Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 292 other subscribers

EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish

A photograph supposed to be of the Buenos Aires skull

A photograph supposed to be of the Buenos Aires skull

Workers excavating a dry dock in Buenos Aires (Argentina) in 1896 found a human skull, allegedly in a Pre-Ensenadan stratum, a deposit dated one to one and a half million years old, eleven metres below the level of the Rio de la Plata. The Argentine palaeontologist Florentino Ameghino (1854-1911) gave it the scientific name Diprothomo platensis; however, re-examination by the American anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička (1869-1943) a short time later found the cranial capacity to be within the range of modern Homo sapiens and he rejected the new species. There are two problems with the discovery if we follow the conventional view: anatomically modern humans did not exist a million years ago and there were no humans in the Americas before about 35,000 years ago (to accept a controversially early date for their arrival in the western hemisphere).

As with Reck’s skull in Tanzania, there is no indication that the skull fragment was actually embedded in an undisturbed geological deposit. Moreover, I have been unable to find out anything about the skull beyond what appears on creationist websites and in Forbidden Archeology. Presumably, it has been consigned to the dustbin of history, where it remains an exhibit to the errors of previous generations of palaeoanthropologists.

8 Responses to A skull from Buenos Aires

  • Shaun says:

    As with the “Recks” skull how come they have not been carbon dated? Seems the easiest way to see if they are of the era of the geological layer of which they where found.

  • TruthHunter says:

    What’s wrong with you guys? You have all this “cool”: stuff and leave out this one? http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/index.html

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      I’ve known about Ed Conrad’s stuff for years and considered it so off-the-wall that I have not had the stomach (or the patience) to have a go. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel!

  • mafhda says:

    You dont give an explanation…

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      If you read the text, you’ll see that I do give one: there is no evidence that this anatomically modern calvarium was embedded in an ancient geological stratum. There is effectively no mystery, as it derives from the burial of a human at some time since the first peopling of South America.

  • How do you figure there is no evidence that it was embedded in an ancient geological stratum? But you say it was a burial of a human….where is the evidence for your theory?

    • Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews says:

      I say that “there is no evidence that it was embedded in an ancient geological stratum” because no evidence has been presented that it was. It was found in the bottom of an excavation under conditions that appear to have been rather confused. The bottom of the river bed where the dry dock was being constructed is known to have been worn to a greater depth in places and nobody who was present at the time of discovery could vouch for having seen it in situ; it was said to have come from a quicksand-like deposit, at a greater depth than a material known as tosca, a hard concretion. What the discoverers did not say, significantly, was that it was sealed by a layer of tosca, merelay that it came from a greater depth. That sounds like a fairly woolly lack of evidence to me.

  • Skeptiko says:

    What about Luzia? Wasn’t she dated at about 30 kya. She also possessed “australoid” features, which are actually common for all early Homo sapiens, from Africa and everywhere else (There’s even a study from the last 10 years or so, supporting Out of Africa on the basis of cranial similarities from early human migrants worldwide, or specifically in Africa and Australia, but they looked somewhat more like Australians than Africans).

Agree or disagree? Please comment!