verboden archeologie
TRANSCRIPT
Verboden Archeologie
Dit artikel is een stencil dat ik kreeg in verband met de forum-discussie aan de
Landbouw Universiteit in Wageningen, waar Michael Cremo en ik aan meededen.
Zijn verhaal geeft vanuit een geheel andere hoek, namelijk betreffende de geologie
en archeologie, een bevestiging van wat de degeneratietheorie eigenlijk ook zegt.
Er bestaan overweldigende bewijzen waarmee kan worden aangetoond dat de mens al veel en veel langer op aarde
aanwezig is dan de traditionele wetenschappers tot nu toe wilden of durfden aan te nemen. Sterker nog, het blijkt dat
onze vroege voorouders long niet allemaal "holbewoners" waren.
Een interview van de Amerikaanse Laura Lee met Michael Cremo, auteur van Forbidden Archeology, vertaald door
Jacqueline Peters.
Er is een gegroefde metalen bol gevonden in Zuid-Afrika die dateert uit het precambische tijdperk. In Antelope,
Springs, Utah, werd een schoenafdruk uit het Cambrium gevonden. In Dorchester, Massachusetts, is een metalen
vaas gevonden uit het precambische tijdperk. In Schotland is een ijzeren spijker gevonden, die uit het Devoon stamt.
Een gouden draad in een steen is gevonden in Tweed, Engeland, en een ijzeren pot in Wilburton, Oklahoma, die
stamt uit het Carboon. Wat zeggen deze vondsten over onze vroege geschiedenis? Niet veel, omdat zulke
anomalieen (zo genoemd omdat ze buiten het model vallen) niet passen in het geldende denkmodel over onze
prehistorie. Om dit denkmodel in stand te houden, is het beter om deze vondsten te verwerpen dan ze in het model
proberen op te nemen of ze naar behoren te bestuderen.
Zou je ons iets kunnen vertellen over verboden archeologie, wat voor jou de beweegreden was om juist dit gebied te
gaan bestuderen, en wat je achtergrond is?
Ik ben in 1984 begonnen met het bestuderen van de "verboden archeologie". In die tijd discussieerde ik wel eens
met mijn co-auteur, Dr. Richard Thompson, over de oorsprong van de mens in de oudheid, en we hadden een paar
rapporten over anomale bewijsstukken. We besloten een grondig onderzoek uit te voeren, en ik stond echt versteld
van de bewijzen die we vonden.
Als je kijkt naar wat er in de moderne studieboeken wordt geschreven, krijg je de indruk dat mensen zoals wij -
Homo sapiens - zich pas in een recent verleden, zo'n 100.000 jaar geleden, uit aapachtige voorouders hebben
ontwikkeld. Alle bewijzen in deze boeken lijken dit idee te ondersteunen, dus lijkt er geen twijfel mogelijk. Maar
toen ik het nader onderzocht, kwam ik tot de conclusie dat er de laatste 150 jaar door antropologen bijna evenveel
materiaal onder de tafel is geschoven als ze hebben ontdekt, en het meeste materiaal dat ze weer begroeven, wat ze
negeerden, is bewijsmateriaal dat tegen dit idee ingaat. Bewijzen die veeleer het idee ondersteunen dat mensen zoals
wij al honderden miljoenen jaren op deze planeet rondlopen. Die verfijnde metalen vaas uit een precambisch stuk
rots die met een springlading werd opgeblazen in Dorchester, Massachusettes, dat zou betekenen dat wij reeds zo'n
zeshonderd miljoen jaar hier rondlopen.
Zeshonderd miljoen jaar oud? Wat zou er volgens jou gebeuren als al het bewijsmateriaal naast elkaar werd gelegd
en een gelijke kans kreeg? Stel dat er geen heersende theorie is en er komt iemand langs die de ruime hoeveelheid
bewijsmateriaal bekijkt en zich afvraagt hoe oud de historie van het menselijk ras op de aarde is.
Kijk, je moet wel bedenken dat als je al het relevante bewijsmateriaal naast elkaar op tafel legt, daar meerdere tafels
voor nodig zouden zijn. Als je met al die bewijzen rekening houdt, ziet het ernaar uit dat er al zo lang als je kunt
teruggaan in de tijd, mensen zoals u en ik naast andere soorten wezens op deze planeet bestaan -al honderden
miljoenen jaren, letterlijk.
Er zijn tegenwoordig wetenschappers zoals Myra Shackley, een Engelse antropologe, die zou zeggen dat we nog
steeds samen leven met schepsels zoals de Neanderthalers. Uit vele delen van de wereld komen berichten over
verschillende soorten wilde mensen, zoals de Yeti of de Sneeuwman in de Himalaya, Bigfoot of Sasquatch in
Noord-Amerika, en andere soortgelijke wezens in andere delen van de wereld. Dus het idee van coexistentie lijkt me
heel aannemelijk.
Laten we even meer in detail ingaan op deze bijzondere vondsten die miljoenen jaren ouder zijn dan eigenlijk zou
mogen, volgens de geldende theorie. Zou je kunnen beginnen met een paar voorbeelden? Wat ik graag zou willen
weten, is onder welke omstandigheden deze voorwerpen zijn ontdekt, hoe goed ze zijn gedocumenteerd, en waar ze
zich nu bevinden.
Ik zal je een goed voorbeeld geven uit de recente geschiedenis. Een van mijn favoriete. In 1979 vond Mary Leakey
(de vrouw van Louis Leakey, een van de beroemdste antropologen van de 20e eeuw) in Laetoli in Tanzania, in
vulkanische as van zo'n 3,6 miljoen jaar oud, enkele voetafdrukken van drie personen. Veel experts op dit gebied -
zoals fysische antropologen- hebben deze voetafdrukken bekeken. Dit is allemaal vastgelegd in de National
Geographic en in verschillende wetenschappelijk tijdschriften die we in ons boek vermelden. U kunt dit opzoeken,
de pagina ernaast houden als u wilt, en de foto's bekijken van deze voetafdrukken: ze zijn absoluut niet te
onderscheiden van moderne menselijke voetafdrukken. Een onderzoeker zei dat als je nu naar een strand zou gaan
naar voetafdrukken in het zand zou kijken, ze niet zouden afwijken van die voetafdrukken. Wat mij zo verbaasde
was dat ondanks dit alles, deze onderzoekers zo waren ingesteld dat ze de meest voor de hand liggende conclusie
niet wisten te trekken: dat deze voetafdrukken afkomstig moeten zijn van wezens die sterk op ons leken.
Aan de ene kant kijken ze naar al het bewijs en gebruiken ze dit wanneer het strookt met hun beeld van de
geschiedenis, terwijl ze ander, even overtuigend bewijs dat niet precies in hun straatje past, negeren.
Inderdaad. We noemen dit een "kennisfilter", en het is geen duivelse samenzwering met als doel het publiek te
misleiden. Het is eerder een soort zelfbedrog waar deze mensen aan meedoen. Bij deze voetstappen zeiden ze
bijvoorbeeld: "Ze moeten wel afkomstig zijn van de Australopithecus", een mensaapachtig schepsel waarvan wordt
aangenomen dat het drie miljoen jaar geleden in Afrika leefde. Er zijn voetbeentjes van dit wezen gevonden, maar
die komen niet overeen met deze voetafdrukken. Die afwijking is behoorlijk omdat de voetbeenderen van de
oeroude mensaapachtige wezens, erg lange, gebogen tenen laten zien. Hun grote teen leek op onze duim. Als je wel
eens naar de voet van een chimpansee keek, weet je dat de grote teen erg groot en flexibel is, net als onze duim,
zodat de chimpansee er goed mee naar takken kan grijpen. Dus de voetafdrukken die in Afrika zijn gevonden,
gedateerd op 3,6 miljoen jaar oud, komen helemaal niet overeen met de voetafdrukken van de Australopithecus.
Waarom werd de Australopithecus uitgekozen om als verklaring te dienen voor de voetafdrukken?
Omdat ze denken dat dit het enige schepsel uit die tijd is dat op twee benen liep, en omdat ze al het andere bewijs
negeren, het omvangrijke bewijs dat aantoont dat er in die tijd menselijke wezens zoals wij bestonden. Het komt niet
in hen op om de meest voor de hand liggende conclusie te trekken. Je hebt menselijke voetafdrukken. Dan moeten
die door een mens zijn gemaakt. Mary Leakey suggereerde dat deze afdrukken door een soort aapmens met
mensachtige voeten gemaakt zijn. Als dat het enige bewijs was waarover we beschikken, zou je nog kunnen zeggen
dat ze misschien gelijk had, maar in Forbidden Archeology beschrijven we vele soorten bewijsmateriaal: stenen
werktuigen, allerlei soorten artefacten, andere menselijke botten, complete menselijke skeletten die allemaal uit
dezelfde periode dateren. Daaruit maken wij op dat die voetafdrukken door mensen moeten zijn gemaakt.
Waaruit we kunnen afleiden dat de geschiedenis van de mensheid enkele zeer interessante hoofdstukken kent, die
worden genegeerd om de simpele reden dat we worden gehinderd door een inadequate theorie, andere verklaringen.
Een ander interessant geval is een skelet dat ook in Afrika is ontdekt, aan het begin van deze eeuw, in 1913, door Dr.
Hans Reck van de universiteit van Berlijn, meen ik. Hij werkte in een gebied dat tegenwoordig de Olduvai kloof
heet, een populaire plek onder archeologen. De Leakeys hebben daar later ook veel gewerkt. In 1913 vond hij het
fossiel van een menselijk skelet, met alle moderne anatomische kenmerken, in lagen van bijna twee miljoen jaar
oud. Dat is heel ongewoon, vooral omdat volgens de huidige wetenschappelijke geloofsleer de moderne mens pas
zo'n 100.000 jaar' geleden is ontstaan...
Hoe verklaarden ze dit dan? In 1913 stond de geschiedschrijving van de moderne mens toch min of meer in de
kinderschoenen, waarom kreeg dergelijk bewijsmateriaal geen gelijke behandeling?
Omdat de ideeën zich toen al gingen richten naar de ontdekking van de homo erectus op Java in 1894. Een
interessante ontwikkeling, die wel iets weg heeft van een detectiveverhaal. In 1859 schreef Charles Darwin The
Origin of Species, een boek dat toen wereldwijd intellectuele opschudding veroorzaakte. Vanaf dat moment was
men vooral sterk geïnteresseerd in de oorsprong van de mensheid.
We zijn nogal vaak met onszelf bezig, niet?
Zeg dat wel. Het ontstaan van de vlinder of de krab boeit ons heel wat minder. We zijn vooral geinteresseerd in waar
wij vandaan komen. Ik bekeek moderne studieboeken en merkte dat er uit de periode vanaf 1859, het jaar waarin
Origin of species was geschreven, tot aan 1894, het jaar waarin berichten verschenen over de vondst van de eerste
mens op Java, geen verdere rapporten te vinden waren. Dat vond ik heel mysterieus. Je zou verwachten dat vrijwel
direct erna, wetenschappers uit de hele wereld op zoek zijn gegaan naar de ontbrekende schakel en daarbij op allerlei
dingen zouden zijn gestuit. Dus vroeg ik een van mijn onderzoeksassistenten om in de bibliotheek een paar
studieboeken over antropologie van rond 1880 tot 1885 voor me te halen, gewoon om door te bladeren. Ik was
geschokt over de boeken die hij mee terug bracht. Geschreven door wetenschappers, geen kleine jongens. Dit waren
wetenschappers met aanzien, die in gerespecteerde tijdschriften melding maakten van allerlei soorten
bewijsmateriaal dat het bestaan van anatomisch moderne mensen aantoonde, geen aapmensen, geen ontbrekende
schakels -10 miljoen jaar geleden, evenals 20 miljoen jaar geleden, 30 miljoen jaar geleden, 40, 50 zo ver terug als
je maar wilt gaan. En dan heb ik het niet over een of twee ontdekkingen, maar over honderden. En in ons boek van
bijna duizend pagina's, Forbidden Archeology, worden ze allemaal beschreven.
Ongelooflijk. Maar waar zijn deze vondsten nu? Waar worden ze bewaard? Wat is ermee gebeurd? Deze vele
honderden vondsten van anatomisch moderne skeletten die zijn gevonden, van honderd miljoen jaar oud of nog
ouder, wat zou hiervan het alleroudste bewijsmateriaal zijn?
Als we het over de oudste gedocumenteerde vondst hebben, dan horen daar ook artefacten bij, voorwerpen die door
mensen zijn gemaakt. Het oudste artefact waarover we beschikken is een gegroefde metalen bol, ontdekt in Zuid-
Afrika. Er zijn veel van deze metalen bollen ontdekt -zuiver ronde, metalen objecten, waarvan sommige met drie
parallelle groeven rond het breedste gedeelte, van zo'n 2,8 miljard jaar oud... Als je bedenkt dat de aarde volgens de
huidige wetenschappelijke schattingen 5,3 miljard jaar oud is, is dat behoorlijk oud. De oudste vondst die direct op
de aanwezigheid van een menselijk wezen duidt, is een voetafdruk die in 1968 in Antelope Springs, Utah, werd
gevonden en die wordt gedateerd uit het Cambrium. Waarmee het dus zo'n 600 miljoen jaar oud is.
