Science in Christian Perspective
Proto-neolithic Adam and Recent Anthropology
E. K. VICTOR PEARCE*
Royal Anthropological Institute
36 Craven St., London, WC2, England
Additional comment by Paul H. Seely and George J. Jennings
From: JASA 23 (December 1971): 130-139.
*
E. K. Victor Pearce took a degree in Anthropology at London
University and later,
at Oxford, conducted research in prehistoric archaeology. He is the author of
The Origin of Man, a CRUSADE publication, and Who Was Adam? reviewed
on page 137
of this issue.
If we accept that Adam of Genesis 2 to 4 was Proto-ncolithic, as represented there, we find that the culture sequences and technologies in the rest of Genesis correlate with Prehistory. An understanding of the characteristics of a Genesis toicdoth helps us to see that earlier man could be referred to in Genesis 1. The anthropology described by Seely which brins him into diffi culties is more that of the 19th century, than of the 20th. Recent anthropology gives its a more biblical picture. It admits the existence of more than one hiatus, and regards the present races as having a common source not more than 30,000 years ago, and possibly as recent as 12,000 Before Present (B.P.)
Types of men earlier than Homo sapiens of the Upper Paleolithic (i.e. before 30,000 B.P.) have left no progeny. Austral opithieinae, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalenis have all died out. None of the races alive today is descended from them. Australian aboriginals are no exception, neither are Bushmen or Hottentots. The date of man's entrance into America put by some at 25,000 B.P. does not affect the issue.
Introduction
Paul Seely1 commendably faces up to a problem concerning early man and Genesis.
We are also indebted to those whom he quotes, i.e., James Bnswell III
of the Dept.
of Anthropology, St. John's University, and T. C. Mitchell of the
British Museum,
who have also ventilated the problem which was ignored before.
The problem is that Adam of Genesis 2 to 4 is described as a farmer.
Farming was
not practised until the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 B.P. But Adam is
represented
as being the first man, whereas true men existed hundreds of thousands of years
earlier and were of Palcolithie vulture.
False Premises Give Inaccurate Solutions
Unfortunately Seely develops the problem in a way which misses the solution. He
outlines a theory of anthropology which has since been eclipsed, finds it is in
conflict with the Genesis picture, and concludes that Adam was not intended to
be interpreted literally but symbolically (If such is the ease from whom is our
Lord's descent traced?) He further complicates matters by stating
that "There
are true men in today's world who descended from Paleolithic ancestors. Their
physical and cultural descent has not been interrupted. There is no
place in their
historical descent to insert a Neolithic Adam as their father."
(But we shall show that this is not the opinion of most anthropologists.)
He is correct, however, in stating that Christian anthropologists are
in agreement
that men who were truly human existed in Paleolithic times before a Neolithic
Adam.
Further he quotes Jan Lever that Australian aborigines go hack to Neanderthal
and even Pithecanthropus in features. All responsible anthropologists
would deny
this, for among other things the morphology of the skulls in question
is essentially
different.
Concerning African Bushmen and Eskimos he says they probably lived in
their present
isolated biotype more than 10,000 years. This does not make them Paleolithic,
and recent research concerning Eskimos places them quite late in
human history.
Still further he says "There is no marked hiatus or
discontinuity in racial
type or cultural sequence," and that in the Shanidar Valley an
almost continuous
sequence of human history dates from the times of the Neanderthals. lie quotes
Buswell as saying something similar. Now, we intend to show that
since the Neanderthals
there are two hiatuses in Soleeki's Shanidar Stratigraplsy:2 one of
10,000 years
between Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens, and one of
15,000 years
between Upper Paleolithic and Proto
neolithic.
It would seem that Seely's conclusions come largely from the earlier
assumptions
of anthropologists, and that he has been unreached by the great
changes in anthropological
theory of the 1960's. Seely is not to he blamed for this as his references are
mainly the works of the older outlook. The anthropologist James Buswell III3 and the archaeologist T. C.
Mitchell4 had written
helpful papers
to review the problem and had given the Christian public valuable information,
but it was largely related to the picture in the 1950's, and while
not necessarily
committing themselves to what I have written in Who Was Adam? they
have very
kindly written to welcome its publication.5
Thus it becomes necessary to summarize the main conclusions of anthropologists
before proceeding to the evidence. These are:
1. Contrary to the older idea that the present races are descended
from all types
of Paleolithic fossil men, the present consensus is that our present
world population
was derived from Homo sapiens stock only from
the Upper Paleolithic 30,000 years ago and perhaps
even later.
2. That no earlier non-Homo sapiens were ancestors to any of the living races.
Australian aboriginals are no exception, nor are Bushmen or
Hottentots. The date
of man's entrance into America put by some at 25,000 BY., dues not affect the
issue. Anstralopithicns, Homo credos and Homo
neanderthalensis have died out
and left no progeny.
3. That the older theory that Homo sapiens intermarried with the Neanderthals
is now abandoned after re-examination of Carmel Caves, and that a 10,000 year
hiatus or uubridged gap between the two species is accepted. This
means that Neanderthal
vanished about 40,000 years ago, and that modern Homo sapiens appeared 30,000
years ago according to revised dating.
4. In addition, the author is
investigating
a more recent hiatus 12,000 years ago, which separates Upper Paleolithic Homo
sapiens from Mesolithic Proto-neobthie culture.
5. That earlier Homo sapiens have existed, e.g.. Swanscombe man
200,000 BP. and
Hungarian man 500,000 B.P. These could not be progenitors of modern
Homo sapiens,
because variation of characteristics among modem races would have
become far more
pronounced over such a long period than those which exist today. Some calculate
that the present degree of variation of race polymorphism brings us
to a divergent
point not more than 6,000 years ago.
6. That in view of these findings, Adam of Genesis 2 to 4 can be
taken as Proto-neolithic,
and that through understanding the characteristics of a Genesis
toledoth the saga
of Protn-neolithie Adam in Genesis 2 can he taken as subsequent to Paleolithic
man in Genesis 1.6 For those who see that Adam must be the first of our modern
races, there is the possibility of a hiatus preceding him (referred to in point
4).
Incidently, it is interesting that Harold Camping's new theory of calculating
the Genesis genealogies7whatever its validity-shows dates which
correlate remarkably
with those I had given from anthropological and archaeological
sources in chapter
9 of my book.8 Thus the contention of the two critiques that Camping's theory
could not he correct because this would make Adam Proto-neohithie (a term which
now largely replaces Mesolithic), is not valid-indeed it strengthens
his ease.
Descent from One Stock
Although we may not know all the answers it is helpful for Christians to know
that there is a wide consensus of opinion among anthropologists that our race
is descended from one human group (science has no tools for empirical
observation
to take us further to a
Adam of Genesis 2 to 4 can be taken as Proto-neolithic, and... the saga of Proto-neolithjc Adam in Genesis 2 can he taken as subsequent to Paleolithic man in Genesis 1...
single pair). This opinion comes from authorities in a-natomy,
genetics and anthropology.
