Science in Christian Perspective


Proto-neolithic Adam and Recent Anthropology

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.


aul 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
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.


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.

Paul H. Seely
2807 Balfour 
Milwaukie, Oregon 97222

efore 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


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. 
Ibid., 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.

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?