En de oudste skeletresten van anatomisch moderne mensen?
Het oudste menselijke skelet die de "verboden archeologie" kent, is het skelet dat in een kolenveld in Macoupin
County, Illinois werd ontdekt, en dat werd gemeld in een gerenommeerd tijdschrift, The Geologist. Het is afkomstig
uit het Carboon en waarschijnlijk zo'n 300 miljoen jaar oud. Dus dit zijn heel bijzondere vondsten. Wat er gebeurt, is
dat zaken die niet in de huidige paradigma's passen, soms niet bewaard blijven. Als je iets hebt dat past binnen de
huidige ideeen over de oorsprong van de mens in de oudheid, dan wordt dat door de gevestigde orde zorgvuldig
bewaard. "Aanvaarde" vondsten worden in een museum tentoongesteld, verschijnen op TV, in speciale bijlagen van
de National Geographic, dat soort dingen. Als iets niet in het huidige denkmodel past, hoor je er niets over. Het
wordt niet geconserveerd of behouden, en is erg moeilijk te achterhalen. Ik denk dat het de plicht is van mensen
zoals u, van allerlei soorten mediamensen, om wat verder te kijken. Bij een interview met een politicus die iets in de
doofpot probeert te stoppen bijvoorbeeld zou je zijn verhaal ook niet klakkeloos aannemen, maar het gaan
uitzoeken, de feiten proberen te achterhalen. Er zou nog veel meer uitgezocht moeten worden. We zouden mensen
niet blindelings moeten vertrouwen alleen omdat ze een belangrijke positie aan de universiteit hebben of een
universitaire titel voor hun naam.
Ik denk dat we de wetenschap met dezelfde ogen moeten gaan bekijken als de politiek. Als er geruchten zijn over
een politieke misdaad, accepteren we dat niet, en zullen we de verklaring van de politicus in kwestie ook niet
zomaar voor waar aannemen. Dan slikken we geen propaganda. Dus ik denk dat we diezelfde houding ook ten
aanzien van de wetenschap moeten aannemen. We moeten een beetje meer... sceptisch worden. Ons meer een
zelfstandige mening over allerlei zaken vormen. Soms is er een buitenstaander voor nodig om meer helderheid in
een bepaald vraagstuk te krijgen. Mensen zoeken bevestiging door een onafhankelijke partij dus je kunt niet altijd
naar de experts gaan en hun mening over hun eigen vakgebied aannemen. Je hebt dan buitenstaanders nodig die naar
binnen gaan, een beetje rondneuzen en graven naar informatie, en dat is eigenlijk wat wij gedaan hebben met ons
boek. We zijn er zonder vooroordelen op afgestapt en hebben speurwerk verricht. En we hebben daarbij heel wat
gevonden dat aantoont dat wat ons over het verleden wordt voorgeschoteld, geen objectief beeld is. Ze vertellen ons
niet de hele waarheid. We krijgen niet alle feitelijke informatie te horen, dus in Forbidden Archeology proberen we
juist om alle feiten te geven, zodat de lezer zelf een mening kan vormen over dit soort zaken.
Hoe eenvoudig verliep jullie onderzoek? Waren de artikelen opvraaghaar? Hoe wisten jullie waar je moest
zoeken als ze niet vrijelijk gepubliceerd en niet algemeen bekend waren?
Het leek bijna op een detective-verhaal. Je reist terug in de tijd. Je zoekt steeds verder terug in de archieven en je
begint dingen te vinden. Dan moet je obscure kleine voetnoten herleiden. Het lijkt of er iets wordt achtergehouden.
Je moet er echt naar graven. We moesten eerst tijdschriften, obscure tijdschriften en rapporten uit de hele wereld
zien te krijgen, waarvan sommige honderden jaren oud waren, die we vervolgens lieten vertalen uit het Duits en
Frans en Spaans en Russisch of uit de andere talen waarin ze toevallig geschreven waren, dus dat nam acht jaar in
beslag. Er was acht jaar hard en nauwgezet werk voor nodig om alle informatie voor dit boek te verzamelen. Het is
allemaal nauwkeurig gedocumenteerd dus elke verwijzing is terug te vinden in een voetnoot. Er zit een volledige
bibliografie bij.
We wilden zaken kiezen waarvoor we het sterkste bewijs hadden, voor wat betreft documentatie en
wetenschappelijk bewijs. Als we één ding geleerd hebben dan is het wel dat dit proces van "kennis filteren", zoals
wij dat noemen, nog steeds doorgaat. Zelfs nu nog. We hadden het geluk dat we een paar moderne onderzoekers
troffen die het slachtoffer zijn geworden van deze onderdrukking, en die zo vriendelijk waren om ons wat meer te
vertellen over hoe het systeem in feite werkt.
Hoe werkt het systeem precies?
Het draait om geld. En om posities. Kansen op publicatie. En er zijn kleine, uiterst machtige groepen personen die
deze posities beheren. Als je leraar aan een universiteit wilt worden, heb je aanbevelingen nodig. Als je wilt dat
jouw artikel in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften wordt gepubliceerd, moet het door een "keuring door anonieme
gelijken" (anonymous peer review) heenkomen.
Ze kunnen commentaar leveren, maar de kandidaat weet niet eens wie deze mensen zijn?
Nee, en in principe zou een dominante groep deze conventie erg gemakkelijk kunnen gebruiken om informatie uit
het systeem te filteren, waarvan men niet wil dat die een grotere gemeenschap bereikt, laat staan het grote publiek.
Bestaat er onenigheid binnen de academische wereld over dit soort praktijken, die zo makkelijk te misbruiken of te
gebruiken zijn, om de status quo te bewaren, dat de grenzen van het gebied niet verlegd worden?
Ik begeef me regelmatig op het Internet en daar zitten ook discussiegroepen op die de tekortkomingen van het
huidige systeem bespreken, evenals anderen die er kritiek op hebben, maar het systeem zelf verandert daar niet echt
door. De ene groep die ik heb gevonden -en waarvan ik de exacte naam niet zo gauw meer weet- was interessant
omdat de discussie ging over kansen op een baan. Technisch gesproken was dat het gespreksthema van de groep -
academische functies en hoe je hiervoor in aanmerking kunt komen, welke er beschikbaar waren- maar er waren
allerlei soorten discussies over het systeem en hoe het functioneerde, in die specifieke discussiegroep.
In deze vakgebieden heb je te maken met echt machtige mensen die de posten, publicaties en onderzoeksfondsen
beheersen, die je te vriend moet houden als je vooruit wilt komen. Zo zit het systeem in het kort in elkaar. Ik heb
persoonlijke discussies gevoerd met mensen die slachtoffer van het systeem zijn geworden, aan wie publicatie
ontzegd is, die niet op bepaalde posten mochten komen, en die geen geld kregen voor onderzoek. Hun zienswijzen
weken af van de leer. Een geval dat ook ter sprake komt in ons boek is dat van Virginia Steen McIntyre, een geologe
die voor de US Geological Survey werkte. Zij met enkele andere geologen dateerden een opgravingsterrein in
Hueyatlaco in New Mexico, in de late jaren zeventig, waar enkele zeer geavanceerde stenen werktuigen werden
gevonden. Stenen werktuigen die alleen konden zijn gemaakt door anatomisch moderne mensen. Ze stelden onder
andere met behulp van de uranium-serie-methode vast dat het terrein 300.000 jaar oud was. Volgens de huidige
doctrine zijn er pas 12.000 jaar geleden moderne mensen naar Noord-Amerika gekomen, hoewel sommigen dat nu
willen verlengen tot 25.000 of 30.000 jaar, maar volgens de standaard conservatieve doctrine is het 12.000 jaar.
Deze zeer geavanceerde stenen gereedschappen, van 300.000 jaar oud uit Mexico, zijn bijzonder afwijkend: mensen
van dat type zouden pas l00.000 jaar geleden aanwezig mogen zijn. In feite duiken de hier gevonden stenen
gereedschappen van dat type pas 40.000 jaar geleden in Europa op, dus het feit dat ze in Mexico -waar geen mensen
hoorden te zijn- werden aangetroffen, en dan nog wel 300.000 jaar geleden, zo'n 250.000 jaar eerder dan zulke
werktuigen ooit ergens werden gevonden. Deze onderzoekers schreven een rapport, maar ze konden het nergens
publiceren. Niemand durfde het aan.
Maar wat is er met de werktuigen gebeurd? Waar zijn die nu?
Ze zijn ergens opgeslagen in een of ander museum. Deze werden betrekkelijk recent gevonden, dus je kunt ze nog
steeds vinden. We hebben geprobeerd toestemming te krijgen om deze werktuigen te fotograferen zodat we ze in
ons boek konden opnemen. Maar ons werd verteld dat we alleen toestemming zouden krijgen om die foto's af te
drukken als we de werktuigen zouden dateren op minder dan 25.000 jaar oud; en zelfs als we alleen maar zouden
vermelden dat ze 300.000 jaar oud zijn, kregen we nog geen toestemming.
Een interessante ontdekking was de bewerkte schelp in de Red Crag formatie in Engeland. Dit is een geologische
formatie uit het late · Pleistoceen, van meer dan twee miljoen jaar oud. Henry Stopes, een lid van het
wetenschappelijke genootschap The Geological Society of England, heeft deze schelp gevonden. Er is een menselijk
gezicht in gegraveerd, en volgens huidige opvattingen zou je dit soort kunstvoorwerpen pas op zijn vroegst 40.000
jaar geleden in Europa mogen verwachten, dus twee tot drie miljoen jaar oud is behoorlijk abnormaal. Het werd in
de 19e eeuw ontdekt.
Als we teruggaan naar Noord-Amerika en meer recente tijden, waarvoor we sterke bewijzen hebben van hoe bewijs
kan worden achtergehouden, kennen we het geval van Dr. Lee die in een formatie uit de ijstijd op een plek die
Sheguiandah wordt genoemd, op het eiland Manitoulin in het Great Lake gebied in Canada, stenen werktuigen vond
van naar schatting 70.000 jaar oud. Zoals ik al zei, is de geldende opvatting dat er pas 12.000 jaar geleden mensen
naar Noord-Amerika zijn getrokken. Toen hij deze ontdekkingen deed, werkte hij samen met het National Museum
in Canada. Er werd een geoloog bijgehaald die de vindplaats bekeek en de datering bevestigde, maar hij werd
ontslagen, men wilde het rapport niet publiceren, en hij kon jarenlang geen andere baan krijgen. Dit heeft hem erg
aangegrepen. Bovendien werden al zijn stenen werktuigen door het museum afgepakt en ergens opgeslagen waar hij
er geen controle meer over had. Zo wordt het bewijsmateriaal uit de weg geruimd, verduisterd.
In jouw boek staan vooral die artefacten waarover bronnen zijn gevonden en die je aanspoorden om een speurtocht
te beginnen door de wetenschappelijke literatuur, maar je zei net ook dat sommige van deze vondsten waarover
minder exacte bronvermeldingen bestaan, afkomstig zijn van mijnwerkers omdat die beneden het aardoppervlak in
erg oude lagen graven. Ik heb bijvoorbeeld verhalen gehoord van mensen die bij het verbrokkelen van steenkool
voor hun kachels, gouden kettinkjes en metalen vazen tegenkwamen en andere ongelooflijke zaken. Ken je verhalen
over wat er is gevonden in ontzettend oude lagen steenkool, en vondsten door mijn werkers?
In ons boek, Forbidden Archeology, bespreken we er een paar. In 1897, in The Daily News, een krant uit Omaha,
Nebraska, een artikel met de titel "Bewerkte steen begraven in mijn". Dit ging over een stuk rots van zo'n zestig bij
dertig centimeter, dat in een ruitvormig patroon was bewerkt. De tekens op het oppervlak verdeelden het in ruiten,
en in het midden van elke ruit stond een menselijk gezicht gegraveerd, dat van een ouder persoon. De vraag is hoe
het daar terecht is gekomen. Deze mijn was diep onder de grond gegraven, op bijna 40 meter. Volgens de
mijnwerkers was de aarde daar onberoerd -iets waar mijnwerkers sterk bedacht op zijn omdat hun leven er van
afhangt. Als ze ergens graven, letten ze erop dat de steenkool geen sporen van eerdere graafwerkzaamheden
vertoont, bijvoorbeeld een oude mijnschacht die achteraf is dichtgegooid, omdat ze weten dat ze in zo'n geval in een
aardverschuiving terecht kunnen komen of onder de grond ingesloten kunnen worden. Ze weten dus waar ze het
over hebben. De steenkool in dat gedeelte, in de buurt van Omaha, Nebraska, was circa 300 miljoen jaar oud, dus
dat is echt verbazingwekkend. Waar is dat object nu? We hebben geprobeerd het op te sporen, maar we konden het
niet vinden. De kranten hebben erover geschreven. We vonden er veel literatuur over, maar omdat het zo ver af staat
van wat de moderne wetenschap zou accepteren, werd het niet ergens in een museum bewaard. Waarschijnlijk heeft
een van de mijnwerkers het gehouden, en is het na zijn overlijden op een ander familielid overgegaan, of misschien
heeft hij het weggegooid.