As the general reader usually requires assurance on this point, a
number of authorities
will be quoted:
Professor Wilfred Le Cros Clark is regarded as one of the world's
leading authorities
on Paltoanthropology. In his revised edition of Fossil Evidence9 he
says: "It
is no .s' generally agreed that all the modern races of mankind are variants of
one species, Homo sapiens." He then enumerates the anatomical characters
by which our species is defined.
Earlier in his Antecedents of Man15 he gives a classification of the primates
ss isich is the taxonomic order to which man belongs. He says,
"Three genera
of the Horninidae are now generally recognized, of which Homo is the
only survivor
and Homo sapiens its only surviving species."
From the viewpoint of geneticists we also have agreement. The
celebrated Professor
T. Dnhzhansky of Columbia and his co-author Professor L. C. Dunn,
writing in Heredity, Race and Society11 say: "About
one fact of cardinal importance practically' all scientists agree.
All men belong
to a single species, and there are no divisions between any varieties
of men like
those barriers which separate the species of animals." One reason for such
a conclusion is that all kinds of human beings can mate and have
offspring, regardless
of geographical origin, color, or other morphological difference. All have the.
same general characteristics which caused the first great
classificator-Linneus,
son of a Swedish pastor-to assign all men to the species Homo sapiens.
Writing of the relativity of race,12 Dobzhansky and Dunn
conclude, "It
looks as though the whole human race had got its genes from the same
source."
Their conclusion derived from the fact that characteristics show an inheritance
from one gene pool at the beginning of our race, because there was a
distribution
throughout our world population of blood groups, colorblindness,
tasters (of PTC)
and non-tasters, etc.
Professor C. Stern in Principles of Human Genetics12 say's
A taxonomic observer of mankind using the criteria which have just been described, would classify man
as a single species subdivided into nnmhrn)is subspecies These phenoniena-morphological and reproductive
-have led the taxonomist since Linneus' time, two centuries ago, to assign a single species name, Homo sapiens to all mankind.
The social anthropologist Dr. Raymond Firth of the
London School of Economics in his book Human
Types 14 refers to his knowledge of living primitive peoples, and distribution
of blond groups and differences in the threshold of taste, tested by a bitter
substance phenyl-thin-carhamide (PTC). He adds "All living human
beings are
classified as members of one species, Homo sapiens, and all crosses
between them
seem to he fertile."
In the realm of prehistoric archaeology, or pre
history as it is also called, we have the words of Professor Grahame Clark of
Cambridge 15 "The overwhelming consensus of professional opinions is that
the existing races of mankind are without exception variants of this
single species,
Hosno sapiens." (World Prehistory, Cambridge, 1962 p. 23)
Quotations could be given indefinitely; suffice it to conclude with one from a professor of anatomy in the University of London. Dr. R. J. Harrison writes16
It is generally agreed that all human beings alive today fall into a single but polymorphic species, Ilorno sapiens. Most anatomists who are anthropologists would also agree that all human beings that have lived on this earth during the past ten thousand years can be included in this one species.
An exception to this consensus is C. S. Coon's"
Origin of Races (1962). He argued for the 19th century theory that the present
sub-races of the earth were derived from the various types of fossil men, and
that the course of evolution had followed the same pattern in each
case, but that
it had ended with a race which had an appearance of being one
species. The newspaper
gave much publicity to his book and as so often happens the public
gained a distorted
view. They received the impression that here was the opinion of the
anthropological
world.
In reply Le Gros Clark writes,18
The thesis of the polyphylitic origin of modern man, propounded from time to time by a few anthropologists in previous years, has more recently been revived by Coon in his somewhat argumentative enquiring into the origin of human races. This author relies for his evidence on remains (too scanty remains it would seem) of fossil man in China, Java, Africa and Europe, which for him suggest that the modern racial groups of Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid, Capoid, and the Caucasoid peoples developed independently from a common ancestral species Homo erectus, several hundred thousand years ago. In other words he proposes that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens not once but five times, as each subspecies, living in its own territory, passed a critical threshold from a more brutal to a more sapient state.
Lc Gros Clark points out that parallelism in evolution, which is what Coon is
proposing, decreases in probability' in proportion to the number of
parallel lines
postulated. He feels it would he difficult to "substantiate so unlikely a
thesis."
Coon's approach was rather typical of the supercilious race superiority complex
of the Victorian anthro
polngists who were quite content to think of themselves as derived
from the intelligent
Cromagnons, but the Australian aboriginal from the apelike (as it was thought)
China or Java man. Anthropologists today are very much against feelings of race
superiority, and believe very much in the Homo sapiens potential
equality of all
men.
It might be thought strange that Paul anticipated this opinion of some of the most eminent scientists of our day. His words on Mars Hill to the sophisticated Athenian Creeks were "The God who made the world and everything in it, being lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by men . . . He himself gives to all men life and breath ... and he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth,.." Acts 17:24-26 (RSV)
Here Paul is making a dogmatic anthropological statement, namely that all the living human races throughout the world are descended from one. This RSV translation corrects the idiomatic translation of 1611 which reads "He made from one blood ... etc." The word blood (hemoglobin) does not appear in the Creek original. The idiomatic translation became unacceptable when the word "blood" took on a specific meaning related to blood grouping.
How was it that Paul was able to make a statement which would avoid
the mistakes
of early anthropologists, and harmonize with the more complete
know]edge possessed
today? We may he sore Paul had not been fossil hunting. lie had found
his information
in the opening chapters of Genesis.
That Ten Thousand Year Hiatus
Why do anthropologists take the view that our present Ilonto sapiens had their
origin thirty thousand years ago?
Until the 1960's it was thought that there was no
break between Homo sapiens and Homo nearidertholensis, the long headed peoples. Dorothy Carrod who excavated the eaves at
Mount Carmel in Palestine thought that o:se derived from the
other." Elsewhere
in the world the strata laid down in eaves showed a time lapse
between the disappearance
of Neanderthal man arid Homo sapiens. The Middle East, however, is a
land bridge
between the three continents of the Old World and Dorothy Carrod thought that
the Carmel eaves showed that here the two types inter
married and that Hoino sapiens supereeded. She reached this
conclusion not because
aor one cave in question showed the cultural and skeletal succession
without break,
but by an interpretation which linked up three eaves together.
Then Higgs and Brothwell investigated and gave their findings in
196120 A correlation
of Tabun with Skhul cave revealed, they thought, that a period of ten thousand
years had elapsed between the Neaoderthaloids and Homo sapieos. There was some
controversy between them and Garrod, so further investigation ensued
which eoovioeed
the anthropological -world that the hiatus was a fact. Le Cros Clark says that
the Upper Paleolithic Home sapiens had introduced a skillful oew type of tool
from flint. This was called the blade tool which was adaptable to varia
tions
The present consensus is that our present world population was derived from Homo sapiens stock only from the Upper Paleolithic 30,000 years ago and perhaps even later.
for all sorts of jobs-skinseraping, knives, skin, wood and hone boring,
wood planing and also home implements such as needles, thong strappers, javelin
throwers, fish hooks, prongs.
