Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
eBook Conspiracy - Secret - Cover-Up - Hidden History of the Human Race - Forbidden Archeology

eBook Conspiracy - Secret - Cover-Up - Hidden History of the Human Race - Forbidden Archeology

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,059|Likes:
Published by gaggg

More info:

categoriesTypes, Research, Science
Published by: gaggg on Jun 05, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

06/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Forbidden ArcheologyThe Hidden History of the Human Raceby Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. ThompsonSample ChapterINTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn 1979, researchers at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africadiscovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million yearsold. Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishablefrom those of modern humans. To these scientists, this meant only thatthe human ancestors of 3.6 million years ago had remarkably modernfeet. But according to other scientists, such as physicalanthropologist R. H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, fossil bonesof the known australopithecines of 3.6 million years ago show they hadfeet that were distinctly apelike. Hence they were incompatible withthe Laetoli prints. In an article in the March 1990 issue of NaturalHistory, Tuttle confessed that "we are left with somewhat of amystery." It seems permissible, therefore, to consider a possibilityneither Tuttle nor Leakey mentioned--that creatures with anatomicallymodern human bodies to match their anatomically modern human feetexisted some 3.6 million years ago in East Africa. Perhaps, assuggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexistedwith more apelike creatures. As intriguing as this archeologicalpossibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it.Knowledgeable persons will warn against positing the existence ofanatomically modern humans millions of years ago on the slim basis ofthe Laetoli footprints. But there is further evidence. Over the pastfew decades, scientists in Africa have uncovered fossil bones thatlook remarkably human. In 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howellsfound 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 ofCalifornia said the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable frommodern Homo." Similarly, Richard Leakey said the ER 1481 femur(thighbone) from Lake Turkana, Kenya, found in 1972, wasindistinguishable from that of modern humans. Scientists normallyassign the ER 1481 femur, which is about 2 million years old, toprehuman Homo habilis. But since the ER 1481 femur was found byitself, one cannot rule out the possibility that the rest of theskeleton was also anatomically modern. Interestingly enough, in 1913the German scientist Hans Reck found at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, acomplete anatomically modern human skeleton in strata over 1 millionyears old, inspiring decades of controversy.Here again, some will caution us not to set a few isolated andcontroversial examples against the overwhelming amount ofnoncontroversial evidence showing that anatomically modern humansevolved from more apelike creatures fairly recently--about 100,000years ago, in Africa, and, in the view of some, in other parts of theworld as well.But it turns out we have not exhausted our resources with the Laetolifootprints, the Kanapoi humerus, and the ER 1481 femur. Over he pasteight years, Richard Thompson and I, with the assistance of ourresearcher Stephen Bernath, have amassed an extensive body of evidence
 
that calls into question current theories of human evolution. Some ofthis evidence, like the Laetoli footprints, is fairly recent. But muchof it was reported by scientists in the nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. And as you can see, our discussion of this evidence fillsup quite a large book.Without even looking at this older body of evidence, some will assumethat there must be something wrong with it--that it was properlydisposed of by scientists long ago, for very good reasons. Richard andI have looked rather deeply into that possibility. We have concluded,however, that the quality of this controversial evidence is no betteror worse than the supposedly noncontroversial evidence usually citedin favor of current views about human evolution.But Forbidden Archeology is more than a well-documented catalog ofunusual facts. It is also a sociological, philosophical, andhistorical critique of the scientific method, as applied to thequestion of human origins and antiquity.We are not sociologists, but our approach in some ways resembles thattaken 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 wouldall probably agree with the following programmatic statement.Scientists' conclusions do not identically correspond to states andprocesses of an objective natural reality. Instead, such conclusionsreflect 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 resemblesthat taken by philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend, whoholds that science has attained too privileged a position in theintellectual field, and by historians of science such as J. S.Rudwick, who has explored in detail the nature of scientificcontroversy. As does Rudwick in The Great Devonian Controversy, we usenarrative to present our material, which encompasses not onecontroversy but many controversies--controversies long resolved,controversies as yet unresolved, and controversies now in the making.This has necessitated extensive quoting from primary and secondarysources, and giving rather detailed accounts of the twists and turnsof complex paleoanthropological debates.For those working in disciplines connected with human origins andantiquity, Forbidden Archeology provides a well- documented compendiumof reports absent from many current references and not otherwiseeasily obtainable.One of the last authors to discuss the kind of reports found inForbidden Archeology was Marcellin Boule. In his book Fossil Men(1957), Boule gave a decidedly negative review. But upon examiningthe original reports, we found Boule's total skepticism unjustified.In Forbidden Archeology, we provide primary source material that willallow modern readers to form their own opinions about the evidenceBoule dismissed. We also introduce a great many cases that Bouleneglected to mention.From the evidence we have gathered, we conclude, sometimes in languagedevoid of ritual tentativeness, that the now-dominant assumptionsabout human origins are in need of drastic revision. We also find that
 
a process of knowledge filtration has left current workers with aradically incomplete collection of facts.We anticipate that many workers will take Forbidden Archeology as aninvitation to productive discourse on (1) the nature and treatment ofevidence in the field of human origins and (2) the conclusions thatcan most reasonably drawn from this evidence.In the first chapter of Part I of Forbidden Archeology, we survey thehistory and current state of scientific ideas about human evolution.We also discuss some of the epistemological principles we employ inour study of this field. Principally, we are concerned with a doublestandard in the treatment of evidence.We identify two main bodies of evidence. The first is a body ofcontroversial evidence (A), which shows the existence of anatomicallymodern humans in the uncomfortably distant past. The second is a bodyof evidence (B), which can be interpreted as supporting the currentlydominant views that anatomically modern humans evolved fairlyrecently, about 100,000 years ago in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere.We also identify standards employed in the evaluation ofpaleoanthropological evidence. After detailed study, we found that ifthese standards are applied equally to A and B, then we must acceptboth A and B or reject both A and B. If we accept both A and B, thenwe have evidence placing anatomically modern humans millions of yearsago, coexisting with more apelike hominids. If we reject both A and B,then we deprive ourselves of the evidential foundation for making anypronouncements whatsoever about human origins and antiquity.Historically, a significant number of professional scientists onceaccepted the evidence in category A. But a more influential group ofscientists, who applied standards of evidence more strictly to A thanto B, later caused A to be rejected and B to be preserved. Thisdifferential application of standards for the acceptance and rejectionof evidence constitutes a knowledge filter that obscures the realpicture of human origins and antiquity.In the main body of Part I (Chapters 2-6), we look closely at the vastamount of controversial evidence that contradicts current ideas abouthuman evolution. We recount in detail how this evidence has beensystematically suppressed, ignored, or forgotten, even though it isqualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to evidence favoringcurrently accepted views on human origins. When we speak ofsuppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientificconspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public.Instead, we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledgefiltration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantialcumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappearfrom view, in our opinion unjustifiably.Chapter 2 deals with anomalously old bones and shells showing cutmarks and signs of intentional breakage. To this day, scientistsregard such bones and shells as an important category of evidence, andmany archeological sites have been established on this kind ofevidence alone.In the decades after Darwin introduced his theory, numerous scientistsdiscovered incised and broken animal bones and shells suggesting thattool-using humans or human precursors existed in the Pliocene (2-5million years ago), the Miocene (5-25 million years ago), and even

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Kostas Renios liked this
impersonallife liked this
aturcubb liked this
sameyer liked this
donneperth liked this
seandennispowers liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->