Ik heb gehoord dat er muren zijn gevonden die op ruim 40 meter diepte begraven lagen. Hiervan zijn voorbeelden
gevonden in Texas en in Californie, als ik het goed heb. Zijn jullie zulke enorme artefacten als begraven stenen
muren tegengekomen?
We zijn rapporten over zulke vondsten tegengekomen. Deze vermelden we ook in ons boek. Een zo'n geval is dat
van Heavener, Oklahoma, waar het verhaal vandaan komt van een mijnwerker die in 1928 aan het werk was in een
mijn op tweeënhalve kilometer diepte. Deze mijnen waren ingericht met verschillende kamers, waarbij er elke dag
een nieuwe kamer uit de grond werd geblazen. Op een ochtend werd er weer steenkool uit de mijn geblazen met
explosieven, en wat de mijnwerkers zagen aan het verste einde van de nieuwe kamer, was volgens hun beschrijving
een muur van zeer gladde, gepolijste betonnen blokken; het was een muur, die daar beneden was gebouwd. Toen ze
het meldden aan de leiding van de mijn, werden de mijnwerkers er door de bazen uitgezet, naar een andere mijn
gestuurd, en werd dat gedeelte van de mijn dichtgegooid. Er lijkt wel een patroon in te zitten. Het is alleen te hopen
dat sommige van deze zaken worden heropend en opnieuw onderzocht, door mensen die wat ruimdenkender zijn.
Ik vraag me af of, stel dat de aarde gedurende een dag doorschijnend zou zijn en we alle botten van dinosaurussen
konden zien, alle ongebruikelijke artefacten, alle menselijke overblijfselen, alle voetafdrukken, alle dingen die al een
eeuwigheid in de aarde begraven liggen, wat zouden we dan zien?
Wat we volgens mij zouden zien is een beeld van allerlei soorten wezens, mensen en anderszins, uit een tijd die
onvoorstelbaar ver teruggaat. Een probleem is dat alleen het kunnen zien niet genoeg is, omdat veel van wat we zien
wordt bepaald door onze ideeën. Je kunt iets altijd wegredeneren. Wat wij vooral zagen was dat het bewijsmateriaal
met twee maten wordt gemeten. Als iets past in de huidige denkmodellen, dan is er geen vuiltje aan de lucht. Als iets
echter tegen de huidige ideeen ingaat, kun je er onmiddellijk allerlei gebreken aan ontdekken, omdat je met dit soort
bewijsmateriaal dat je uit de grond opgraaft, zelfs onder de beste omstandigheden altijd wel een tegengestelde
verklaring kunt vinden. In het uiterste geval kun je altijd nog zeggen dat het gewoon een perfect uitgekiende vorm
van bedrog was, of een grap... Het probleem is echter dat wanneer je zoiets zou doen, en je dezelfde maatstaf zo
hanteren voor de dingen die je nu in het museum aantreft, dat je deze dingen ook zou moeten weggooien. Als je
bijvoorbeeld een anatomisch modern menselijk skelet vind in een steenkoollaag vlak onder het aardoppervlak, zou
het enerzijds, als het echt in de steenkool zat, 200 miljoen jaar oud zijn. Maar als er dan iemand komt die zegt dat
het veel recenter moet zijn omdat het zo dicht onder het aardoppervlak is aangetroffen. In feite zijn de meeste
archeologische ontdekkingen waarover we beschikken -zoals Lucy, het beroemdste exemplaar van de
Australopithecus, gevonden door Donald Johanson in Ethiopie in de jaren zeventig- op het aardoppervlak gevonden.
De meeste ontdekkingen van de Java-mens op Java zijn trouwens op het oppervlak gevonden. En niet begraven in de
grond.
Hoe zit het precies met de gouden kettingen die uit brokken steenkool vallen?
Deze worden beschreven in verscheidene boeken, ook in dat van ons. Een bijzonder interessante zaak is die van
1891, waarover een artikel verscheen in The Morrisonville Times uit Illinois. Om precies te zijn overkwam het de
vrouw van de uitgever van die krant. Mevrouw Culp was bezig steenkool te breken voor in de kachel, toen ze in een
steenkool een goud kettinkje vond, een uiterst verfijnde, bewerkte gouden ketting. Wat ze overhield was een stukje
steenkool waaruit aan beide zijden een stukje ketting hing, als was het een hanger. We hadden ervan gehoord, en
hebben de krant zelf benaderd om te vragen of het artikel nog bestond, en die stuurde ons een kopie van dit artikel.
We hebben ook contact opgenomen met de Geological Survey in de staat Illinois over de datering van het stukje
kool waarin de gouden ketting was gevonden. We hebben geprobeerd om dat gouden kettinkje -zo'n 300 miljoen
jaar oud- te vinden. We kwamen erachter dat de eigenares in 1959 was overleden, en dat een van haar familieleden
de ketting na haar dood heeft geerfd, maar daar loopt het spoor dood. Vandaar dat we deze vondst hebben
opgenomen in onze bijlage met extreme anomalieën, omdat we er geen volledige beschrijving van konden geven.
Het boek bestaat voor het grootste deel uit minder spectaculaire vondsten, waarvoor betere bronnen en
beschrijvingen beschikbaar zijn. De meeste artefacten zijn er nog steeds -het merendeel in musea en men kan ze
bekijken.
De gegroefde bollen werden bij Ottosdal in Zuid-Afrika gevonden. Ze worden al tijden lang gevonden, er zijn er
honderden van gevonden. Ze hebben niet allemaal parallelle groeven om de middellijn. Ze worden niet vermeld in
wetenschappelijke tijdschriften, en daarom hebben we dit specifieke geval in een bijlage achterin het boek
opgenomen. De bollen worden bewaard in een museum in Klerksdorp, Zuid-Afrika. We correspondeerden met
Roelf Marx, de curator van het museum aldaar, die ons vertelde dat ze een compleet raadsel vormden voor hem.
Volgens hem zien ze eruit alsof ze door mensen zijn vervaardigd. Dat waren zijn precieze woorden, dat ze door
mensen zijn gemaakt, terwijl toen deze bollen in de rots zijn ingesloten, er geen intelligent leven op aarde bestond.
Volgens hem zagen ze er weliswaar uit alsof ze door de mens zijn gemaakt, maar kunnen ze niet door de mens
gemaakt zijn omdat er op dat specifieke tijdstip geen mens, geen enkele levensvorm bestond. De bollen zijn
gevonden in een formatie van pyrofiliet, een mica-achtige mineraalsoort waarvan de ouderdom is geschat op 2,8
miljard jaar. Die gegevens had hij van professor Bisschoff, de leraar geologie aan een plaatselijke universiteit, de
universiteit van Potchefstroom. Deze bollen zouden zijn gemaakt van limoniet, een soort ijzererts, maar het is een
erg ongebruikelijke soort limoniet omdat dit materiaal veel harder is. Zelfs met een stalen punt kan er niet in gekrast
worden, wat betekent dat ze extreem hard zijn. Zuiver limoniet-erts is gewoonlijk erg zacht, dus dat maakt de bollen
uiterst raadselachtig.
Ik denk dat je geen enkele huidige wetenschapper bereid zou vinden om te verklaren dat deze bollen door een mens
zijn gemaakt, hoewel ze zouden zeggen dat ze er wel uitzien alsof ze door mensen zijn gemaakt.
Een laatste voorbeeld als uitsmijter. Men heeft een gedeelte van een afdruk van een schoenzool gevonden in rots van
het late Trias, waarvan de ouderdom is vastgesteld op 250.000 miljoen jaar. In deze afdruk was de draad waarmee
de zool was genaaid duidelijk te zien, afgedrukt in de rots. Hoe kun je zoiets over het hoofd zien wanneer er een
stiksel onder de zool zit en wanneer de rots uit het Trias stamt? Waar is die rots trouwens gebleven... ?
Dit is dus weer eens in de doofpot gestopt. De zoveelste keer dat we prachtig bewijsmateriaal hadden dat
wetenschappers onder ogen hebben gehad, en dat in de doofpot wordt gestopt. De ontdekker heeft het meegenomen
naar New York en naar de universiteit van Columbia. In Columbia heeft hij het laten zien aan de leiding van het
American Museum of National History en het aan hen gegeven. Toen we schreven naar het American Museum of
National History werd ons verteld dat ze hier geen informatie over hadden. Dat het rapport niet in hun archieven
voorkomt.
commentaar: De degeneratie-theorie zegt dat het leven begonnen is met de gelijktijdige creatie van in complexiteit verschillende
oertypen, die ongeveer op familieniveau gezocht moeten worden, van waaruit alle ondervarianten zijn ontstaan die
we nu en in de fossielen waarnemen. Het idee van de co-existentie van mensen met andere levende wezens
gedurende alle tijden van het bestaan van de aarde is dus identiek aan het idee van de degeneratie-theorie hierover.
Forbidden Archeology betekent óf dat er iets fundamenteel mis is met bestaande dateringsmethoden, óf dat er iets
fundamenteel mis is met de evolutie-theorie.
Ik zou discussie naar aanleiding van dit artikel aan willen moedigen door gebruik te maken van het Online Discussie
Platform en daar reacties in te zenden.
tekst en pagina's gemaakt door: Peter Scheele
een project van Peter-InSite.nl
geef hier je feedback over deze pagina of op de inhoud
laatste veranderingen: 08-12-97
copyright © 1997, Peter Scheele
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human
Race By Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson
Published by BBT Science Books, 1996. ISBN: 0-89213-294-9. Hardbound, 952 pages.
Sample Chapter
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1979, researchers at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over
3.6 million years old. Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishable from those of modern humans.
To these scientists, this meant only that the human ancestors of 3.6 million years ago had remarkably modern feet.
But ccording to other scientists, such as physical anthropologist R. H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, fossil
bones of the known australopithecines of 3.6 million years ago show they had feet that were distinctly apelike.
Hence they were incompatible with the Laetoli prints. In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural History,
Tuttle confessed that "we are left with somewhat of a mystery." It seems permissible, therefore, to consider a
possibility neither Tuttle nor Leakey mentioned--that creatures with anatomically modern human bodies to match
their anatomically modern human feet existed some 3.6 million years ago in East Africa. Perhaps, as
suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexisted with more apelike creatures. As intriguing as this
archeological possibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it.
Knowledgeable persons will warn against positing the existence of anatomically modern humans millions of years
ago on the slim basis of the Laetoli footprints. But there is further evidence. Over the past few decades, scientists in
Africa have uncovered fossil bones that look remarkably human. In 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howells
found a surprisingly modern humerus (upper arm bone) at Kanapoi, Kenya. Scientists judged the humerus to be over
4 million years old. Henry M. McHenry and
Robert S. Corruccini of the University of California said the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from
modern Homo." Similarly, Richard Leakey said the ER 1481 femur (thighbone) from Lake Turkana, Kenya, found
in 1972, was indistinguishable from that of modern humans. Scientists normally assign the ER 1481 femur, which is
about 2 million years old, to prehuman Homo habilis. But since the ER 1481 femur was found by itself, one cannot
rule out the possibility that the rest of the skeleton was also anatomically modern. Interestingly enough, in 1913 the
German scientist Hans Reck found at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, a complete anatomically modern human skeleton in
strata over 1 million years old, inspiring decades of
controversy.
Here again, some will caution us not to set a few isolated and controversial examples against the overwhelming
amount of noncontroversial evidence showing that anatomically modern humans evolved from more apelike
creatures fairly recently--about 100,000 years ago, in Africa, and, in the view of some, in other parts of the world as
well.
But it turns out we have not exhausted our resources with the Laetoli footprints, the Kanapoi humerus, and the ER
1481 femur. Over he past eight years, Richard Thompson and I, with the assistance of our researcher Stephen
Bernath, have amassed an extensive body of evidence that calls into question current theories of human evolution.
Some of this evidence, like the Laetoli footprints, is fairly recent. But much of it was reported by scientists in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And as you can see, our discussion of this evidence fills up quite a large
book.
Without even looking at this older body of evidence, some will assume that there must be something wrong with it--
that it was properly disposed of by scientists long ago, for very good reasons. Richard and I have looked rather
deeply into that possibility. We have concluded, however, that the quality of this controversial evidence is no better
or worse than the
supposedly noncontroversial evidence usually cited in favor of current views about human evolution.
But Forbidden Archeology is more than a well-documented catalog of unusual facts. It is also a sociological,
philosophical, and historical critique of the scientific method, as applied to the question of human origins and
antiquity.
We are not sociologists, but our approach in some ways resembles that taken by practitioners of the sociology of
scientific knowledge (SSK), such as Steve Woolgar, Trevor Pinch, Michael Mulkay, Harry Collins, Bruno Latour,
and Michael Lynch.
Each of these scholars has a unique perspective on SSK, but they would all probably agree with the following
programmatic statement. Scientists' conclusions do not identically correspond to states and processes of an objective
natural reality. Instead, such conclusions reflect the real social processes of scientists as much as, more than, or even
rather than what goes on in nature.
