Anthropol. Sinica, 9, 312-321 WEIDENREICH F., 1940, Some problems dealing WU X., 1999, Investigating the possible use of fire with ancient man, Am. Anthrop., 421, 375-383 at Zhoukoudian, China, Science, 283, 299 WEIDENREICH F., 1941, The extremity bones of WU X., F.E. POIRIER, 1995, Human evolution in Sinanthropus pekinensis, Palaeontologia Sini- China: a metric description of the fossils and a ca, New Series D, 5, 1-150 review of the sites, Oxford University Press, WEIDENREICH F., 1943, The skull of Sinanthropus New York pekinensis: a comparative study on a primitive XU S., 1986, Human fossils found at Qizianshan, hominid skull, Palaeontologia Sinica, New Yiyuan County, Shandong, Acta Anthropol. Series D, 10, 1-484 Sinica, 5, 398-399 Eightieth year of Peking Man 29
ZDANSKY O., 1927, Preliminary notice on two ZHANG S., 1999, On the important advancement of teeth of a hominid from a cave in Chiihli the Paleolithic archaeology in China since (China), Bull. Geol. Soc. China, 5, 281-284 1949, Acta Anthropol. Sinica, 18, 183-214 ZDANSKY O., 1952, A new tooth of Sinanthropus ZUCKERMAN S., 1933, Sinanthropus and other pekinensis Black, Acta Zoologica, 33, 189-191 fossil types, Eugenics Review, 24, 273-284
Streszczenie
„Człowiek pekiński” (zwany także sinantropem) ze stanowiska Zhoukoudian w Chinach jest jednym z najważniejszych znalezisk paleoantropologicznych XX wieku. Rozpoczyna się już osiemdziesiąty rok jego istnienia w nauce (pierwsze znalezisko z 1921 roku) i warto zasta- nowić się, jak zmieniły się nasze poglądy i jaki dokonał się postęp w badaniach szczątków tego człowieka i samego stanowiska Zhoukoudian, z którego pochodzi. Davidson Black w 1927 roku nadał znalezisku nową nazwę rodzajową i gatunkową, Sinan- thropus pekinensis, co oznacza „chiński człowiek z Pekinu”; od lat pięćdziesiątych włączony został do gatunku Homo erectus i pod taką nazwą naukową występuje do dzisiaj. Ostatnio jed- nak, pojawiają się propozycje [WOLPOFF et al. 1994], by włączyć gatunek H. erectus do ewolu- cyjnego gatunku H. sapiens, ponieważ nie ma pomiędzy nimi wyraźnej linii demarkacyjnej. Pozycja filogenetyczna H. erectus stała się punktem spornym dla zwolenników dwu odmiennych koncepcji pochodzenia anatomicznie współczesnego człowieka: koncepcji „multiregionalnej” i koncepcji wywodzącej go z Afryki (Out-of-Africa). Zwolennicy pierwszej uważają, że H. erectus jest bezpośrednim przodkiem H. sapiens, drugiej, że jest on boczną, bezpotomną ga- łęzią naszego drzewa rodowego. Dowody osteologiczne i archeologiczne z Chin zdecydowanie popierają ciągłość regionalną w ewolucji człowieka, a więc i multiregionalny model tej ewolucji. Zbliżone do człowieka pekińskiego kopalne hominidy, znalezione we wschodnich Chinach, sugerują, że w środkowym plejstocenie formy z tego kręgu szeroko i w sposób ciągły rozprze- strzenione były na obszarach od północnych Chin po dorzecze Jangcy. Datowanie stanowiska Zhoukoudian na 460 do 230 tys. lat temu, pochodzące z lat siedemdziesiątych, jest prawdopo- dobnie zbyt późne i ciągle trwają próby nowych oszacowań jego wieku. Wydaje się, że naj- młodsi przedstawiciele tej formy pochodzą sprzed co najmniej 400 tys. lat. Liczne szczątki kopalnego człowieka, narzędzia, szczątki zwierzęce, warstwy popiołu, jak również pochodzące od hien koprolity świadczą o tym, że jaskinia Zhoukoudian w różnych czasach była schronie- niem człowieka pekińskiego i hien. Grube warstwy popiołu, przepalona ziemia, kamienie, kości i nasiona, odkryte in situ w Zhoukoudian, zdecydowanie potwierdzają, że człowiek pe- kiński posługiwał się ogniem. Warto dodać, że oprócz rekonstrukcji żeńskiej twarzoczaszki sinantropa, wykonanej w 1943 roku przez Weidenreicha i Swana, dysponujemy obecnie rekon- strukcją czaszki o twarzy męskiej autorstwa Tattersalla & Sawyera (1996 r.). Szczątki kostne wydobyte na stanowisku Zhoukoudian w latach 1927-1937 znikły w tajem- niczych okolicznościach w trakcie inwazji japońskiej na Chiny w 1941 r. Ich poszukiwania trwają do dzisiaj. Po wojnie badania na stanowisku podejmowano w latach 1949, 1951, 1958- 60, 1966, 1978-81, wydobywając: 6 izolowanych zębów, jedną żuchwę z zębami, dwa frag- menty czaszki i dwie fragmentaryczne kości długie. Znaleziska te znajdują się w cieszącej się zasłużoną sławą instytucji Instute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), działającej w obrębie Chińskiej Akademii Nauk. Instytucja ta powstała z dawnej pracowni o nazwie Cenozoic Research Laboratory. Badania elektro-magnetyczne przeprowadzone na złożach stanowiska Zhoukoudian pozwalają spodziewać się obecności w nich dalszych szcząt- ków człowieka pekińskiego. 30 Qian Wang, Li Sun Począwszy od roku 1954, co pięć lat odbywają się sympozja upamiętniające odkrycie pierwszej czaszki człowieka pekińskiego przez W.C. Pei, co miało miejsce 2 grudnia 1929 r. W języku angielskim ukazały się dwie książki o podstawowym znaczeniu dla poznania historii człowieka pekińskiego: The Story of Peking Man, której autorami są Lanpo Jia i Weiwen Huang, oraz The Chronicle of Zhoukoudian (1927-1937), napisana przez Jia. W Internecie istnieją również strony (w języku chińskim) poświęcone historii odkryć, zespołu badawczego i najnowszych badań związanych z człowiekiem pekińskim oraz stanowiskiem Zhoukoudian.