About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Report from Former U.S. Marine Hints at Whereabouts of Long-Lost Peking Man Fossils

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Peking Man replica

Replica of one of the Peking Man fossils. Image: Yan Li, via Wikimedia Commons

In the 1930s archaeologists working at the site of Zhoukoudian near Beijing recovered an incredible trove of partial skulls and other bones representing some 40 individuals that would eventually be assigned to the early human species Homo erectus. The bones, which recent estimates put at around 770,000 years old, constitute the largest collection of H. erectus fossils ever found. They were China’s paleoanthropological pride and joy. And then they vanished.

According to historical accounts, in 1941 the most important fossils in the collection were packed in large wooden footlockers or crates to be turned over to the U.S. military for transport to the American Museum of Natural History in New York for safekeeping during World War II. But the fossils never made it to the U.S. Today, all scientists have are copies of the bones. The disappearance of the originals stands as one of the biggest mysteries in paleoanthropology.

Researchers have found a new lead, however. In a paper published today in the South African Journal of Science, Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and Wu Liu and Xiujie Wu of the Institute for Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing detail their investigation into a recent report concerning the location of the missing bones. Former U.S. Marine Richard M. Bowen, now in his 80s, claimed that in 1947, when he was stationed at Camp Holcomb in the port city of Qinhaungdao during China’s Nationalist-Communist Civil War, he came across a box full of bones while digging foxholes one night. Spooked, he reburied the box. Soon thereafter his company evacuated Qinhaungdao.

Richard M. Bowen

Richard M. Bowen, circa 1947. Photo courtesy of of Paul Bowen

Because the most credible accounts of what happened to the fossils have them reaching Camp Holcomb, the researchers thought Bowen’s report worthy of further investigation. Perhaps the officer in charge of the fossils in 1941, seeing that the fossils were not going to make it on board the ship amid the wartime chaos, had chosen to bury them for later retrieval—only to never make it back.

Working with information from Bowen and a local expert on the harbor, the team formulated three best guesses as to the location of the stone barracks where Bowen said he dug up the box of bones. All three sit within an area of about 200 meters by 200 meters. “One possible location sits underneath a large warehouse, but the remaining locations all fall under a large parking area and roadway” the researchers note.

Probably barracks location

Grounds of the Hebei Provincial Food Export and Import Company, the most probable location of the stone barracks where Bowen dug up the box of bones that may have been the Peking Man fossils. Image: Lee Berger, Wu Liu and Xiujie Wu

According to the authors, the odds are high that the box Bowen claims to have found would have been destroyed during development of the area. But if it wasn’t, science may yet recover the missing Peking Man fossils. The team concludes:

“We established that the area in question is due to undergo development in the near future and that ‘large buildings’ are to be erected on the site. This development of course offers the opportunity that the roads and warehouses will be excavated and that if the footlocker noted by Richard Bowen has somehow miraculously survived, it or its contents might be uncovered during the course of excavation. Local authorities of the Cultural Heritage Office have committed to monitor any excavations in the area for remnants of the footlockers or fossils, and it is on this slim chance that the recovery of the bones Richard Bowen observed in 1947 rests.”


03/30/12 update: Reader @_timskinner commented via Twitter: “Sometimes a box of bones is just an old coffin. I gather they have reason to believe that’s not the case here?” I put the question to Lee Berger, one of the authors of the new paper, who replied: “Yes that is a possibility of course–but firstly they were in a ‘footlocker’ of sorts, and in a plausible location, and perhaps most importantly Mr. Bowen feels that the bones resembled the Peking Man fossils. It is of course possible that this was a ‘box of bones’ or some sort of temporary coffin, but one begins to question why the bones would be in such a wooden footlocker, in this position, and why they would look like the Peking Man fossils (or at least why they would draw this association in the mind of Mr. Bowen). It is enough evidence–given the unique historical circumstances’ of their loss and their importance–to investigate, and to report, this account. Sometimes exploration is a bit like that old golf/statistics joke: ‘It’s a proven fact that 100% of putts that don’t reach the hole don’t go in’–well ’100% of explorers who don’t investigate a claim by going don’t find anything.’”



Kate Wong About the Author: Kate Wong is an editor and writer at Scientific American covering paleontology, archaeology and life sciences. Follow on Twitter @katewong.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. N a g n o s t i c 8:35 pm 03/24/2012

    For the life of me, I couldn’t recall a mention of this historic subject matter… until I realized the article is about Beijing Man!

    Link to this
  2. 2. Postman1 4:56 pm 03/25/2012

    N a g n o s t i c – LOL, good one!

    Link to this
  3. 3. bucketofsquid 3:34 pm 03/29/2012

    Only the Brits could get the entire world to mispronounce a b as a p

    Link to this
  4. 4. bacayaro 9:51 pm 03/30/2012

    Noel T. Boaz and Russel L.Ciochon in their book, Dragon Bone Hill(Ch 2:41-46),recount several plausible versions on how, where when, and by whom, the Peking Fossils were packed, possibly repacked, crated and delivered to the U.S.Marine barracks in Beijing.The question is, what did the marines do with the boxes or crates? Surely, the USMC archives can shed light on what transpired in the first week of December 1941 in the handling and transporting of the boxes from the Peking Union Medical College to Beijing Marine barracks,then to Beijing Train station and finally to the Swiss warehouse at Qinhuangdao and nearby Camp Holcomb.

    Link to this
  5. 5. mhenriday 12:11 pm 03/31/2012

    Bucketof squid, while it is certainly true that «the Brits» are responsible for many egregious mispronunciations of foreign place names, not least in China, the attempt to phonetically represent «北京» as «Peking» is not a simple mispronunciation of a «b» as an «p». The initial bilabial plosive is unaspirated, like an English «b», but unlike that «b» and like the English «p», it is also unvoiced. Thus one could say that this consonant lies midway between an English «b» and a «p», neither aspirated nor voiced. The most flagrant misunderstanding of Chinese toponyms committed by the English that comes to my mind is their calling a provincial capital (Guangzhou) by the name of the province (Guangdong) to which it belongs, thus the term «Canton» for the city….


    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article