The critical approach we take in Forbidden Archeology also resembles that taken by philosophers of science such as
Paul Feyerabend, who holds that science has attained too privileged a position in the intellectual field, and by
historians of science such as J. S. Rudwick, who has explored in detail the nature of scientific controversy. As does
Rudwick in The Great
Devonian Controversy, we use narrative to present our material, which encompasses not one controversy but many
controversies--controversies long resolved, controversies as yet unresolved, and controversies now in the making.
This has necessitated extensive quoting from primary and secondary sources, and giving rather detailed accounts of
the twists and turns of complex paleoanthropological debates.
For those working in disciplines connected with human origins and antiquity, Forbidden Archeology provides a
well- documented compendium of reports absent from many current references and not otherwise easily obtainable.
One of the last authors to discuss the kind of reports found in Forbidden Archeology was Marcellin Boule. In his
book Fossil Men (1957), Boule gave a decidedly negative review. But upon examining the original reports, we
found Boule's total skepticism unjustified. In Forbidden Archeology, we provide primary source material that will
allow modern readers to form
their own opinions about the evidence Boule dismissed. We also introduce a great many cases that Boule neglected
to mention.
From the evidence we have gathered, we conclude, sometimes in language devoid of ritual tentativeness, that the
now-dominant assumptions about human origins are in need of drastic revision. We also find that a process of
knowledge filtration has left current workers with a radically incomplete collection of facts.
We anticipate that many workers will take Forbidden Archeology as an invitation to productive discourse on (1) the
nature and treatment of evidence in the field of human origins and (2) the conclusions that can most reasonably
drawn from this evidence.
In the first chapter of Part I of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the history and current state of scientific ideas
about human evolution. We also discuss some of the epistemological principles we employ in our study of this field.
Principally, we are concerned with a double standard in the treatment of evidence.
We identify two main bodies of evidence. The first is a body of controversial evidence (A), which shows the
existence of anatomically modern humans in the uncomfortably distant past. The second is a body of evidence (B),
which can be interpreted as supporting the currently dominant views that anatomically modern humans evolved
fairly recently, about 100,000 years ago in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere.
We also identify standards employed in the evaluation of paleoanthropological evidence. After detailed study, we
found that if these standards are applied equally to A and B, then we must accept both A and B or reject both A and
B. If we accept both A and B, then we have evidence placing anatomically modern humans millions of years ago,
coexisting with more apelike hominids. If we reject both A and B, then we deprive ourselves of the evidential
foundation for making any pronouncements whatsoever about human origins and antiquity.
Historically, a significant number of professional scientists once accepted the evidence in category A. But a more
influential group of scientists, who applied standards of evidence more strictly to A than to B, later caused A to be
rejected and B to be preserved. This differential application of standards for the acceptance and rejection of evidence
constitutes a knowledge filter that obscures the real picture of human origins and antiquity.
In the main body of Part I (Chapters 2-6), we look closely at the vast amount of controversial evidence that
contradicts current ideas about human evolution. We recount in detail how this evidence has been systematically
suppressed, ignored, or forgotten, even though it is qualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to evidence favoring
currently accepted views on human origins. When we speak of suppression of evidence, we are not referring to
scientific conspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public. Instead, we are talking about an ongoing
social process of knowledge filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial cumulative effect. Certain
categories of evidence simply disappear from view, in our opinion unjustifiably.
Chapter 2 deals with anomalously old bones and shells showing cut marks and signs of intentional breakage. To this
day, scientists regard such bones and shells as an important category of evidence, and many archeological sites have
been established on this kind of evidence alone.
In the decades after Darwin introduced his theory, numerous scientists discovered incised and broken animal bones
and shells suggesting that tool-using humans or human precursors existed in the Pliocene (2-5 million years ago),
the Miocene (5-25 million years ago), and even earlier. In analyzing cut and broken bones and shells, the discoverers
carefully considered and ruled out alternative explanations--such as the action of animals or geological pressure--
before concluding that humans were
responsible. In some cases, stone tools were found along with the cut and broken bones or shells.
A particularly striking example in this category is a shell displaying a crude yet recognizably human face carved on
its outer surface. Reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in
1881, this shell, from the Pliocene Red Crag formation in England, is over 2 million years old. According to
standard views, humans capable of this level of artistry did not arrive in Europe until about 30,000 or 40,000 years
ago. Furthermore, they supposedly did not arise in
their African homeland until about 100,000 years ago.
Concerning evidence of the kind reported by Stopes, Armand de Quatrefages wrote in his book Hommes Fossiles et
Hommes Sauvages (1884): "The objections made to the existence of man in the Pliocene and Miocene seem to
habitually be more related to theoretical considerations than direct observation."
The most rudimentary stone tools, the eoliths ("dawn stones") are the subject of Chapter 3. These imlements, found
in unexpectedly old geological contexts, inspired protracted debate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
For some, eoliths were not always easily recognizable as tools. Eoliths were not shaped into symmetrical
implemental forms. Instead, an edge of a natural stone flake was chipped to make it suitable for a particular task,
such as scraping, cutting, or chopping. Often, the working edge bore signs of use.
Critics said eoliths resulted from natural forces, like tumbling in stream beds. But defenders of eoliths offered
convincing counterarguments that natural forces could not have made unidirectional chipping on just one side of a
working edge.
In the late nineteenth century, Benjamin Harrison, an amateur archeologist, found eoliths on the Kent Plateau in
southeastern England. Geological evidence suggests that the eoliths were manufactured in the Middle or Late
Pliocene, about 2-4 million ago. Among the supporters of Harrison's eoliths were Alfred Russell Wallace, cofounder
with Darwin of the theory of
evolution by natural selection; Sir John Prestwich, one of England's most eminent geologists; and Ray E. Lankester,
a director of the British Museum (Natural History).
Although Harrision found most of his eoliths in surface deposits of Pliocene gravel, he also found many below
ground level during an excavation financed and directed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
In addition to eoliths, Harrison found at various places on the Kent Plateau more advanced stone tools (paleoliths) of
similar Pliocene antiquity.
In the early part of the twentieth century, J. Reid Moir, a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and president
of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, found eoliths (and more advanced stone tools) in England's Red Crag
formation. The tools were about 2.0-2.5 million years old. Some of Moir's tools were discovered in the detritus beds
beneath the Red Crag and
could be anywhere from 2.5 to 55 million years old.
Moir's finds won support from one of the most vocal critics of eoliths, Henri Breuil, then regarded as one of the
world's preeminent authorities on stone tools. Another supporter was paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, of the
American Museum of Natural History in New York. And in 1923, an international commission of scientists
journeyed to England to investigate
Moir's principal discoveries and pronounced them genuine.
But in 1939, A. S. Barnes published an influential paper, in which he analyzed the eoliths found by Moir and others
in terms of the angle of flaking observed on them. Barnes claimed his method could distinguish human flaking from
flaking by natural causes. On this basis, he dismissed all the eoliths he studied, including Moir's, as the product of
natural forces. Since then, scientists have used Barnes's method to deny the human manufacture of other stone tool
industries. But in recent years,
authorities on stone tools such as George F. Carter, Leland W. Patterson, and A. L. Bryan have disputed Barnes's
methodology and its blanket application. This suggests the need for a reexamination of the European eoliths.
Significantly, early stone tools from Africa, such as those from the lower levels of Olduvai Gorge, appear identical
to the rejected European eoliths. Yet they are accepted by the scientific community without question. This is
probably because they fall within, and help support, the conventional spatio- temporal framework of human
evolution.
But other Eolithic industries of unexpected antiquity continue to encounter strong opposition. For example, in the
1950s, Louis Leakey found stone tools over 200,000 years old at Calico in southern California. According to tandard
views, humans did not enter the subarctic regions of the New World until about 12,000 years ago. Mainstream
scientists responded to Calico
with predictable claims that the objects found there were natural products or that they were not really 200,000 years
old. But there is sufficient reason to conclude that the Calico finds are genuinely old human artifcts. Although most
of the Calico implements are crude, some, including a beaked graver, are more advanced.
In Chapter 4, we discuss a category of implements that we call crude paleoliths. In the case of eoliths, chipping is
confined to the working edge of a naturally broken piece of stone. But the makers of the crude paleoliths
deliberately struck flakes from stone cores and then shaped them into more recognizable types of tools. In some
cases, the cores themselves were shaped into tools. As we have seen, crude paleoliths also turn up along with eoliths.
But at the sites discussed in Chapter 4, the paleoliths
are more dominant in the assemblages.
In the category of crude paleoliths, we include Miocene tools (5-25 million years old) found in the late nineteenth
century by Carlos Ribeiro, head of the Geological Survey of Portugal. At an international conference of
archeologists and anthropologists held in Lisbon, a committee of scientists investigated one of the sites where
Ribeiro had found implements. One of the scientists found a stone tool even more advanced than the better of
Ribeiro's specimens. Comparable to accepted Late Pleistocene tools of the Mousterian type, it was firmly embedded
in a Miocene conglomerate, in circumstances confirming its Miocene antiquity.
Crude paleoliths were also found in Miocene formations at Thenay, France. S. Laing, an English science writer,
noted: "On the whole, the evidence for these Miocene implements seems to be very conclusive, and the objections to
have hardly any other ground than the reluctance to admit the great antiquity of man."
Scientists also found crude paleoliths of Miocene age at Aurillac, France. And at Boncelles, Belgium, A. Rutot
uncovered an extensive collection of paleoliths of Oligocene age (25 to 38 million years old).
In Chapter 5, we examine very advanced stone implements found in unexpectedly old geological contexts. Whereas
the implements discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 could conceivably be the work of human precursors such as Homo
erectus or Homo habilis, given current estimates of their capabilities, the implements of Chapter 5 are
unquestionably the work of anatomically modern humans.
Florentino Ameghino, a respected Argentine paleontologist, found stone tools, signs of fire, broken mammal bones,
and a human vertebra in a Pliocene formation at Monte Hermoso, Argentina. Ameghino made numerous similar
discoveries in Argentina, attracting the attention of scientists around the world. Despite Ameghino's unique theories
about a South American
origin for the hominids, his actual discoveries are still worth considering.
In 1912, Ales Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institution, published a lengthy, but not very reasonable, attack on
Ameghino's work. Hrdlicka asserted that all of Ameghino's finds were from recent Indian settlements.
In response, Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino Ameghino, carried out new investigations at Miramar, on the
Argentine coast south of Buenos Aires. There he found a series of stone implements, including bolas, and signs of
fire. A commission of geologists confirmed the implements' position in the Chapadmalalan formation, which
modern geologists say is 3-5 million years old. Carlos Ameghino also found at Miramar a stone arrowhead firmly
embedded in the femur of a Pliocene species of Toxodon, an extinct South American mammal.
Ethnographer Eric Boman disputed Carlos Ameghino's discoveries but also unintentionally helped confirm them. In
1920, Carlos Ameghino's collector, Lorenzo Parodi, found a stone implement in the Pliocene seaside barranca (cliff)
at Miramar and left it in place. Boman was one of several scientists invited by Ameghino to witness the implement's
extraction. After the implement (a bola stone) was photographed and removed, another discovery was made. "At my
direction," wrote Boman, "Parodi continued to attack the barranca with a pick at the same point where the bola stone
was discovered, when suddenly and unexpectedly, there appeared a second stone ball. . . . It is more like grinding
stone than a bola." Boman found yet another implement 200 yards away. Confounded, Boman could only hint in his
written report that the implements had been planted by Parodi. While this might conceivably have been true of the
first implement, it is hard to explain the other two in this way. In any case, Boman produced no evidence whatsoever
that Parodi, a longtime employee of the Buenos Aires Museum of Natural History, had ever behaved fraudulently.
The kinds of implements found by Carlos Ameghino at Miramar (arrowheads and bolas) are usually considered the
work of Homo sapiens sapiens. Taken at face value, the Miramar finds therefore demonstrate the presence of
anatomically modern humans in South America over 3 million years ago. Interestingly enough, in 1921 M. A.
Vignati discovered in the Late Pliocene
Chapadmalalan formation at Miramar a fully human fossil jaw fragment.
In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits
at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron. Geologist John Sanford of Wayne State University
argued that the oldest Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years old and might be as much as 125,000 years old.
For those adhering to
standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were unacceptable.
Thomas E. Lee complained: "The site's discoverer [Lee] was hounded from his Civil Service position into prolonged
unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by several prominent authors . . . ;
the tons of artifacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for refusing to fire the discoverer,
the Director of the
National Museum, who had proposed having a monograph on the site published, was himself fired and driven into
exile; official positions of prestige and power were exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah
specimens that had not gone under cover; and the site has been turned into a tourist resort. . . . Sheguiandah would
have forced embarrassing
admissions that the Brahmins did not know everything. It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in
the business. It had to be killed. It was killed."
The treatment received by Lee is not an isolated case. In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools
at Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team
obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the sites implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard
views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of human origins. Humans capable of making
the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in
Africa.
Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced difficulty in getting her dating study on Hueyatlaco published. "The problem
as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco," she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of Quaternary Research.
"It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges
the prevailing mode
of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our
dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution has become. Our
work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period."
This pattern of data suppression has a long history. In 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California,
published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The implements, including spear
points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava,
in formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over 55 million years old. W. H. Holmes of the
Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal nineteenth-
century critics of the California finds, wrote: "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human
evoution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans
existed in very ancient times in North America], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was
confronted." In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing
array of them, must be discarded.