What had caused the disappearance throughout the world, of the Neanderthals ten
thousand years before? Catastrophe seems to have overtaken them. They were keen
hunters of the mammoth; great mammoth
graveyards are mixed with the bones of Neanderthals.
A Hiatus Before the Mesolithic
In Who Was Adam? our object was to take the information available by
science and
to correlate it to scripture, and to show a resultant harmony. There
are, however,
always those who look for answers beyond what empirical evidence can
supply. Yet
frequently it leads us on to further investigation.
One such question is whether Adam had progenitors, or whether in
terms of archaeology
there was a break between Proto-neolithic man and the Upper Paleolithic.
Such a possibility has not been voiced before, yet investigations in
this direction
have led to some surprising discoveries. On examining the cave
records throughout
the Near East, Europe and Britain, it would appear that a good case
could be made
for a fresh start for Adam's culture.
Such a thought is new to pre-historians, and we would have to
remember, too, the
problem of cultural succession, and also of Adam's cellular affinity with the
rest of creation. But before we dismiss the postulation, we ought to review the
evidence which
is at hand but has not been assessed before. It is the evidence of a
gap or hiatus
between Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic (or Prutn-nenlithic) cultures.
If such a postulation is a novel thought for archae
ologists, let it be remembered that only in the 1960's
was the evidence of an earlier hiatus between Neanderthaloids and Homo sapiens
accepted. The following facts are offered for further investigation.
The data come from several sources: the caves of
the Near East; the caves of Europe, with particular reference to Castillo cave,
North Spain; from the excavations of Peacock's Farm, Shippeo Hill,
Cambridgeshire,
England; and also Starr Carr in Yorkshire, England. General evidence also comes
from the following Mesolithic cultures: Azilian, Maglemusian and
Tardenoisian.
Details of the Near Eastern caves are drawn to
gether by Solecki, who excavated the famous Shanidar Cave in Northern
Iraq where
early farming by Protoneolithic cave dwellers is taken back to 8,900 B.C. (or
10,900 B. P.) by radio-carbon dating. First we will analyze the stratigraphy of
Shanidar Cave itself.
On Solecki's cross section of the cave two hiatuses
are marked. The lower one of 10,000 years is that now generally
accepted between
Mousterian (associated with Neanderthal) and Upper Paleolithic.
Higher up appears
the words "15,000 years hiatus" by carbon dating. It is that hiatus
which we are considering. The gap occurs between Upper Paleolithic
and Mesolithic.
When other caves of the Near East are compared, we find the picture a similar
one. There is a similar hiatus in the caves of Libya, Palestine,
Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq, Iran and Afghan. The tentative chronological correlation by Solecki has
been modified to bring in the revision of the Carmel caves.
We now examine the evidence of a remarkable cave at Castillo in North Spain. In
this cave the hiatuses are recorded by stalagmitic layers. This is
ideal for prehistorians
for several reasons. When a cave has long been unoccupied, no human rubble and
artifacts have accumulated, and the calcium carbonate drip from the
cave ceiling
has formed over several thousands of years the hard picturesque
stalagmitic layer
on the floor. Then the next culture occupies the cave and human
rubble containing
the domestic impedimenta and tools characteristic of that culture is
bedded down
under human feet. When the cave is next vacant
this culture layer is sealed off again by a stalagmitic crust which cannot be
penetrated by burrowing animals. The archaeologist has to discover why the cave
was forsaken at various periods. There may be a variety of local
causes, but where
major hiatuses correlate over a wide geographic area, the main
prehistoric picture
is built up.
Burkitt's section of Castillo shows among others the two hiatuses by
stalagmitic
horizons which we have discussed. One is between Mousterian culture and Upper
Paleolithic, 30,000 B.P., marking the commencement of Ilomo sapiens. The next
is between the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Azilian culture, 12,000 B,P.,
which marks the beginning of farming.
The Azilians must have known of farming culture even though they did
not practice
it themselves. This is evident in the Fenlands Peacock's Farm
excavation. As Baden-Powell
of Oxford says, the microliths fixed by resin on their weapons reveal
a derivation
from the farmer's sickles, the teeth 0f which are made with the same technique.
At Star Carr, Yorkshire, this Mesolithic technique reveals a
connection with the
early Natufian farmer-hunters of the Near East. The Maglemosian
Mesolithic people
reveal like connections.
Their barbless bone fish hooks resemble those of the Natufian
farmers. Furthermore
these Maglemosians of Europe made forest clearances by chopping down the trees
with flint axes mounted in sleeves of antler and inserted into wooden handles.
This style of axe and the practice of forest clearances must show affinity with
the Neolithic farmers who made clearances in the woods in which to grow their
crops.
Grahame Clark says ,21 "It was the Mesolithic people who, early
in Neothermal
times and almost certainly somewhere in Western Asia initiated the
domestication
of animals and plants." The lag between the commencement of the Mesolithic
and the full arrival of the Neolithic farming milieu, is relative to the degree
of remoteness of the Near Eastern nuclear area whence farming came.
This has been
taken as a slow process of acculturation. But the term Mesolithic is
being dropped
or merged into Neolithic as Proto-neolithic,
because the tool techniques are now seen to be shared rather than distinctive
of each other. It is possible that a better explanation than acculturation is
that the earliest "Mesolithic" migration from the Near East came with
the knowledge of farming, but without the discipline to practice it, especially
as the plentiful game animals of Europe would offer quick rewards but
a stultified
economy. We know how the Plains Indians forsook farming for full time
bison hunting
in the 17th century. It could be significant that there is no
Mesolithic gradation
between the Paleolithic of the coasts of Asia Minor and the Neolithic
which starts
afresh on the plateau above.
The nearer to the nuclear area, the earlier farming is practiced, and
the closer
it is to the beginning of the Mesolithic. Shanidar cave shows farming started
there by 10,900 BP., only a thousand years after the Mesolithic began. One day
perhaps a cave will he found in Armenia
near the headwaters
of the four rivers of Eden where domestication was practiced at the beginning
of Mesolithic, and before which a hiatus indicates the commencement
of our Adamic
race.
REFERENCES
1Paul H, Seely, "Adam & Anthropology: A Proposed
Solution." Journal
ASA Sept. 70.
2Ralph S. Solecki, "Prehistory in Shanidar Valley, Northern
Iraq." Science.
18 Jan. 1963, p. 179.
3James 0. Boswell III, "Adam & Neolithic Man", Eternity,
Feb. 1967, 1). 29.
4 C. Mitchell, "Archaeology & Genesis 1-XI", Faith &
Thought, Summer, 1959, p. 42.
5
E. K. Victor Pearce, Who was Adam?, Paternoster Press, Exeter,
England, October,
1970.
6Pearcc op. cit.; p. 18-21.
7Harold Camping, "The Biblical Calendar of History," Journal
ASA Sept. 70, p. 98.
8Pearce, op cit., "The Test by Subsequent Archaeology", p. 79.
9W.
E. Le Gros Clark, Fossil Evidence for Evolution, Univ. Of Chicago
Press, 2nd Ed.,
1964, p. 50.
