In 1855, the jawbone of an anatomically modern human was discovered by workmen digging for coprolites in the Pliocene Red Crag deposits at Foxhall (Suffolk, UK). The bone was not recognised in situ, but was found amongst coprolites when delivered to a Mr Packard’s manure factory. It was sold by one of the men to the local pharmacist, John Taylor, who gave it to Sir Thomas Beaver less than three months later. In March 1857, Sir Thomas passed it to Dr Robert Hanham Collyer (1814-1891), a physician originally from Jersey but who had emigrated to Philadephia with his parents in 1836, who was intrigued by the discovery of a human fossil of such apparently early date.
Collyer exhibited the specimen to the Ethnological Society of London in April 1863; its members seem not to have agreed on its status, George Busk regarding it as most likely from a Roman woman and Thomas Henry Huxley, who examined it at leisure the next day, agreed that it did not have the characteristics of fossilised bones from the Red Crag deposits. Collyer’s published drawing of the jaw shows its modern morphology clearly. Interest in the bone waned and its whereabouts was no longer known by 1930. The obvious explanation – that this was a relatively recent bone from a burial that had been cut into Pliocene deposits – is found wanting by Cremo & Thompson for no better reasons than that some genuinely ancient fossil hominid remains had equally poorly validated provenances and some have disappeared. This is an argument based on false analogy.

Pliocene deposits here is a picture that I got on the web of the pilocene deposits
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=ejn&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=Y6Iq8GWnPCMR1M:&imgrefurl=http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v77/077005/figs/gsjsedres770398-fg12.htm&docid=a0sBkpo5D7r-WM&imgurl=http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v77/077005/figs/gsjsedres770398-fg12.jpg&w=700&h=636&ei=ElkGUeyqEcHtiwLC1oGYCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=80&vpy=273&dur=1947&hovh=214&hovw=236&tx=147&ty=81&sig=102669359923195797868&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=155&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:0,i:139&biw=1324&bih=600
sorry god damn that url is long. lol I didnt want to tinyurl it because people dont trust tinyurls. lol But anyways most burials the ancients did where very swallow. 6 feet deep burials didnt start becoming common until the plague struck Europe in the late 1600s. So how does modern burials explain bones found in deposits of the Pliocene era a million or so years old which would be a hundred or so feet deep?
I am not a creationist and I am not a evolutionist, I believe both theories are way off!
Thanks for looking that out. I think you are posting a response to this page, on the Castenedolo skull rather than the Foxhall jaw, though.
Do you know how far it is from Castenedolo to the Siena Basin, where your section was drawn? Around 200 km. That section drawing has no bearing whatsoever on the depth of the burials at Castenedolo.
As for your assertion about the depth of burials, it’s an assertion, nothing more. The “six feet deep” standard was introduced in England in the 1830s, not the 1600s, and the same goes for much of Europe. It’s not that all burials were much shallower before that, just that there was huge variation. In my career, I’ve personally excavated several dozen Iron Age and Roman graves and can assure you that their depth varies between about 25 cm for the shallowest and almost 2 m for the deepest. Medieval graves are just as variable and, as that was the date of the cemetery at Castenedolo, there is no problem at all with the grave being relatively deep.
Where you get the idea that it would have to be “a hundred or so feet deep” just because the material is of Pliocene date, I don’t know. There is such a thing as the erosion of old land surfaces, you know. Outside my window, there is Cretaceous rock (chalk), 75 million years old just 20 cm under the grass!