In Chapter 6, we review discoveries of anomalously old skeletal remains of the anatomically modern human type.
Perhaps the most interesting case is that of Castenedolo, Italy, where in the 1880s, G. Ragazzoni, a geologist, found
fossil bones of several Homo sapiens sapiens individuals in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million years old.
Critics typically respond that the bones must have been placed into these Pliocene layers fairly recently by human
burial. But Ragazzoni was alert to this possibility and carefully inspected the overlying layers. He found them
undisturbed, with absolutely no sign of burial.
Modern scientists have used radiometric and chemical tests to attach recent ages to the Castenedolo bones and other
anomalously old human skeletal remains. But, as we show in Appendix 1, these tests can be quite unreliable. The
carbon 14 test is especially unreliable when applied to bones (such as the Castenedolo bones) that have lain in
museums for decades. Under these circumstances, bones are exposed to contamination that could cause the carbon
14 test to yield abnormally young dates. Rigorous purification techniques are required to remove such
contamination. Scientists did not employ these techniques in the 1969 carbon 14 testing of some of the Castenedolo
bones, which yielded an age of less than a thousand years.
Although the carbon 14 date for the Castenedolo material is suspect, it must still be considered as relevant evidence.
But it should be weighed along with the other evidence, including the original stratigraphic observations of
Ragazzoni, a professional geologist. In this case, the stratigraphic evidence appears to be more conclusive.
Opposition, on theoretical grounds, to a human presence in the Pliocene is not a new phenomenon. Speaking of the
Castenedolo finds and others of similar antiquity, the Italian scientist G. Sergi wrote in 1884: "By means of a
despotic scientific prejudice, call it what you will, every discovery of human remains in the Pliocene has been
discredited."
A good example of such prejudice is provided by R. A. S. Macalister, who in 1921 wrote about the Castenedolo
finds in a textbook on archeology: "There must be something wrong somewhere." Noting that the Castenedolo bones
were anatomically modern, Macalister concluded: "If they really belonged to the stratum in which they were found,
this would imply an xtraordinarily long standstill for evolution. It is much more likely that there is something amiss
with the observations." He further stated: "The acceptance of a Pliocene date for the Castenedolo skeletons would
create so many insoluble problems that we can hardly hesitate in choosing between the alternatives of adopting or
rejecting their authenticity." This supports the primary
point we are trying to make in Forbidden Archeology, namely, that there exists in the scientific community a
knowledge filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. This process of knowledge filtration has been going on for
well over a century and continues right up to the present day.
Our discussion of anomalously old human skeletal remains brings us to the end of Part I, our catalog of controversial
evidence. In Part II of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the body of accepted evidence that is generally used to
support the now-dominant ideas about human evolution.
Chapter 7 focuses on the discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus by Eugene Dubois in Java during the last decade of
the nineteenth century. Historically, the Java man discovery marks a turning point. Until then, there was no clear
picture of human evolution to be upheld and defended. Therefore, a good number of scientists, most of them
evolutionists, were actively considering a substantial body of evidene (cataloged in Part I) indicating that
anatomically modern humans existed in the Pliocene and earlier. With the discovery of Java man, now classified as
Homo erectus, the long-awaited missing link turned up in the Middle Pleistocene. As the Java man find won
acceptance among evolutionists, the body of evidence for a human presence in more ancient times gradually slid
into disrepute.
This evidence was not conclusively invalidated. Instead, at a certain point, scientists stopped talking and writing
about it. It was incompatible with the idea that apelike Java man was a genuine human ancestor.
As an example of how the Java man discovery was used to suppress evidence for a human presence in the Pliocene
and earlier, the following statement made by W. H. Holmes about the California finds reported by J. D. Whitney is
instructive. After asserting that Whitney's evidence "stands absolutely alone," Holmes complained that "it implies a
human race older by at least
one-half than Pithecanthropus erectus, which may be regarded as an incipient form of human creature only."
Therefore, despite the good quality of Whitney's evidence, it had to be dismissed.
Interestingly enough, modern researchers have reinterpreted the original Java Homo erectus fossils. The famous
bones reported by Dubois were a skullcap and femur. Although the two bones were found over 45 feet apart, in a
deposit filled with bones of many other species, Dubois said they belonged to the same individual. But in 1973, M.
H. Day and T. I. Molleson determined that the femur found by Dubois is different from other Homo erectus femurs
and is in fact indistinguishable from anatomically modern human femurs. This caused Day and Molleson to propose
that the femur was not connected with the Java man skull.
As far as we can see, this means that we now have an anatomically modern human femur and a Homo erectus skull
in a Middle Pleistocene stratum that is considered to be 800,000 years old. This provides further evidence that
anatomically modern humans coexisted with more apelike creatures in unexpectedly remote times. According to
standard views, anatomically modern humans arose just 100,000 years ago in Africa. Of course, one can always
propose that the anatomically modern human femur somehow got buried quite recently into the Middle Pleistocene
beds at Trinil. But the same could also be said of the skull.
In Chapter 7, we also consider the many Java Homo erectus discoveries reported by G. H. R. von Koenigswald and
other researchers. Almost all of these bones were surface finds, the true age of which is doubtful. Nevertheless,
scientists have assigned them Middle and Early Pleistocene dates obtained by the potassium-argon method. The
potassium-argon method is
used to date layers of volcanic material, not bones. Because the Java Homo erectus fossils were found on the surface
and not below the intact volcanic layers, it is misleading to assign them potassium-argon dates obtained from the
volcanic layers.
The infamous Piltdown hoax is the subject of Chapter 8. Early in this century, Charles Dawson, an amateur
collector, found pieces of a human skull near Piltdown. Subsequently, scientists such as Sir Arthur Smith Woodward
of the British Museum and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin participated with Dawson in excavations that uncovered an
apelike jaw, along with several mammalian fossils of appropriate antiquity. Dawson and Woodward, believing the
combination of humanlike skull and apelike jaw represented a human ancestor from the Early Pleistocene or Late
Pliocene, announced their discovery to the scientific world. For the next four decades, Piltdown man was accepted
as a genuine discovery and was integrated into the human
evolutionary lineage.
In the 1950s, J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley, and other British scientists exposed Piltdown man as an exceedingly clever
hoax, carried out by someone with great scientific expertise. Some blamed Dawson or Teilhard de Chardin, but
others have accused Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum, Sir Arthur Keith of the Hunterian Museum
of the Royal Collee of Surgeons, William Sollas of the geology department at Cambridge, and Sir Grafton Eliot
Smith, a famous anatomist.
J. S. Weiner himself noted: "Behind it all we sense, therefore, a strong and impelling motive. . . . There could have
been a mad desire to assist the doctrine of human evolution by furnishing the 'requisite' 'missing link'. . . . Piltdown
might have offered irresistible attraction to some fanatical biologist."
Piltdown is significant in that it shows that there are instances of deliberate fraud in paleoanthropology, in addition
to the general process of knowledge filtration.
Finally, there is substantial, though not incontrovertible, evidence that the Piltdown skull, at least, was a genuine
fossil. The Piltdown gravels in which it was found are now thought to be 75,000 to 125,000 years old. An
anatomically modern human skull of this age in England would be considered anomalous.
Chapter 9 takes us to China, where in 1929 Davidson Black reported the discovery of Peking man fossils at
Zhoukoudian (formerly Choukoutien). Now classified as Homo erectus, the Peking man specimens were lost to
science during the Second World War. Traditionally, Peking man has been depicted as a cave dweller who had
mastered the arts of stone tool manufacturing, hunting, and building fires. But a certain number of influential
researchers regarded this view as mistaken. They saw Peking man as the prey of a more advanced hominid, whose
skeletal remains have not yet been discovered.
In 1983, Wu Rukang and Lin Shenglong published an article in Scientific American purporting to show an
evolutionary increase in brain size during the 230,000 years of the Homo erectus occupation of the Zhoukoudian
cave. But we show that this proposal was based on a misleading statistical presentation of the cranial evidence.
In addition to the famous Peking man discoveries, many more hominid finds have been made in China. These
include, say Chinese workers, australopithecines, various grades of Homo erectus, Neanderthaloids, early Homo
sapiens, and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The dating of these hominids is problematic. They occur at sites
along with fossils of mammals broadly characteristic of the Pleistocene. In reading various reports, we noticed that
scientists routinely used the morphology of the hominid remains to date these sites more precisely.
For example, at Tongzi, South China, Homo sapiens fossils were found along with mammalian fossils. Qiu
Zhonglang said: "The fauna suggests a Middle-Upper Pleistocene range, but the archeological [i.e., human] evidence
is consistent with an Upper Pleistocene age." Qiu, using what we call morphological dating, therefore assigned the
site, and hence the human fossils, to the Upper Pleistocene. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the Homo
sapiens fossils could be as old as the Middle Pleistocene. Indeed, our examination of the Tongzi faunal evidence
shows mammalian species that became extinct at the end of the Middle Pleistocene. This indicates that the Tongzi
site, and the Homo sapiens fossils, are at least 100,000 years old. Additional faunal evidence suggests a maximum
age of about 600,000 years.
The practice of morphological dating substantially distorts the hominid fossil record. In effect, scientists simply
arrange the hominid fossils according to a favored evolutionary sequence, although the accompanying faunal
evidence does not dictate this. If one considers the true probable date ranges for the Chinese hominids, one finds that
various grades of Homo erectus and various grades of early Homo sapiens (including Neanderthaloids) may have
coexisted with anatomically modern Homo sapiens
in the middle Middle Pleistocene, during the time of the Zhoukoudian Homo erectus occupation.
In Chapter 10, we consider the possible coexistence of primitive hominids and anatomically modern humans not
only in the distant past but in the present. Over the past century, scientists have accumulated evidence suggesting
that humanlike ceatures resembling Gigantopithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and the Neanderthals are
living in various wilderness areas of the world. In North America, these creatures are known as Sasquatch. In
Central Asia, they are called Almas. In Africa, China,
Southeast Asia, Central America, and South America, they are known by other names. Some researchers use the
general term "wildmen" to include them all. Scientists and physicians have reported seeing live wildmen, dead
wildmen, and footprints. They have also catalogued thousands of reports from ordinary people who have seen
wildmen, as well as similar reports from
historical records.
Myra Shackley, a British anthropologist, wrote to us: "Opinions vary, but I guess the commonest would be that there
is indeed sufficient evidence to suggest at least the possibility of the existence of various unclassified manlike
creatures, but that in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to comment on their significance in any
more detail. The position is further complicated by misquotes, hoaxing, and lunatic fringe activities, but a surprising
number of hard core anthropologists seem to be of the opinion that the matter is very worthwhile investigating."
Chapter 11 takes us to Africa. We describe in detail the cases mentioned in the first part of this introduction (Reck's
skeleton, the Laetoli footprints, etc.). These provide evidence for anatomically modern humans in the Early
Pleistocene and Late Pliocene.
We also examine the status of Australopithecus. Most anthropologists say Australopithecus was a human ancestor
with an apelike head, a humanlike body, and a humanlike bipedal stance and gait. But other researchers make a
convincing case for a radically different view of Australopithecus. Physical anthropologist C. E. Oxnard wrote in his
book Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution (1975): "Pending further evidence we are left with the vision of
intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics, and
perhaps of arm suspension." In a 1975 article in Nature, Oxnard found the australopithecines to be anatomically
similar to orangutans and said "it is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines . . . can have any direct
phylogenetic link with the genus Homo."
Oxnard's view is not new. Earlier in this century, when the first australopithecines were discovered, many
anthropologists, such as Sir Arthur Keith, declined to characterize them as human ancestors. But they were later
overruled. In his book The Order of Man (1984), Oxnard noted: "In the uproar, at the time, as to whether or not
these creatures were near ape or human, the opinion that they were human won the day. This may well have resulted
not only in the defeat of the contrary opinion but also the burying of that part of the evidence upon which the
contrary opinion was based. If this is so, it should be possible to unearth this other part of the evidence." And that, in
a more general way, is what we have done in Forbidden Archeology. We have unearthed buried evidence, evidence
which supports a view of human origins and antiquity quite different from that currently held.
In Appendix 1, we review chemical and radiometric dating techniques andtheir application to human fossil remains,
including some of those discussed in Chapter 6. In Appendix 2, we provide a limited selection of evidence for
ancient humans displaying a level of culture beyond that indicated by the stone tools discussed in Chapters 3-5. And
in Appendix 3, we provide a table listing almost all of the discoveries contained in Forbidden Archeology.
Some might question why we would put together a book like Forbidden Archeology, unless we had some underlying
purpose. Indeed, there is some underlying purpose.
Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for
Krishna Consciousness that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the
Vedc literature. This institute was founded by our spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, who encouraged us to critically examine the prevailing account of human origins and the methods by
which it was established. From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. To
conduct systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in
the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have coexisted for a long time.
That our theoretical outlook is derived from the Vedic literature should not disqualify it. Theory selection can come
from many sources--a private inspiration, previous theories, a suggestion from a friend, a movie, and so on. What
really matters is not a theory's source but its ability to account for observations.