10W. E. Le Gros Clark, The Antecedents of Mao, Univ. Press, Edinburgh, 1959, p.
25.
11L. C. Dunn & Th. Dobrhansky, Heredity, Race, & Society,
Mentor, 1959, p. 109.
12Dunn and Dobzhansky, ibid. p. 122.
13Curt Stern, Principles of Human Genetics, Freeman, San Francisco, 1960, p.
681.
14Eaymond Firth, Human Types, Mentor, 1963, p. 19.
15Grahame Clark, World Prehistory, Cambridge, 1962, p. 23. 1811.
16 J. Harrison, Man the Peculiar Animal, Pelican 1958.
17C. S. Coon, Origin of Races, New York, Knorf, 1962.
18Le Gros
Clark, op. cit.,
p. 85.
19D, Garrod, Stone Age of Mr. Cannel, Oxford, 1937.
20E.
Higgs, "Some Pleistocene Faunas"; D. R.. Brothwell, "The People
of Mt. Carmel"; Proc. Prehist. Soc., 27 pp. 144 & 155, 1961.
2lClark op. cit p. 63.
NOT A VIABLE THEORY
Paul H. Seely
2807 Balfour
Milwaukie, Oregon 97222
Before saying anything negative about Pearce's theory, we must state our full
agreement with two of his points: (1) If Genesis 2 and 3 are
interpreted literally
Adam must be dated in Protoneolithic times (c. 10,000 B.C.). (2) Men who were
truly human existed in Paleolithic times before a Proto-neolithic Adam.1
Pearce's theory is a Pre-Adamite theory with PreAdamite man being referred to
in Genesis 1:26ff. and a de novo creation of man in Genesis 2 and 3.
He says that
if we understand the characteristics of a toledoth (genealogy), "the saga
of Protu-neolithic Adam in Genesis 2 can be taken as subsequent to Paleolithic
man in Genesis 1". That is, Genesis 2:4, 5 summarizes section I (Genesis
1-2:3) about Old Stone Age man and introduces section II (Genesis
2:6-4:26) about
New Stone Age man. Is this true?
The Bible and the Pre-Adamite Theory
The other toledoth in Genesis do not make a chronological separation
between two
historical sections; and it seems to us that even Genesis 2:4, 5 more
likely bind
Genesis 1 to Genesis 2-3 than separate them.2 And, Genesis 5:1-6
shows quite clearly
that there is a continuity of descent between the Adam of Genesis 1:26ff. and
the Adam of Genesis 2-3; these two Adams cannot be divided into two
separate races
or two separate lines of descent.
In addition, Genesis 1:26ff. is the primary foundation for the
doctrine that man
is made in the image of God; and when later Biblical passages refer
to man being
made in the image of God, they refer back to Genesis 1:26ff. with the
assumption
that all men are descended from the man created in Genesis 1.' Romans
5:23 likewise
testifies that it is through one man that sin entered into the world
and not through
two chronologically separated races.
We note also that when man was destroyed in the flood, God gave the
same command
to Noah that lie had given to the Adam of Genesis 1, namely, to
multiply and fill
the earth. If the Adam of Genesis 1 and his descendants had been
destroyed completely,
we would expect to find this same command to multiply given to the
Adam of Genesis
2-3. That we do not find any such command given is further evidence
that the Adams
of both Genesis 1 and 2-3 are continuous in
descent and not separate races.
Also, there is nothing postulated of the Adam in Genesis 1:26ff. that
is not equally
postulated of the Adam in Genesis 2-3. Nor did Old Stone Age man
subdue or accomplish
anything that New Stone Age man did not. There is then no historical,
exegetical,
or literary reason for separating Old Stone Age man in Genesis 1:26ff. from a
supposed dc noco New Stone Age man in Genesis 2-3. As we have seen,
however, there
is reason to keep the Adam of Genesis 1 in a chronologically
continuous relationship
with the Adam of Genesis 2-3.
The teaching of the Bible is that man from his original creation to the present
has one continuous line of descent. Attempts have been made to insert
the Pre-Adamite
theory in one form or another into accepted theology at least since 1655. But,
Biblically speaking, it simply is not a viable theory. It is to Pearce's credit
that he does not put any great stress upon his PreAdamite
interpretation of Genesis
1:26ff.
There is no historical, exegetical, or literary reason for separating Old Stone
Age man in Genesis 1:26ff. from a supposed de novo New Stone Age man in
Genesis
2-3.
Modern Anthropology and the Pre-Adamite Theory
Pearce's key objection to my view of anthropology is that he doesn't accept a
continuous line of descent from Paleolithic man to Proto-neolithic man and men
of today. I do not subscribe to simple ortholinear evolution, but
simply am unable
to allow an ultimate break in the descent of man from Paleolithic times to the
present.
Since I know of no contemporary anthropologists who believe any differently-at
least in the essential point that Proto-neolithie man is descended
from Paleolithic
man-I cannot understand why Pearce regards my view as a 19th century
understanding
of anthropology. On the other hand, ironically, it seems to us that
Pearce's view
with its hiatuses and catastrophes is distinctly reminiscent of the
19th century.4
Recent anthropology, according to Pearce, (a) admits the existence of more than
one hiatus (in the descent of man), and (b) regards the present races as having
a common source not more than 30,000 years ago, and possibly as
recent as 12,000
B.P.
Concerning part (a), see below. Concerning part (h), note that the 30,000 B.P.
date fits in with my
view, but cannot fit in with Pearce's view which has "a hiatus before the
Mesolithic". The 12,000 B.P. date, if true, would be equally
compatible with
my view, but would just barely allow Pearce's view since Pearce's New Stone Age
Adam is himself a de novo creation of about 12,000 B.P.
That Ten Thousand Year Hiatus
Pearce tells us.
The older theory that Homo sapiens intermarried with the Neanderthalers is now abandoned after reexamination of Carmel Caves, and a 10,000 year hiatus or unbridged gap between the two species is accepted. This means that Neanderthal vanished about 40,000 years ago, and that modern Homo sapiens appeared 30,000 years ago according to revised dating.
What had caused the disappearance throughout the world of the Neanderthals ten thousand years before? Catastrophe seems to have overtaken them.
This idea-that it was only "until the 1960's" that
anthropologists thought
there was no break between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis
(really Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis), and that it is an old theory that they
intermarried-may
be held by an anthropologist here and there; but, the overwhelming majority of
anthropologists both today and throughout the 1960's (as we show
below) certainly
do not believe in any such hiatus. The dominant question today in anthropology
concerning these two subspecies is whether Homo sapiens sapiens
evolved from Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis, killed off Homo sapiens neanderthalensis,
or intermarried
with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or some combination of these
hypotheses.5
No one to our knowledge is concerned with any supposed ten thousand year hiatus
between these two subspecies.