Our research program led to results we did not anticipate, and hence a book much larger than originally envisioned.
Because of this, we have not been able to develop in this volume our ideas about an alternative to current theories of
human origins. We are therefore planning a second volume relating our extensive research results in this area to our
Vedic source material.
Given their underlying purpose, Forbidden Archeology and its forthcoming companion volume may therefore be of
interest to cultural and cognitive anthropologists, scholars of religion, and others concerned with the interactions of
cultures in time and space.
At this point, I would like to say something about my collaboration with Richard Thompson. Richard is a scientist
by training, a mathematician who has published refereed articles and books in the fields of mathematical biology,
remote sensing from satellites, geology, and physics. I am not a scientist by training. Since 1977, I have been a
writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
In 1984, Richard asked his assistant Stephen Bernath to begin collecting material on human origins and antiquity. In
1986, Richard asked me to take that material and organize it into a book.
As I reviewed the material provided to me by Stephen, I was struck by the very small number of reports from 1859,
when Darwin published The Origin of Species, until 1894, when Dubois published his report on Java man. Curious
about this, I asked Stephen to obtain some anthropology books from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. In these books, including an early edition of Boule's Fossil Men, I found highly negative reviews of
numerous reports from the period in question. By tracing out footnotes, we dug up a few samples of these reports.
Most of them, by nineteenth-century
scientists, described incised bones, stone tools, and anatomically modern skeletal remains encountered in
unexpectedly old geological contexts. The reports were of high quality, answering many possible objections. This
encouraged me to make a more systematic search. Digging up this buried literary evidence required another three
years. Stephen Bernath and I obtained rare conference volumes and journals from around the world, and together we
translated the material into English. The results of this labor provided the basis for Chapters 2-6 in Forbidden
Archeology.
After I reviewed the material Stephen gave me about the Peking man discoveries, I decided we should also look at
recent hominid finds in China. While going through dozens of technical books and papers, I noticed the
phenomenon of morphological dating. And when I reviewed our African material, I encountered hints of the
dissenting view regarding Australopithecus. My curiosity about these two areas also led to a fruitful extension of our
original research program.
Writing the manuscript from the assembled material took another couple of years. Throughout the entire period of
research and writing, I had almost daily discussions with Richard about the significance of the material and how best
to present it. Richard himself contributed most of Appendix 1, the discussion of the uranium series dating of the
Hueyatlac tools in Chapter 5, and the discussion of epistemological considerations in Chapter 1. The remainder of
the book was written by me, although I relied heavily on research reports supplied by Stephen Bernath for Chapter 7
and the first part of Chapter 9, as well as Appendix 2. Stephen obtained much of the material in Appendix 2 from
Ron Calais, who kindly sent us many Xeroxes of original reports from his archives.
In this second printing of the first edition of Forbidden Archeology, we have corrected several small errors in the
original text, mostly typographical. The account of a wildman sighting by Anthony B. Wooldridge, originally
included in Chapter 10, has been deleted because we have since learned that the author has retracted his statements.
Richard and I are grateful to our Bhaktivedanta Institute colleagues and the other reviewers who read all or part of
the manuscript of Forbidden Archeology. We have incorporated many, but not all, of their suggestions. Full
responsibility for the content and manner of presentation lies with us.
Virginia Steen-McIntyre was kind enough to supply us with her correspondence on the dating of the Hueyatlaco,
Mexico, site. We also had useful discussions about stone tools with Ruth D. Simpson of the San Bernardino County
Museum and about shark teeth marks on bone with Thomas A. Demere of the San Diego Natural History Museum.
I am indebted to my friend Pierce Julius Flynn for the continuing interest he has displayed in the writing and
publication of Forbidden Archeology. It is through him that I have learned much of what I know about current
developments in the social sciences, particularly semiotics, the sociology of knowledge, and postmodern
anthropology.
This book could not have been completed without the varied services of Christopher Beetle, a computer science
graduate of Brown University, who came to the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San Diego in 1988. He typeset almost all
of the book, going through several revisions. He also made most of the tables, processed most of the illustrations,
and served as a proofreader.
He made many helpful suggestions on the text and illustrations, and he also helped arranged the printing.
For overseeing the design and layout, Richard and I thank Robert Wintermute. The illustrations opposite the first
page of the introduction and in Figure 11.11 are the much-appreciated work of Miles Triplett. The cover painting is
by Hans Olson. David Smith, Sigalit Binyaminy, Susan Fritz, Barbara Cantatore, and Michael Best also helped in
the production of this book.
Richard and I would especially like to thank the international trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, past and
present, for their generous support for the research, writing, and publication of this book. Michael Crabtree also
contributed toward the printing cost of this book.
Finally, we encourage readers to bring to our attention any additional evidence that may be of interest, especially for
inclusion in future editions of this book. We are also available for interviews and speaking engagements.
Michael A. Cremo
Alachua, Florida
April 24, 1995
Order Info
Back to Home Page
News Releases
ORDER INFO
To subscribe to the FREE Forbidden Archeology Newsflash online newsletter send a BLANIK email to:
MEDIA EVENTS
Forbidden Archeology *************** News FLASH
NEWS RELEASE
Recent Indian Archeological Find Could Rewrite History:
Mysterious Sunken City Found Near Surat
WARANGAL, India – Could the recent discovery of a sunken city off the Northwest Coast of India near Surat
revolutionize our concept of history? Michael A. Cremo, historian of archeology and author of Forbidden
Archeology, claims that all the history textbooks would have to be rewritten if this ancient find proves to be of
Vedic origin. He recently attended a meeting of ranking Indian governmental officials at which Murli Monohar
Joshi, Minister for Science and Technology, confirmed the archeological find by an Indian oceanographic survey
team. Radiocarbon testing of a piece of wood from the underwater site yielded an age of 9,500 years, making it four
thousand years older than earliest cities now recognized.
According to Cremo, “The ancient Sanskrit writings of India speak of cities existing on the Indian subcontinent in
very primeval times. Although historians tend to dismiss such accounts as mythological, these new discoveries
promise to confirm the old literary accounts.” A leading authority on anomalous archeological evidence, Michael
Cremo is currently touring Indian universities and cultural institutions to promote the release of The Hidden History
of the Human Race, the abridged Indian edition of Forbidden Archeology (Torchlight Publishing 1993). Asserting
the recent find may be just the first step, he says, “It is likely that even older discoveries will follow.”
The cultural identity of the people who inhabited the underwater city is as yet unknown. Most historians believe
that Sanskrit-speaking people entered the Indian subcontinent about 3,500 years ago, from Central Asia. Other
historians accept India itself as the original home of Sanskrit-speaking people, whose lifestyle is termed Vedic
culture because their lives were regulated by a body of literature called the Vedas.
The case of the mysterious sunken city near Surat may offer further definitive proof to support the ancient origins of
man described in Cremo’s controversial bestseller Forbidden Archeology. With over 200,000 copies in print in a
dozen languages, Forbidden Archeology documents scientific evidence suggesting that modern man has existed for
millions of years.
- END -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Moulton Howe Interview With Michael Cremo On Indian Archeological Find
Linda Moulton Howe interviewed Michael Cremo in India about the archeological discovery off the coast of Surat,
India. This interview was broadcast on her news segment featured on Whitley Strieber's Dreamland on Saturday,
February 16, 2002. Go to Linda's Earthfiles website to hear the audio archive and read the transcript of this amazing
interview:
http://www.earthfiles.com/earth322.htm
****************************************************************
Forbidden Archeologist storms Czech Republic
November 6-17, 2001. Michael Cremo toured the Czech Republic promoting the latest Czech edition of The Hidden
History of the Human Race (Volvox Globator, 2001). Opening with a Press Conference in Prague, he lectured
before packed auditoriums at festivals, bookstores, and universities, including Charles University, one of the
oldest universities In Europe. He confronted evolution scientists three times on Czech National television and
interviewed
extensively on radio, magazines, newspapers, plus an Internet web chat. A Czech Television filmmaker
accompanied
Michael on his media tour, shooting for a documentary he hopes to present on Czech TV. Pictures and complete
details coming soon at: http://www.mcremo.com/darwin.htm
***********************************************************************************
Michael Cremo lectures on Aimé Rutot in Liege, Belgium
September 2-8, 2001. Michael Cremo presented a paper at the XXIVth Congress of the International Union of
Prehistoric
and Protohistoric Sciences entitled “The Discoveries of Belgian Geologist Aimé Louis Rutot at Boncelles, Belgium:
An
Archeological Controversy from the Early Twentieth Century.”
***********************************************************************************
New: Video and Audiotapes of Michael Cremo lecture in Berkeley
Video and audiotapes of Michael Cremo's lecture on Forbidden Archeology at the New Science and Ancient
Wisdom Conference (Berkeley Nov. 2001) are now available from the Bay Area Conscoiusness Network:
http://www.bacn.org/tape01.html
*********************************************************************************
New Release: Origins of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette
Editions Rodopi presents Origins of the Human Species, an interdisciplinary book by Dennis Bonnette contrasting
scientific creationism with materialistic evolution. It critically evaluates the best arguments supporting and
opposing biological evolution, while extensively analyzing the philosophical possibility of inter-specific evolution.
Go to http://www.amazon.com for complete information.
*********************************************************************************************
**
Interviews Lectures
*************************************************************
Michael Cremo makes worldwide headlines
*********************************************************************************
Reactions to Forbidden Archeology range from glowing praise…
"One of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late 20th century"
Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods
…to caustic ridicule
"Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool"
Richard Leakey, Anthropologist
Mr. Cremo's book has certainly turned the heads of the Scientific Establishment. After NBC’s Mysterious Origins
of Man television special aired in 1995, Academia exploded in protest, lobbying the FCC to ban NBC and its
sponsors from the airwaves. However, it is significant that censorship attempts failed to prevent the first program of
its kind from broadcasting alternative views on human evolution via a major television network.
World renowned as a ‘truth in science advocate' and leading authority on anomalous archeological evidence relating
to the origin of the human race, Michael Cremo has also received numerous favorable academic reviews from
mainstream scholars in publications such as British Journal for the History of Science, Journal of Field Archeology,
Social Studies of Science, Antiquity, and others.
*********************************************************************************************
**
REVIEWS
"Atlantis Rising" review of Forbidden Archeology's Impact - November 1998
"Internet Bookwatch" review of Forbidden Archeology's Impact- August 1998
"Public Understanding of Science" review of Forbidden Archeology's Impact - January 1999
"ISIS"review of Forbidden Archeology's Impact - September 1999
*********************************************************************************************
**
Controversial Findings Excavated by the Authors of Forbidden Archeology
*We did not evolve from apes
*Abundant evidence against human evolution has been ignored
*Scientists cheat on a massive scale
*Museum displays use propaganda in promoting falacious ideas to the public
*Human beings were around before the time of the dinosaurs
*Signs of civilization have been found that are millions of years old
*Textbooks are inaccurate
ABOUT TORCHLIGHT PUBLISHING
BACK TO HOME PAGE
Forbidden Archeology
This work is the intellectual property of the Authors
Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson
For a more in-depth study of this work
please visit http://www.mcremo.com
All material copyright 2000 Unlimited Resources/BBT Science Books
Reprinted with Permission
Modern science tells us that anatomically modern man has been around for only about 100,000 years. The Vedic
writings say he has been here a lot longer. Now a book from the Bhaktivedanta Institute takes a new look at the
scientific evidence. That evidence, says the book, has been fudged.
The authors are Michael Cremo (Drutakarma Dasa) and Richard L. Thompson (Sadaputa Dasa), both regular
contributors to BTG, and Stephen Bernath (Madhavendra Puri Dasa). Their book uncovers a startling picture not
only of what the evidence is and what it means but also of how science reached its story.
We present here, in condensed form, the Introduction.
Table Of Contents
Drastic Revision Needed
The Knowledge Filter
Crude Human Artifacts
Dawn Stones
More Recognizable Tools
Implements of Modern Man
If You Can't Bear the Evidence, Kill It
Skeletons that Cause Problems
Java Man
The Piltdown Hoax
Evidence from China
Extinct Men Still Alive?
Australopithecus
IN 1979, RESEARCHERS at Laetoli, Tanzania, in East Africa discovered footprints in deposits of volcanic ash
more than 3.6 million years old. The prints were indistinguishable from those of modern human beings, said Mary
Leakey and other scientists. To them this meant only that 3.6 million years ago our human ancestors had remarkably
modern feet.
But other scientists disagreed. One such scientist was R. H. Tuttle, a physical anthropologist at the University of
Chicago. Fossil bones show, he said, that the known human beings back then - the australopithecines - had feet that
were distinctly ape like. So the Laetoli prints don't fit. In the March 1990 issue of Natural History Tuttle confessed,
"We are left with somewhat of a mystery."
It seems permissible, therefore, to consider a possibility neither Tuttle nor Leakey mentioned - that creatures with
modern human bodies to match their modern human feet lived in East Africa some 3.6 million years ago. Perhaps,
as suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexisted with more ape like creatures.
As intriguing as this possibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it. Knowledgeable persons will
warn against suggesting that anatomically modern human beings existed millions of years ago. The evidence of the
Laetoli footprints is too slim.
But there is further evidence. Over the past few decades, scientists in Africa have uncovered fossil bones -
apparently millions of years old - that look remarkably human.
At Kanapoi, Kenya, in 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howells found a surprisingly modern humorous (upper
arm bone). Scientists judged it more than 4 million years old. Henry M. McHenry and Robert S. Corruccini of the
University of California said the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable" from that of modern man.
Then there is the ER 1481 femur - a thighbone found in 1972 in Lake Turkana, Kenya. Scientists normally assign it
an age of about 2 million years and say it belonged to the prehuman Homo habilis. But Richard Leakey said the
femur matches those of modern humans. And since the femur was found by itself, one cannot rule out the possibility
that the rest or the skeleton was also anatomically modern.
Geological eras and periods:
Era: Period: Start in Millions
of Years Ago
---------------------------------------------
Cenozoic Holocene .01
Pleistocene 2
Pliocene 6
Miocene 25
Oligocene 38
Eocene 55
Paleocene 65
Mesozoic Cretaceous 144
Jurassic 213
Triassic 248
Paleozoic Permian 286
Carboniferous 360
Devonian 408
Silurian 438
Ordovician 505
Camrian 590
In 1913 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, the German scientist Hans Reck found a complete human skeleton -
anatomically modern - in strata more than 1 million years old. The find has inspired decades of controversy.
Here again, some will caution us not to set a few isolated and controversial examples against the overwhelming
amount of clear evidence. That evidence shows how modern humans came on the scene: In Africa (and, some say,
in other parts of the world) they evolved from more apelike creatures fairly recently - about 100,000 years ago.
But it turns out that the Laetoli footprints, the Kanapoi humerus, and the ER 1481 femur do not exhaust our stock of
unusual finds. Over the past eight years, Richard Thompson and I, aided by our researcher Stephen Bernath, have
uncovered extensive evidence that calls current theories of how humansgot the way they are into question. Some of
this evidence, like the Laetoli footprints, is fairly recent. But much of it was reported by scientists in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.
Without even looking at this older body of evidence, some will assume there must be something wrong with it.
Scientists must have properly disposed of it long ago, and for very good reasons. But Richard and I have looked
deeply into that possibility. We have found that the quality of the controversial evidence is no better or worse than
the supposedly noncontroversial.
Drastic Revision Needed
Before us. one of the last authors to discuss the kind of reports found in Forbidden Archeology was Marcellin Boule.
In his book Fossil Men (1957), Boule gave the reports a decidedly negative review. But when we looked into the
original reports, we found poor grounds for Boule's extreme skepticism. In Forbidden Archeoloy. we give primary
source material that will let you form your own opinion about the evidence Boule dismissed. We also introduce a
great many cases that Boule neglected to mention.
From the evidence we have gathered we conclude, sometimes in language devoid of ritual tentativeness, that the
now dominant assumptions about human origins need drastic revision. We also find that a process of "knowledge
filtration" has left current scientific workers with a radically thinned-out collection of facts.
We expect that many such workers will take Forbidden Archeology as an invitation to productive discourse on (1)
the nature and treatment of evidence about human origins and (2) the conclusions to which that evide nce most
reasonably leads.
The Knowledge Filter
Carved shell from the Late Pliocene Red Cragfonnation, England
As we begin Part I of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the history and current state of scientific idcas about human
evolution. Mainly we are concerned with a double standard in how evidence is treated.
We identify two main bodies of evidence. The first (A) is controvcrsial evidence that points to thc existence of
anatomically modern humans in the uncomfortably distant past. The sccond (B) is evidence that can be taken to
Pointed implemented from below the Red Crag. This specimen is over 2.5 million years old.
support the now dominant vicw that modern humans evolved. in Africa and perhaps elsewhere, fairly recently, about
100,000 years ago.
After detailed study. we find that if the same standards for judging evidence are applied equally to A and B, we must
either accept both A and B or reject them both. If we accept them both, we have evidence placing anatomically
modern human beings millions of years in the past, coexisting with more apelike hominids. If we reject them both,
we deprive ourselves of the evidential grounds for saying anything at all about human origins and antiquity.
Historically, many scientists once accepted the evidence in category A. But a more influential group of scientists
applied standards of evidence more strictly to A than to B. So A was rejected and B preserved. This differing
application of standards set up aknowledge filter" that obscures the real picture of human origins and antiquity.
In the main body of Part I (Chapters 2-6), we look closely at the vast amount of evidence that runs against current
ideas on human evolution. We tell in detail how this evidence has been suppressed, ignored, or forgotten. even
though it is as good in quality (and quantity) as the evidence for currently accepted views. When we speak of
suppression of evidence. we are not referring to a satanic plot by scientific conspirators bent on deceiving the public.
Instead. we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration . Certain categories of evidence
simply disappear.
Crude Human Artifacts
Chapter 2 deals with anomalously old bones and shells showing cut marks and signs of intentional breakage. To this
day. scientists regard bones and shells as an important category of evidence, and many archeological sites are valued
for this kind of evidence alone.
In the decades after Darwin introduced his theory. many scientists discovered incised and broken animal bones and
shells suggesting that tool- using humans or near-humans lived in the Pliocene Era (2 to 5 million years ago). the
Miocene (5 to 25 million years ago).andevenearlier.lnanalyzingthese cut and broken bones and shells, the
discoverers carefully weighed and ruled out alternative explanationsÑsuch as geological pressure or the work of
animals Ñbefore concluding that humans were responsible.
A striking example is a shell with a crude yet recognizably human face carved on its outer surface. The shell was
reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881. According to
standard views, humans capable of the artistrv the shell displays did not arrive in Europe until 30,000 or 40,000
years ago. And even in their African homeland they are not supposed to have shown up until some 100'000 years
ago. Yet the shell came from the Pliocene Red Crag formation in England, a formation considered more than 2
million years old.
Concerning evidence of the kind reported by Stopes. anthropologist Armand de Quatrefages wrote in his book
Hommes Fossiles et Hommes Saud vages (1884): "The objections made to the existence of man in the Pliocene and
Miocene seem habitually more related to theoretical considerations than to direct observation."
Dawn Stones
The most rudimentary stone tools, the eoliths ("dawn stones"), are the subject of Chapter 3.These implements, found
in unexpectedly old geological contexts, inspired protracted debate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
Left: Dorsal and ventral views of a stone tool recovered in Portugal from a Tertiary forma- tion, over 2 million years
old. Right: Anaccepted stonetool; lessthan 100,000 years old, from the Mousterian cultural stage of the European
Late Pleistocene. Both implements clearly display the following features of intentional humanwork: (1)striking
platforms, (2) eraillures, (3) bulbs of percussion, and (4) parallelflake removal.
For some, eoliths were not always easily recognizable as tools. Eoliths are not symmetrical implements. Rather, they
are natural stone flakes with an edge chipped to make them suitable for a particular task, such as scraping, cutting, or
chopping. Often. the working edge bears signs of use.
Critics said eoliths resulted from natural forces. Iike tumbling in stream beds. But defenders of eoliths countered that
natural forces could not have made one-way chipping on just one side of a working edge.
These implements from the Kent Chalk Plateau were characterized as paleoliths by Sir John Prestwich. Prestwich
called the one on the left, from Bower Lane, "a roughly made imp/enlent of the spearhead type."
In the late nineteenth century, Benjamin Harrison, an amateur archeologist, found eoliths on the Kent Plateau in
southeastern England. Ceological evidence suggests that these eoliths were made in the Middle or Late Pliocene.
about 2 to 4 million ago. Among the supporters of Harrison's eoliths were Sir John Prestwich, one of England's most
eminent geologists; Ray E. Lankester, a director of the British Museum (Natural History); and Alfred Russell
Wallace, co-founder with Darwin of the natural-selection theory of evolution.
An eolith from the Kent Plateau.
Although Harrison found most of his eoliths in surface deposits of Pliocene gravel, he also found many below
ground level. He also found more advanced stone tools (paleoliths). Again. geological evidence suggests that these
were of similar Pliocene antiquity.
In the early part of the twentieth century, J . Reid Moir found eoliths (and more advanced stone tools) in England 's
Red Crag formation. Moir was a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and president of the Prehistoric
Society of East Anglia. The strata in which he found the tools are dated at 2 to 2.5 million years old. Moir found
somc of the tools in the detritus beds beneath the Red Crag. This indicates that they could have been made from 2.5
to 55 million years ago.
Moir's finds won support from a most vocal critic of eoliths, Henri Breuil, then regarded as a preeminent authority
on stone tools. Another supporter was paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, of the American Museum of Natural
History in New York. In 1923, an international commission of scientists journeyed to England to investigate Moir's
main discoveries. The commission pronounced them genuine. But in 1939, A. S. Barnes published an influential
paper in which he analyzed the angle of flaking on Moir's eoliths. Barnes claimed his method could tell between
human handiwork and flaking from natural causes. On this basis, he dismissed all the eoliths he studied, including
Moir's, as products of natural forces. Since then, scientists have used Barnes's method to deny the human
manufacture of many other stone tools. But in recent years, stone-tool authorities have disputed Barnes's method and
its blanket use. This suggests that the European eoliths need to be looked at again.
Significantly, early stone tools from Africa, such as those from the lower levels of Olduvai Gorge, appear identical
to the rejected European eoliths. Yet the scientific communitv accents the Olduvai tools without question.
Quartzite bifaces from the lower glacial till (Level V) at Sheguiandah. Geologist John Sanford (1971) argued these
tools were at least 65,000 years old.
Those tools, of course, fall within, and help support, the conventional places and times for human evolution.
But other eoliths of unexpected antiquity run into strong opposition. Here is another example. In the 1950s, at Calico
in southern California, Louis Leakey found stone tools in strata dated more than 200,000 years old. According to
standard views, humans did not enter such sub-Arctic regions of the New World until about 12,000 years ago. So
mainstream scientists responded to Calico predictably: the objects found there were natural products or not really
200,000 years old, they said. But there the strata are, still dated at 200,000 years. And though most of the Calico
implements are crude, some, including a beaked graver, are more advanced. They look for all the world like genuine
human artifacts.
More Recognizable Tools
In Chapter 4 we look at a category of implements we call "crude paleoliths." In eoliths, chipping is confined to the
working edge of a naturally broken stone. But the makers of crude paleoliths deliberately struck flakes from stone
cores and then shaped the flakes (and sometimes the cores) into more recognizable tools.
Among the crude paleoliths we look at are the tools found in the late nineteenth century by Carlos Ribeiro, head of
the Geological Survey of Portugal. Ribeiro found these tools in Miocene strata, 5 to 25 million years old. At an
international conference of archeologists and anthropologists held in Lisbon, a committee of scientists investigated
one of the sites where Ribeiro had found these implements. One scientist from the conference then found a stone
tool even more advanced than the better of Ribeiro's specimens. It matched accepted Late Pleistocene tools, yet it
was firmly embedded in a Miocene conglomerate, in circumstances confirming its Miocene antiquity.
Crude paleoliths were also found in Miocene formations at Thenay, France. S. Laing, an English science writer,
noted: "On the whole, the evidence for these Miocene implements seems to be very conclusive, and the objections to
them have hardly any other ground than the reluctance to admit the great antiquity of man."
At Aurillac, France, scientists also found crude paleoliths, apparently of Miocene age. And at Boncelles, Belgium,
A. Rutot uncovered a large collection of paleoliths in Oligocene strata (25 to 38 million years old).
Implements of Modern Man
In Chapter 5 we examine advanced stone implements found in unexpectedly old geologicai contexts. Given current
estimates of what Homo erecus or Homo habilis could do, the tools discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 could conceivably
be their work. But the implements of Chapter 5 are certainly the work of anatomically modern humans.
Florentino Ameghino, a respected Argentine paleontologist, found stone tools, broken mammal bones, a human
vertebra, and signs of fire in a Pliocene formation at Monte Hermoso, Argentina, in 1887. He made numerous
similar discoveries, attracting the eyes of scientists around the world.
Left: A flint implement from an Early Miocene formation at Thenay France. Right: An accepted implement from the
lower middle part of Bed II Oldulvai Gorge, Africa. The lower edges of both specimens show roughly parallel flake
scars satisfying yhe requirements of L. Patterson (1983) for recognition as objects of human manufacture.
In 1912, Ales Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institution, pub!ished a lengthy but not very reasonable attack on
Ameghino's work. Hrdlicka asserted that all of Ameghino's finds were from recent Indian settlements.
In response, Carlos Ameghino, Florentino's brother, carried out new investigations at Miramar, south of Buenos
Aires. There he found a series of stone implements, including bolas, and signs of fire. A commission of geologists
confirmed the position of the implements in the Chapadmalalan formation, which modern geologists say is 3 to 5
million years old. Carlos also found at Miramar a stone arrowhead firmly lodged in the femur of a Pliocene species
of Toxodon, an extinct South American mammal.
Ethnographer Eric Boman disputed Carlos Ameghino's finds but also unintentionally helped confirm them. In 1920,
Carlos Ameghino 's collector, Lorenzo Parodi, found a stone implemen in the Pliocene seaside barranca (cliff) at
Miramar and left it in place. Bomar was one of several scientists Ameghino invited to witness the implement's
extraction. After the implement (a bola stone) was photographed and removed, another discovery was made.