In 1964, C. L. Brace wrote his well-known if slightly one-sided
paper. "The
Fate of the 'Classic' Neanderthals". In that paper he argued that the old
view in which Homo sapiens evolved as a separate line parallel to Neanderthal
man and then about 35,000 B.C. destroyed him, was built on a priori
thinking and
had no genuine evidence to support it. Homo sapiens, Brace said, evolved from
Neanderthal man; the case he made for his viewpoint was impressive, even if not
100% correct.
The reason why some anthropologists have not agreed completely with
Brace it that
they are convinced, as he is not, that some skull and bone fragments dated well
before 35,000 B.C. evidence signs of belonging to a sapiens as
opposed to a Neanderthal
popu
lation. The primary fossils in debate are specifically the skulls and fragments
from Fnntéchevade, Steinheim, Swanscombe, Kanjcra, and the
Great Niah Cave.
The comments on Brace's paper from international authorities reveal
how authorities
in anthropology and related disciplines relate Homo sapiens to Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis.
One may easily see in all their comments that, no matter how divided they may
be on other issues, no one believes there is a 10,000 year hiatus between these
two subspecies.
George Agognino wrote that he was in full agreement with Brace's conclusion and
that "many palcoosteologists already privately accept that
Neanderthal forms
are direct ancestors of modern man."6 (No hiatus).
Don B. Brothwell was not so easily convinced of
Brace's hypothesis. He believed that there were sa
piens finds contemporary [no hiatus] with the Neanderthalers and so obviously
not evolved from them.7
Malcolm Farmer agreed with Brace's hypothesis [no hiatus].
Interestingly he referred
to the same ten thousand year hiatus at Shanidar that Pearce is so
impressed with,
but did not see this local hiatus as proof that Neanderthal man and
Homo sapiens
were separated by a 10,000 year hiatus in any ultimate sensebecause elsewhere
these two subspecies overlap. He said:
According to recent work by Soleeki (1963) there is a break of some 10,000 years in the sequence of occupation in the Slsanidar Valley with the Mousterian [associated usually with Neanderthal man] level ending at some 45,000 to 50,000 years ago, Farther west the Mousteriao lasted longer and appears to have contributed to Upper Paleolithic [modern man], a situation also indicated at a number of sites in Europe. The best evidence for the overlap of Neanderthal and later men is in the Mt. Carmel caves in Palestine, particularly the Skhul population.8
Santiago Genovés saw some Neanderthals as being ancestors of modern man
[no hiatus], but many as being unrelated.9
F. Clark Howell, who at least agrees with Pearce to the point of saying that he
believes there is a cultural hiatus between the Mnusterian complex
and the succeeding
Upper Paleolithic complex in Europe (having disavowed the integrity
of the Lower
PerigordianChatelperronian as a distinct and special industrial manifestation,
"much to the disapprobation of several colleagues"), 10 made it clear
that though he sees a local cultural hiatus, he does not see an
ultimate temporal
hiatus between the existence of these two
subspecies of man. Rather, the incoming population [from the East] of
Upper Paleolithic
men replaced or intermarried [no hiatus] with the European Neanderthals.11
W. W. Howells, like some others, found it impossible to dismiss such finds as
Ssvansenmbe, F'ontéehevade, and Steinheim. Rather than
believing that Ilorno
sapiens evolved from Neanderthal man, he believed that Homo sapiens killed off
Neanderthal man.12 [No hiatus.]
C. H. R. von Koenigswald held that modern man evolved from an earlier type of
Neanderthal man, but not the "classic" Neanderthal of Europe.13
[No hiatus]
Ashley Montague, like Howells, could not dismiss Fontéehevade
and Swanseombe-they
were certainly more sapiens than anything else, yet
I differ with him (Brace) on a few details only. I have repeatedly made the point that Neanderthal
Man was not exterminated by ''sapiens'' nuso, but absorbed the latter, indeed Neanderthal should rack
among the niost respected of the ancestors of contempo rary man. [No hietns.14]
H. Muler-Beck wrote:
We are for our part sure at least in one region Neanderthals are to he considered direct predecessors of more modern man ... [No hiatus].15
Philip V. Tobias wrote that he had long maintained
that the South-Central African representatives of Homo sapiens, mainly the Bushmen, have arisen from the Rhodesian group, which may be regarded as the African representative of the Neanderthal grade of hominid organization. In sum, my interpretation of the African evidence supports the view that there is no catastrophic replacement of Neanderthal by sopiens, but that the former gave rise to time latter. [No. hiatus.]16
In 1967 William F Howells classified modern anthropological theory
into four basic
schools: Straight Ortholinear, Presapiesis, Premieanderthal, and PreneanderthaI
with more overlapping, its none of these views do we find any ultimate temporal
hiatus between the existence of Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens
sapiens; rather,
these two subspecies are always, at least in part, chronologically contiguous.17
Its 1969, a paper called "Neanderthal Mass and Homo sapiens in Central and
Eastern Europe" took the stand that the latest data
bear out the view that the appearance of iiommia sapie us
sapiens in Central and Eastern Europe need not be explained in tcrnms of a sudden migration from East to West, but rather in terms of local evolution. 18
Some anthropologists agreed and some disagreed, but we find no idea of a 10,000
year hiatus between Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens sapiens.
In 1969, Ashley Montague in a revised edition of his book, Man: His First Two
Million Years took a strong stand that Neanderthal man and Homo
sapiens had intermarried
and that many people alive today "hear traces of their remote Neanderthal
ancestry."19 Obviously, he does not believe there is a
10,000 year hiatus
between them.
We cannot burden the reader further with any more references to anthropological
theory in the 1960's. Suffice it to say that one will find it
virtually impossible
to find a reputable anthropologist today who believes that there was
an ultimate
(as opposed to a merely local phenomenon) 10,000 year hiatus between
Homo sapiens
neanderl lialensis and ilomo sapiens sapiens ... or any other ultimate temporal
hiatus.
Admittedly some sites have a hiatus between the industries of Neanderthal man
and those of modern man (a hiatus ranging from 1,000 to 10,000
years), hot these
sites must he interpreted in the total anthropological and
archaeological context
and not isolated to serve as evidence for novel theories. After all, many sites
have transitional industries between Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic (modern
man) times .20 Many sites present continuous culture sequences
right through
Pearce's supposed 10,000 year hiatus-someone had to he present to produce those
tools.21
It seems to us that Pearce's view with its hiatuses and catastrophes is distinctly reminiscent of the 19th century.
The only documentation that Pearce offers for his theory of a 10,001) year hiatus (besides a brief reference to the Shanidar site) are two papers-one by FIiggsand one by brntbwell which are supposed to prove that at Mt. Carmel a correlation of Tahun with Skhul cave reveals that 10,000 years elapsed between the Neanderthals and ilooto sapiens. There was some controversy about this finding, but Pearce claims
further investigation ensued which convinced the an thropological world that the hiatus was a fact.
If this hiatus is established as a fact at Mt. Carmel (and in the
light of Asmus'
paper in Anthropologiseher Anzeiger,22 we doubt that it is established), it
is certainly to be noted that even Brnthwell and Hggs do not believe that a
hiatus exists between the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in any ultimate sense. Rather they believe that the two
subspecies have in general overlapped and may even have interbred.7,20
Von Koeoigswald in 1962 believed that Mt. Carmel man was a mixture of sapiens
and Neanderthal man [No hiatus].23 Crahame Clarke and Stuart Piggot
in 1965 understood
Mt. Carmel man as a Neanderthal from whom Homo sapiens could have emerged (thus
bridging Pearce's hiatus ).24 F. Clark Howell in 1965 likewise saw Mt. Carmel
man as a neaoderthaloid in the process of evolving into modern man.25
In 1967, C. Losing Brace, glad to welcome a transitional form, placed the Mt.
Carmel Skhul population directly in the middle of Pearce's 10,000 year gap.26
In 1967 some were convinced (quite contrary to Pearce) that Mt. Carmel man gave
clear evidence of interbreeding:
Repeated examination of Mt. Cannel material has thus substantiated the long-standing claims that this material is evidence for interbreeding between Neanderthal and sapieiis.27
Today the Mt. Carmel finds are still controversial: Are they
transitional forms?
Evidence of interbreeding? Or what? But, no one sees them as evidence
in any ultimate
sense of a 10,000 year gap between Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens.28
The Mt. Carmel evidence, according to most authorities, not only does
not substantiate
Pearce's 10,000 year gap or hiatus, but it very probably disproves it.29 In any
ease we believe it is clear that the overwhelming majority of anthropologists
today, if not all of them, would concur in saying that in spite of some sites
which show hiatuses, there is no 10,000 year hiatus or any other
ultimate hiatus
or temporal discontinuity between Neanderthal man and modern man.
A Hiatus Before the Mesolithic
If Pearce's hiatus between Neanderthal man and modern man is very improbable,
his hiatus before the Mesolithic is even more improbable. Pearce
seems to be aware
of this and admits that such a hiatus "has not been voiced
before" and
"is new to pre-historians."
It seems that the Australian aborigioals,30 the Bushmen,31 and the
American Indians32 present no small obstacle to Pearce's theory of a "hiatus before the
Mesolithic"-since they span the hiatus. Each of these groups of men have
lived most probably in their respective areas from Paleolithic times
to the Present.
Cro-Magnon man also stands in the way of one's accepting a hiatus before the Mesolithic since he is regarded by most
anthropologists
as an ancestor-either himself or a contemporary "cousin"-of
men living today.33
Pearce's research may someday justify belief in a "hiatus before
the Mesolithic";
but it seems to us that his chances of success in this endeavor are extremely
remote.
Concluding Objections
If some anthropologists doubt that Australopitheeines are our ancestors, few if
any will go along with Pearce in saying that Home ereetus died out leaving no
progeny. On the contrary
It is generally accepted that the genes Pitheeeni/iropns [or Homo ereetes] bears an ancestral relationship to Homo, and the fossil evidence so far available is strongly in favor of this interpretation. In the first place there is now a continuous and closely graded series of fossil specimens linking Pithecanthropus anatomically
with modern man, a gradation which is marked by no perceptible structural hiatus. Second, the geological dating of Pithecanthropus fits in quite well with such a conclusion . . . Thus the temporal sequence indicative of an ancestral relationship is in good accord with the evidence of the morphological sequence.34
Similarly, as we have shown above, many anthro
pologists believe that Neanderthal man is our ancestor.
As to Pearce's statement that earlier Homo sapiens
such as S\vanseombe man "could not be progenitors of modern Homo sapiens,
we can only note that this idea flies in the face of an entire school
of current
anthropological thought: the Presapiens School of Vallois, Heberer, Giesler,
Piggot, et al. It seems noteworthy that even Brothwell apparently
belongs to the
Presapiens School.35 In addition, the Lutheran, Wilbert S. Ruseh, espouses the
Presapiens School, directly contrary to Fearee's theory at every point.36
We, therefore, conclude that our original statement is with good
reason the common
opinion of the overwhelming majority of today's anthropologists:
There are true men in today's world who descended from Palcolithie ancestors. Their physical and cultural descent has not been interrupted (at least ill no ultimate sense). There is no place in their historical descent to insert a Neolithic Adam as their Father.37
REFERENCES
1Pearee, F,. K. Victor, Who Was Adam?; The Paternoster Press, 1969.
See especially
chapter II, "Why Adam Could Not Be Old Stone Age Man".
2Young. Edward J., Studies in Genesis One; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., Philadelphia, 1964, pp. 59-61.
3 Cf. "Image of God",
Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible; Abingdon Press, New York, 1962, article section la.
4Brace, C. Loriog, "The Fate of the 'Classic' Neanderthals,"
Current Anthropology,
February, 1964, p. 5.
5Day, Michael H., Guide to Fossil Man; Cassell, London, 1965, p. 41. Valloch,
Karl, "Evolution of the Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe,"
Current Anthropology, December, 1968, pp. 351-390. Although the two groups are
both Homo sapiens, we shall follow precedent and use the contrasting terms in
this paper: Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens or modern man or Upper Paleolithic
man.
6Brace, op. cit., p. 19. Comments in brackets throughout the paper
are my own.
7lbid., p. 20.
8lbid., p. 22.
9lbid., p. 24.
10Ibid., p. 25. Many authorities
believe that the Lower Pengordian industrial complex shows clear
signs of development
from the Mousterian to the Upper Paleolithic-thus showing an
industrial evolution
presumably directly related to the evolution of Neanderthal to modern man. See
especially Bordes, Francuis, The Old Stone Age; McGrawHill, New York, 1968, pp.
147-150, 220, 224.
11Brace, op. cit., p. 26.
12Ibid., p. 27.
13Ibid., p. 27.
14Ibid., p.
28.
15Ibid.,
p. 28.
16Ibid., pp. 30, 31.
17Howells, William, Mankind in the Making; Doubleday & Co.,
Garden City, 1967,
pp. 241-243.
18Jelinclc, Jan, "Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens in Central and Eastern
Europe," Current Anthropology, December, 1969, p. 492.
I9Montague, Ashley, Man: His First Two Million Years; Columbia U.
Press, New York,
1969, pp. 67, 68.
20Brace op. cit., p. 26; Valluch, op. cit., p. 369; Hughes, D. R. and
D. R. Brothwell,
"The Earliest Populations of Man in Europe, Western Asia, and
North Africa,"
Cambridge Ancient History fasicle No. 50; Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1966,
p. 12; Coles. J. M. and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man; Faber &
Faber,, London, 1969, p. 220 and chart on p. 36; Clark, John C. D.,
World Prehistory:
A New Outline; Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1961, pp. 46, 66, 68.
2lReed, Charles A., "The Iranian Prehistoric Project," Science,
June 23, 1961; Young, Jr., T. C. and P. E. L. Smith,
"Research in the Prehistory of Central Iran," Science,
July 22, 1966.
22Asmus, C., "Zur Datierungsfrage der palanlithischen Men
schenreste aus Palastina," Anthrupologischer Anzeiger,
29:1-11 (1965).
23Von Koenigswald, C. H. R., The Evolution of Man; Univer
sity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1962, p. 113.