"At my direction," wrote Boman, "Parodi continued to attack the barranca with a pick at the same point where the
bola stone was discovered, when suddenly and unexpectedly, there appeared a second stone ball.... It is more like a
grinding stone than a bola." Boman found yet another implement 200 yards away. Confounded. Boman could only
hint in his written report that the implements had been planted by Parodi. While this might conceivably have been
true of the first implement, it is hard to explain the other two in this way. In any case, Boman produced no evidence
at all that Parodi, a long-time employee of the Buenos Aires Museum of Natural History, had ever behaved
fraudulently.
Arrowheads and bolas, the kinds of implements found by Carlos Ameghino at Miramar, are usually considered the
work of modern man, Homo sapiens s apiens. The Miramar finds, therefore, taken at face value, show the presence
of anatomically modern man in South America over 3 million years ago. Interesting? In 1921 M. A. Vignati
discovered in the same Late Pliocene formation the fossil of a jaw fragment, fully human.
If You Can't Bear the Evidence, Kill It
These stone bolas were extracted from the Late Pliocene Chapadmalalan formation at Miramar, Argentina, in the
presence of ethnographer Eric Boman.
In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits
at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron. GeologistJohn Sanford of Wayne State University
proposed that the oldest of these Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years old and might be as much as 125,000.
For those adhering to standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were unacceptable.
Stone tools found at Hueyatlaco, Mexico, a site dated at about 250,000 years by a team from the United States
Ceological Survey.
Thomas E. Lee tells what happened next: "The site's discoverer [Lee] was hounded from his Civil Service position
into prolonged unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by several
prominent authors . . .; the tons of artifacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for
refusing to fire the discoverer, the Director of the National Museum, who had proposed having a monograph on the
site published, was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige and power were exercised in an
effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah specimens that had not gone under cover; and the site has been
turned into a tourist resort.... Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not
know everything. It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in the business. It had to be killed. It was
killed."
In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen
McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey obtained for the site's implement-bearing
layers an age of about 250,000 years. This challenges the whole standard picture of human origins. Men capable of
making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until some 100,000 years
ago, in Africa.
Virginia Steen-Mclntyre had a hard time getting her dating study on Hueyatlaco published. "The problem as I see it
is much bigger than Hueyatlaco," she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of Quaternary Research. "It
concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the
prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full
significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human
evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that
theory, period."
Such patterns of data suppression have a long history. In 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California,
published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The implements included spear
points and stone mortars and pestles. They were found deep in mine shafts, beneath thick undisturbed layers of lava,
informations that geologists now say are from 9 million to more than 55 million years old. The finds, Whitney
wrote, pointed to the existence of human beings in North America in very ancient times.
This mortar and pestle were found by J. H. Neale, who removed them from a mine tunnel penetrating Tertiary
deposits (33-55 million years old) under Table Mountain, Tuolumne County, California.
W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal nineteenth-century critics of the California
finds, responded: "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is
understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, not with standing the imposing
array of [supporting] testimony with which he was confronted." In other words, if facts disagree with the favored
theory, then those facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded.
Skeletons that Cause Problems
In Chapter 6 we review discoveries of anomalously old skeletal remains, anatomically modern human. Perhaps the
most interesting case comes from Castenedolo, Italy. There in the 1880s, G. Ragazzoni, a geologist, found fossil
bones of several Homo sapiens sapiens in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million years old. Critics typically
respond that the bones must have been placed into those Pliocene layers by fairly recent human burial. But
Ragazzoni, alert to this possibility, had carefully inspected the overlying layers. He had found them undisturbed,
with absolutely no sign of burial.
A beaked graver . . . a stone tool from Calico in southern California, dated at about 200,000 years.
Modern scientists have used radiometric and chemical tests to attach recent ages to the Castenedolo bones and other
anomalously old human skeletal remains. But these tests can be quite unreliable. The carbon 14 test is especially
shaky when applied to bones (such as those from Castenedolo) that have lain in museums for decades. Such bones
are exposed to contamination that could make the test yield abnormally young dates. To remove such contamination
requires rigorous purification techniques. Scientists failed to use those techniques when, in 1969, they tested some
Castenedolo bones and found an age of less than a thousand years.
This toxodon tighbone (femur), with a stone projectile point embedded in it, was discovered in a Pliocene formation
at Miramar, Argentina.
Although the carbon 14 date for the Castenedolo material is suspect, it must still be considered relevant evidence.
But it should be weighed with the other evidence, including the original stratigraphic observations of Ragazzoni, a
professional geologist. In this case, the stratigraphic evidence appears more persuasive.
Opposition on theoretical grounds to a human presence in the Pliocene is not new. Speaking of the Castenedolo
finds and others of similar antiquity, the Italian scientist G. Sergi wrote in 1884: "By means of a despotic scientific
prejudice, call it what you will, every discovery of human remains in the Pliocene has been discredited."
A good example of such prejudice is provided by R. A. S. Macalister. In 1921, in a textbook on archeology, he
wrote: "The acceptance of a Pliocene date for the Castenedolo skeletons would create so many insoluble problems
that we can hardly hesitate in choosing between the alternatives of adopting or rejecting their authenticity."
This supports the main point we are making in Forbidden Archeology: the scientific community has a knowledge
filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. This process of knowledge filtration has been going on for well over a
century, and it continues right up to the present day.
Java Man
In Part 11 of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the body of accepted evidence generally used to support the now-
dominant ideas about human evolution.
Chapter 7 focuses on the discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus by Eugene Dubois in Java during the last decade of
the nineteenth century. Historically, the Java man discovery marks a turning point. Until then, there was no clear
picture of human evolution to be upheld and defended. So a good number of scientists, most of them evolutionists,
were actively considering the evidence that anatomically modern humans lived in the Pliocene and earlier. But with
the discovery of Java man, now classified as Homo erectus, the long-awaited missing link turned up in the Middle
Pleistocene, only 800,000 years ago. As Java man won acceptance, the evidence for a human presence in more
ancient times slid into disrepute.
This anatomically modern human skull was found in 1880, at Castened olo, Italy. The stratum from which it was
taken is assigned to the Astian stage of the Pliocene. According to modern authorities the Astian belongs to the
Middle Pliocene, which would give the skull an age of 3-4 million years.
This evidence was not conclusively tossed out. Instead, scientists stopped talking and writing about it. It didn't fit
with the idea that apelike Java man was a genuine human ancestor.
Interestingly enough, modern researchers have reinterpreted the original Java man fossils. The famous bones
reported by Dubois were a skullcap and femur. Though they were found more than 45 feet apart, in a deposit filled
with bones of many other species, Dubois said they belonged to the same individual. But in 1973, M. H. Day and T.
I. Molleson determined that the femur found by Dubois is different from other Homo erectus femurs and in fact
matches anatomically modern human femurs. This led Day and Molleson to propose that the femur was not
connected with the Java man skull.
Pilhecanlhropus skullcap discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 in Java.
As far as we can see. this means we now have an anatomically modern human femur and a Homo erectus skull in a
Middle Pleistocene layer considered 800,000 years old. This gives further evidence that anatomically modern
humans coexisted with more apelike creatures in unexpectedly remote times. According to standard views,
anatomically modern man arose just 100,000 years ago in Africa. Of course, one can always propose that the
modern human femur somehow got buried recently into the Middle Pleistocene beds. But the same could also be
said of the skull.
In Chapter 7 we consider the many discoveries of Java Homo erectus reported by G. H. R. von Koenigswald and
other researchers. Almost all these bones were surface finds, their true age doubtful. Nevertheless, scientists have
assigned them Middle and Early Pleistocene dates obtained by the potassium-argon method. The potassium-argon
method is used to date layers of volcanic rock, not bones. Because the Java Honlo erectus fossils were found on the
surface and not below intact volcanic layers, assigning them potassium-argon dates is misleading.
The Piltdown Hoax
The subject of Chapter 8 is the infamous Piltdown hoax. Early in this century, Charles Dawson, an amateur
collector, found pieces of a human skull near Piltdown, England. Scientists such as Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of
the British Museum and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin later took part with Dawson in excavations that uncovered an
apelike jaw, along with several mammalian fossils of appropriate antiquity. Dawson and Woodward, believing that
the human like skull and apelike jaw came from a human ancestor in the Early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene,
announced their discovery to the scientific world. For the next four decades, Piltdown man was accepted as genuine
and was integrated into the human evolutionary lineage.
In the 1950s, J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley, and other British scientists exposed Piltdown man as an exceedingly clever
hoax, carried out by someone with great scientific expertise. Some blamed Dawson, Teilhard de Chardin, or Sir
Arthur Smith Woodward. Others have accused Sir Grafton Eliot Smith, a famous anatomist; William Sollas of the
geology department at Cambridge; and Sir Arthur Keith of the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons.
J. S. Weiner himself noted: "Behind it all we sense, therefore, a strong and impelling motive.... There could have
been a mad desire to assist the doctrine of human evolution by furnishing the 'requisite' 'missing link.' "
Piltdown shows that in addition to the general process of knowledge filtra- tion in paleoanthropology, there are
instances of deliberate fraud.
Finally, there is substantial, though not incontrovertible, evidence that the Piltdown skull, at least, was a genuine
fossil. The Piltdown gravels in which it was found are now thought to be 75,000 to 125,000 years old. An
anatomically modern human skull of this age in England would be considered anomalous.
Evidence from China
Chapter 9 takes us to China. There in 1929 Davidson Black reported the discovery at Zhoukoudian (formerly
Choukoutien) of the Peking man fossils. These specimens of Peking man, now classified as Homo erecus, were lost
to science during the Second World War.
Thighbone found by Eugene Dubois at Trinil, Java. Dubois attributed it to Pithecanthropus erectus.
In addition to Peking man, many more hominid finds have been made in China. The dating of these hominids is
problematic. They occur at sites along with fossils of mammals broadly typical of the Pleistocene. In reading various
reports, we noticed that to date these sites more precisely, scientists routinely used the morphology of the human
remains.
For example,at Tongzi, South China, Homo sapiens fossils were found with fossils of mammals. Paleontologist Qiu
Zhonglang said: "The fauna suggests a Middle-Upper Pleistocene range, but the archeological [i.e., human] evidence
is consistent with an Upper Pleistocene age." Therefore, using what we call morphological dating, Qiu assigned the
site to the Upper Pleistocene - and the human fossils with it. But our review of the Tongzi faunal evidence shows
species of mammals that became extinct thousands of years earlier, at the end of the Middle Pleistocene. This
indicates that the Tongzi site, and the human fossils, are at least 100,000 years old. Additional faunal evidence
suggests a maximum age of about 600,000 years.
Restoration of the Piltdown skull and jaw by Dawson and Woodward.
The practice of morphological dating distorts the fossil record. In effect, scientists simply arrange human fossils to
fit a favored evolutionary sequence, setting the evidence of other species aside. If one goes by the true probable date
ranges for the Chinese hominids, one finds that various grades of Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens may have
coexisted with anatomically modern man in the middle Middle Pleistocene, during the time of Peking man.
Extinct Men Still Alive?
In Chapter 10 we consider the possible coexistence of primitive hominids and anatomically modern humans not only
in the distant past but in the present. Over the past century, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that
humanlike creatures resembling supposedly extinct ancestral species of man are living in various wilderness areas of
the world. In North America these creatures are known as Sasquatch. In Central Asia they are called Almas. In
Africa, China, Southeast Asia, Central America, and South America, they are known by other names. Some
researchers use the general term "wild-men" to include them all. Scientists and physicians have reported seeing live
wildmen, dead wildmen, and footprints. They have also catalogued thousands of reports from historical records and
from ordinary people who say they have seen wildmen.
Myra Shackley, a British anthropologist, wrote to us: "Opinions vary, but I guess the commonest would be that there
is indeed sufficient evidence to suggest at least the possibility of the existence of various unclassified manlike
creatures, but that in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to comment on their significance in any
more detail. The position is furthercomplicated by misquotes, hoaxing, and lunatic fringe activities. but a surprising
number of hard-core anthropologists seem to be of the opinion that the matter is very worthwhile investigating."
Australopithecus
Chapter 11 takes us to Africa. We describe in detail the cases mentioned in the first part of this introduction (Reck's
skeleton, the Laetoli footprints, and so on). These provide evidence for anatomically modern humans in the Early
Pleistocene and Late Pliocene.
We also examine the status of Australopithecus. Mostanthropologists say Australopithecus was a human ancestor
with an apelike head, a humanlike body, and a humanlike bipedal stance and gait. But other researchers make a
convincing case for a radically differentviewofAustralopithecus. Physical anthropologist C. E. Oxnard wrote in his
book Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution (1975): "Pendingfurther evidence we are left with the vision of
intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics, and
perhaps of arm suspension." In a 1975 article in Nature, Oxnard found the australopithecines to be anatomically
similar to orangutans and said, "It is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines . . . can have any direct
phylogenetic link with the genus Homo."
Site Designed By: Paul R.Mays
Copyright 1998 Paul.Mays.Com . All Rights reserved.