24Clark John C. D. and Stuart Piggutt, Prehistoric Societies; Knopf, New York,
1965, p. 65; Brace, C. L., The Stages of Human Evolution; Prentice
Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, 1967, pp. 100, 101.
25Howell, F. Clark and editors of LIFE, Early Man; Time, Inc., New York, 1965,
p. 127.
26Brace, C. L., The Stages of Human Evolution; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
1967, p. 100.
27Human Evolution, ed. Noel Korn and Fred W. Thompson; Holt,
Rinehart & Winston,
New York, 1967, p. 236; Huwells, op. cit., p. 218.
28Muntague, op cit., p. 71.
29Mt. Carmel Fossils," Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 15;
William Benson,
Chicago, 1970, p. 960; "Anthropology," Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol.
2; William Benton, Chicago,
1970. p. 51.
30Mulvancy, D. J. "The Australian Aboriginal," Scientific
American,
March, 1966, pp. 84-93; Howells, op. cit., p. 336; Cules and Higgs, op.
cit.,
p. 413.
31Howells, op. cit., p. 317. Cf. statement of Tobias (footnote 16).
32Ibid., p. 305; Bryan, Alan L., "Early Man in America and the
late Pleistocene
Chronology of Western Canada and Alaska," Current Anthropology, Vol. 10,
No. 4, pp. 339-365.
33"Cro-Magnon Man," Encyclopedia Bnittanica, Vol. 6; William Benton,
Chicago 1970, p. 792; See also radiocarbon dates for cultures going
right through
Pearce's "hiatus before the Mesolithic" in Clark, op. cit., p. 32 and
Cules and Higgs, op. cit., p. 36.
34"Man, Prehistoric Types of," Encyclopedia Americana;
Americana Corp., New York, 1968, pp. 190, 191. See also Readings in Race, ed.
Stanley M. Cam; Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1968, p. 285; Howell, F. Clark
and editors of LIFE, op. cit., p. 128; Brace, C. L., The Stages of
Human Evolution;
Prentice Hall, Englewuod Cliffs, 1967, pp. 76, 77.
35Brothwell, D. R., "The People of Mount Carmel," Proc.
Prehist, Soc.,
27, p. 157. (1961).
36Rock Strata and the Bible Record, ed. Paul A. Zimmerman; Cuncurdia,
St. Louis,
1970, p. 172.
37Seely, Paul H. "Adam and Anthropology: A Proposed
Solution," Journal ASA, September, 1970, p. 89.
WHO WAS ADAM*
George J. Jennings
Department of Political Science and Sociology
Geneva College,
Beaver
Fails, Pennsylvania
*Who Was Adam? E. K. Victor Pearce, Exeter, Devon,
England: The Paternoster Press, 1970. 148 pp., illustra
tions, notes, bibliography (paper).
In this small volume divided into 16 brief chapters, the author seeks
to present
an apologetic for the Bible and Christian faith by employing the
scientific findings
from anthropology and genetics. His note at the head of his bibliography at the
conclusion of the book states that "It is regretted that the author does
not know of any contemporary book on Anthropology and the Bible,
\vhich has been
written by a qualified anthropologist. It is hoped that Who Was Adam? will help
to fill the gap" (p. 146). While we may question whether a volume of such
brevity and intellectual level will attract the eye of most
professional anthropologists,
it undoubtedly will prove to be a very useful work for the interested
and informed
Christian who has wrestled with problems stemming from anthropological propositions
and their conflict with traditional interpretations of the Bible.
Before turning
to a selective analysis of specific statements in the book, I would
like to state
that I intend to add a copy of the work to my library and recommend the book to
Christian scholars who are interested in relating scientific findings
to the Bible
in general and to the early chapters 0f Genesis in particular.
It is quite apparent in Who Was Adam? that the author holds certain assumptions
upon which he rests his proposals and arguments. He will find that
many Christian
scientists favor most of his assumptions but that these assumptions
are unacceptable
to the majority of anthropologists who do not identify with
evangelical Christianity.
He assumes, in the first instance, that the Bible is the infallible
and inspired
Word of God which is to be considered the ultimate authority for
scholars in their
quest for origins including man. Secondly, he
assumes that science is a valid tool for elucidating the incomplete
biblical account
as to the creative process and the primeval events in relation to Homo sapiens.
His third assumption is that materialism among scientists has
vitiated their objectivity
when they ignore the Bible as a reliable source of information for
deriving many
sound anthropological explanations. And a fourth assumption is that a study of
man must recognize the great age of the earth, the antiquity of man as revealed
in the fossil record, the existence of preadamic "man," and the fall
of Adam.
Pearce's view that God created two forms of Homo sapiens sapiens . . . is a very tenuous interpretation of biblical and anthropological data.
Of course the view that pre-adamic men existed is not novel with Pearce since
this idea has been suggested by several Christian scholars during the
past century,
if not earlier. There is abundant evidence to support this view from
the Paleontological
and archaeological findings as well as the conclusion held by practically all
reputable anthropologists that modern man stems from Cro-magnon man
who was true
Homo sapiens sapienr in contrast to the immediate antecedal form of man, llama
sapiens neanderthalcnsis (Neanderthal Man). Unfortunately, Pearce confuses the
problem in the taxonomy of modern man and fossil man by accepting the view that
Swanscombe Man (which he dates at 200,000 year ago) and Hungcrian Man (which he
dates at 500,000 years ago) are essentially the same morphologically as Adam,
or Homo sapiens sapiens, whom lie dates at from 10,000 to 12,000 years ago as
"a New Stone Ago farmer" (pp. 14, 21). There is inadequate evidence
to hold such an interpretation.
The author further complicates the puzzle of modern Iloisso sapiens
when lie writes,
"Then comes the last Old Stone Age culture called 'Upper
Paleolithic', dating
from 30,000 B.C. This is associated with the first appearance of
modern Homo sapiens,
and marks the great advance in techniques" (p. 26). While the
author is probably justified in concluding that the apelike features of fossil
man beginning with the Australopithecinae have been over-emphasized
by some physical
anthropologists, he goes to the opposite extreme in minimizing the
obvious differences
existing between the Australopitliecinae, Homo ercctos ercctns and Homo credos
pckineosis, Homo sapiens nearidertlialensis, and Homo sapicns sopicn.s in his
eagerness to link the fossil forms in a single taxonomic category. One cannot
help but ponder what Pearce's reaction would be to James Murk's 'Evidence for
a Late Pleistocene Creation of Man" (Journal ASA, 17 (1965)
:37-49) in which
Murk cogently argues that Homo sapiens sapiens was created about 45,000 years
ago and represents the last creative act of Cod insofar as man is
concerned. Pearce's
view that Cod created two forms of Homo sapiens sapiens, one who
became the author
of the Upper Paleolithic cultures (Aurignacian, Solutrean, Magdelenian, etc.)
and the other the New Stone Age farmer, Adam, is a very tenuous interpretation
of biblical and anthropological data.
Another problem emerges when Pearce states that "No type of man had ever
reached America before the New Stone Age culture" (p. 61) which
follows the
highly unlikely notion that the neolithic revolution in America did
not originate
independently but was the result of diffusion from the ancient Middle East (via
China?) and the Aleutian Islands beginning about 8,000 B.C. (p. 61). It seems
incredible that agricultural knowledge could have been retained in a migration
that covered thousands of miles, much of which was through terrain and climate
that made agriculture impossible, over what was perhaps at least hundreds, if
not thousands, of years. There is no archaeological evidence to
sustain the view
that the early migrants to America retained any notion of the domestication of
plants and animals.. The fact of the matter is that archaeological
evidence from
numerous sites in the Americas indicate that man entered America before 20,000
years ago and the culture he carried with him was akin to the Upper Paleolithic
as witnessed by such tool traditions as the Clovis, the Sandia, and
the Folsom-all
dating much earlier than 8,000 B.C. and probably as early as 25,000 years ago
(Jesse Jennings, "Perspective" in The North Americans
edited by Robert
F. Spencer and Jesse Jennings, 1965, pp. 16-32). It may be noted that Pearce's
argument can be used to refute his own case, for if archaeological findings
are the basis for determining that fossil man in the Old World was a
hunter-gatherer
rather than a farmer (p. 23), how are we to consider the tools and weapons such
as the Folsom and others in America, cultures that unmistakably show
that earliest
man in America was a hunter? Again how are we to understand the
striking differences
in agriculture, both as to crops grown and techniques used in
growing, that occur
between the Old and New World types of farming? And, incidentally, it
is curious
that Pearce proposes the Aleutian Islands as man's migration route
from Asia into
America. It is quite likely that some migration followed this route
but most Amerieanists
hold that the dominant route was via the Bering Strait which was
probably a land
bridge during the late Pleistocene when man first began to migrate
into America.
Pearce's argument is not really based on finding anthropological data to support the Scriptural account, but rather the biblical statement leads to a presupposition in viewing the anthropological evidence.
To support his view that Adam was a neolithic farmer, the author distinguishes
two creation accounts in Genesis. He proposes that Cod created Old
Stone Age man
in the latter verses of Genesis 1, to which most fossil men are to be
associated.
Cod, in due time, created Adam as the "first man" of the
family of contemporary
mankind about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. This is the creative
account and subsequent
events recorded in Genesis, chapter 2-4. If I understand Pearce's
interpretation
correctly, he is saying that God created the neolithic Adam with
physical features
almost identical to those of man responsible for the famed Upper
Paleolithic cultures,
but the neolithic Adam seems to have been endowed with a soul and was held to
be morally responsible to his creator. He was also endowed with special insight
that enabled him to practice horticulture-"Adam is represented
as being formed
for the specific purpose of carrying out this New Stone Age gardening" (p.
54). We must leave it to scholars who are expert in hebrew to accept or reject
this view of the early chapters of Genesis; from an anthropological
perspective,
there are serious objections to distinguishing the Homo sapiens sapiens of the
Upper Paleolithic cultures from man who initiated the
"neolithic revolution." One scarcely knows what to do with
transitional
cultures such as the Natufian in Palestine.
Leaving the problem of man and neolithic farming, Pearce finds
religion beginning
with his neolithic Adam. He admits that Palcolithic man may have had some form
of religion (i.e., Neanderthal Man buried his dead to indicate belief
in an afterlife)
but it is not certain on the basis of Genesis 1 or the fossil record
that "proadamic
men were fallen or unfallen, whether they had a conscience, a soul and a sense
of religion" (p. 45). Pearce seems to doubt that preadamic men
were endowed
with religious capacity, at least not to that comparable to neolithic Adam. To
support his contention that diverse religions represent a degeneration of man
following the fall, the author appeals to the writings of Andrew
Lang, Pater Wilhelm
Schmidt, and Samuel Zwemer.
This supports the findings of sods as Schmidt, Lang and Zsvemer, who found that original beliefs all over the world were in a Supreme Being often called the Sky God or High God. They thought this indicated that God revealed himself to earlier peoples who had handed it down to present day primitives. Polytheism came, later as a corruption of the original purer religion (p. 65).
Without giving ourselves to extended statements about the questionable nature
of conclusions advocated first by Lang, elaborated by Schmidt, and popularized
in America by Zwemer, we may point out quite simply the weakness of
this argument
from anthropological evidence by quoting Smalley:
Schnndt . . . left out of his consideration the large number of equally primitive groups who have no 'high Cod' concepts, and so his sampling is one sided. Like other extreme ditfusionists, and like the evolutionists he repudiated, Schmidt was also guilty of comparing the incomparables . . . We agree with Schmidt, but not on the basis of his anthropological premises or method. We agree, a priori of anthropology, because of Scriptural record that Adam and Eve knew the High God and that the original religion must have known thin. We see in Cain and Abel a reflection of that religion. On the basis of the anthropological evidence we cannot agree, however, that all of the most primitive peoples have a recollection of the 'High Cod' or if they now have such a concept, they have had it all through their cultural history (William A. Smalley and Marie Fetzer, "A Christian View of Anthropology" in Modern Science and Christian Faith, 1950, pp. 130-131).
It becomes apparent, then, that Pearce's argument, in following Lang, Schmidt,
and Zwemer, is not really based on finding anthropological data to
support the
Scriptural account (which we accept on the basis of faith as does Smalley), but
rather the biblical statement leads to a presupposition in viewing
the anthropological
evidence.
One can find little to quarrel about in Pearce's views on the fall of man, the
origin of marriage, and the duration of innocence in subsequent chapters, and
his correlation of Genesis with archaeology and culture sequences are
as reasonable
and acceptable as any that have been advanced. Furthermore his treatment of the
six days, which he accepts as "age-days," agrees with views
widely accepted
among Christian scholars. The later chapters in his book constitute a study in
genetics which lies in a marginal position to my knowledge. However, his use of
"factory" as an analogy for the body and sex cells is interesting and
informative. But I must rely upon those knowledgeable in genetics to determine
the aptness of such an analogy.
When he concludes his book, Pearce betrays yet another assumption acceptable to
most evangelical Christian scientists. It is that the Bible depicts
God as being
active within nature. Perhaps Pearce carries this to an extreme when he quotes
Psalm 139:14 which contains the words "And in thy book all my members were
written." He links this statement to the DNA code of cell structure in all
life. In his words,
If the code is as old as life itself, God must have recorded His instructions in the first functional unit of life, perhaps four thousand million years ago, or if not then, in view of the lack of fossil evidence, at least in the Cambrian 600 million years ago (p. 131),
The final chapter, "The DNA Code and the Incarnation" is something quite new to me ill that I had not read previously any attempt to explain the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus in a genetic consideration. Obviously Christian geneticists must have given considerable thought to this problem, hence I for one will eagerly await their reactions to the contrast in the creative act bringing into being a female, Eve, and the miraculous conception involved in the Incarnation of a male. Pearce dismisses the argument of parthogencsis on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of both the Incarnation and the process in biology. What do Christian geneticists say to this comment?